Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James R. Barrett who wrote (219)	1/10/2000 8:27:00 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

Jim offered to take a lie detector test at the beginning of the investigation and the police refused. Now the police want to give Jim a lie detector test and Jim has refused as a matter of principle. WHY????????? At first glance it sounds like a good deal. But when you start to analyze it there are big gotchas. For example, are the New Haven police willing to exonerate Jim if he passes? No, they aren't. Should Jim take it anyway just to sway the court of public opinion? There is no guarantee this will happen either. The police will argue that people can fool lie detector tests. People will still be left with the nagging and very unfair question "if not Jim, then who?" I recall seeing a story on Dateline a month or two ago about a priest who had stolen more than a million dollars from the collection plates in his churches over an extended period of time. In the last few years before he died, he had had a relationship with a woman who was caring for him. On his deathbed the priest confessed to what he had done and somewhere along the line gave someone the impression the woman who cared for him had a role. She was charged with theft although she vehemently denied any part. She took a lie detector test (I think maybe even more than one), and passed. The police did not drop the charges and Dateline even aired an interview with someone who maintained that lie detector tests are not always accurate. I told Jim (not that I have any sway in the matter) that if pressed by the NH Police to take a lie detector test this late in the "game" that he only do so if a) he is officially dropped as a suspect, and b) the police chief apologizes to him and resigns. The reason for the second part is that there still is an inherent risk an innocent person might fail the test or the test might be inconclusive. Thus, I'm just trying to even up the risk/reward ratio (g). - Jeff

To: James R. Barrett who wrote (219)	1/11/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: CJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1397

<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.