- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
One of the best analogies I've read up to this point.
Another point from the Law Enforcement side which gives credence to GZ is that he submitted to two VSA (voice Stress Analysis) polygraphs and was determined to be truthful on both. I know these are not admissible as evidence in a court of law be we (Law Enforcement) still use them. Every cop in Florida is submitted to either a VSA (Mostly Sheriffs Office Deputies) or a standard polygraph during their hiring process. If you think "People fool those all the time" then you know absolutely nothing about them and even if he fooled one, fooling twice under two separate examiners is very, very unlikely. He also did this voluntarily w/o an attorney.
VSA is not reliable and candidly I put little stock in polygraphs. I am a regulatory officer (badge/gun etc basically equal to a trooper) and I took neither test - though maybe they claimed they did a VSA. I was told they didn't see much reason to give me a polygraph test since I basically admitted to having committed nearly every crime category they asked about in the past - a few exceptions but those had previously been investigated formally by another agency.
What you raise - as a persuasive point - probably is a very good one. However, we both know failing or passing a truth-tests does not establish a truism - and of course is zero trial evidence.