<lie detector test>
Jim- I am 100% with you on this one. When Jeff posted the PR and info about Jim's refusing to take one NOW, I think I posted something about it {or dreamed I did :)}.
There is everything to gain by Jim's doing so. I suggested that, if they were so worried that he might not do well, why didn't Jim have a private one done first {with the polygraph examiner being hired by Jim's lawyer, and thus covered under attorney-client privilege}.
It is my position, that, immediately after becoming a suspect, and, according to Jim*, the NHPD declining his offer to take a polygraph test, Jim should have taken a polygraph test, by one of the nation's top polygraph examiners (preferably a retired Federal - FBI/SS/IRS - agent). Assuming he "passed," THAT headline would have ended Jim's being a suspect.
{{*Note: If the NHPD declined Jim's offer as submitted by his counsel, rather than himself only, I do not have any doubt that the offer occurred.}}
It is not too late for Jim to do so. It makes sense that, after a year of not being charged or released, Jim wants to insist that they fish or cut bait. Taking and "passing" a polygraph exam, coupled with the there not officially being any solid direct evidence that we know of against Jim, he could easily put the necessary pressure on the NHPD.
{I will separately answer Jeff's reply.)
IMO, his refusing to take a polygraph test now is unfavorable to Jim and, if not incriminating, his reason is certainly without merit. |
