<Re: Timeline, Polygraph test, etc.> Reply:
< As someone here also pointed out, once you conclude Suzanne at some point had to have been in a car, you pretty much have to cross Jim off your list of suspects.>
IMO, not necessarily. If he picked-her-up, drove, talked, [argued?], both of them got out of the vehicle, argued, then violence; there would not be any "incriminating" evidence in his Jeep. {I will deal w/possible "stabbing positions" in reply to your subsequent post}
<Recall that police didn't have the timeline set nor any hard theories in place when they first talked to Jim. At that point -- I'm guessing -- you volunteer to do whatever it takes to get yourself eliminated as a suspect in order to move the case forward....>
Quite a segue' ! <g>
<Now, a year later, you conclude the police have nothing and the whole world is looking at you simply because no one has given them any other place to look. At that point you have to wonder
a) what if the test is inconclusive; i.e. you don't think you'll fail but these things aren't 100% accurate and you never know,>
True, they are not 100%; however, if the test is valid, they are in the +99% level, which is why the USSC, and more and more states are approving them for admissibility. Very few tests are either invalid or inconclusive.
<b) if you pass, will that really help you or will the police spin the test as "flawed" and still refuse to exonerate you,>
That would be part of the agreement you make with the police and the District/Prosecuting Attorney before you take the test. Those agreements are made hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day throughout the Country.
<and c) shouldn't you force the police to explain why they think you are a suspect in the first place>
"force" aside, asking for a basis of the suspicion would be appropriate.
<and why even suggesting you take one isn't harassment? >
No.
<I have not talked to Jim about this. If it were me, I'd be damn sure I knew what I was getting myself into. I'd probably have demands like control over who administered the test,>
Yes, I already proposed that in my post.
<and, when I pass, that I expect the chief of police to admit his department spent a year pursuing the wrong person, botched the investigation, will call in the FBI, and then resign. How about you?>
LOL -- you left out, "and be deported."
Jeff: Again with all respect to Jim's counsel, in this situation, with Jim's steadfast denial that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Suzanne's murder, I would venture that, when the police declined his offer to take a polygraph test within days of the murder, 90%+ of the criminal defense specialists in the US would have arranged for him to have a confidential polygraph exam., by an indisputeably credible examiner; and, presumably, upon the results showing that Jim answered truthfully that he did not murder Suzanne, would have held a press conference and made the results public {e.g. "Former FBI Polygraph Examiner Says Van de Veld Innocent" } |
