Jeremy Bamber passes lie detector release him!

[Azrael 5]

From here:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1261617,00.html

Scrap forensic science,witness testimony just have a simple lie detector test.All those poor criminals who could be released!! :rolleyes:

[John Jackson]

I doubt this will get anywhere but with the UK government's seeming infatuation with 'lie detectors' it's hard to be completely confident of that.

In the UK, 'evidence' from a polygraph test cannot be used in a court of law but I have no idea whether such evidence could be used for a parole appeal.

[Azrael 5]

Is there any evidence that lie detector tests work? Or that they are infallible?

[Katana]

Is there any evidence that lie detector tests work? Or that they are infallible?


Well, the fact that they're inadmissible in court suggests that they're a bit sketchy.

Given that fact, I often wonder why they're done at all.

[John Jackson]

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=polygraph_or_lie_detector.php

Results can be obtained by them but they certainly are not reliable and polygraphs (or polygraphers) can easily be fooled.

[sophia8]

Much of the prosecution case against him was the testimony of his girlfriend, who said that he had talked to her about killing his family. So, if it works so well, why not give the girlfriend a lie-detector test as well?
I notice that his "lawyer" is now Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano). Bamber must be truly desperate - barrel-scraping isn't the word.

[Azrael 5]

I think there was a lot more to the case than his girlfriend.Surely a man capable of killing his family is capable of lying convincingly enough to fool a machine?
Expecting him to be released on parole on the basis of a lie detector test is being highly optimistic!

[strathmeyer]

Results can be obtained by them but they certainly are not reliable and polygraphs (or polygraphers) can easily be fooled.

Polygraphs don't work against psychopaths or habitual liars. They're also based upon the assumption that the polygrapher can trick you into lying for the baseline test and ultimately convince you that the polygraph is accurate (a number of ways to trick someone into this; giving them a random card and ask them to lie about what it is and pretending to adjust the machine based upon the answers). The greatest use of the polygraph is to force a confession. (We can see you're lying. Look at these squiggly lines!)

Luckily there's a whole website dedicated to this: http://antipolygraph.org/

[sophia8]

I think there was a lot more to the case than his girlfriend.Well, his fingerprint was found on the gun, but since it was a family gun, that could have got there previously. I believe there was also doubts about the times he gave in his police statement. The main thrust of the prosecution case was that his sister could not have done the killing.
She was a schizophrenic who had never shown any sign of violence and who was coping well on anti-psychotic medication - medication which would have significantly slowed her reaction times; she had no experience with guns and was incapable of firing the shotgun that killed her family; it was also shown that she could not have shot herself with the gun. (Bamber claimed that she had been trained to use guns by their parents; but of course, the parents couldn't be called upon to corroborate this.) There was also no other person's blood on her body, even though there was considerable blood splashing and spraying around the house.
She had no motive to kill her parents and sons. Even if she had suddenly and with no warning gone on some sort of insane psychotic rampage, it seems unlikely she would have killed herself as well; that requires a degree of sanity. Bamber, on the other hand, had an excellent motive - he stood to inherit £500,000.

[Azrael 5]

Well, his fingerprint was found on the gun, but since it was a family gun, that could have got there previously. I believe there was also doubts about the times he gave in his police statement. The main thrust of the prosecution case was that his sister could not have done the killing.
She was a schizophrenic who had never shown any sign of violence and who was coping well on anti-psychotic medication - medication which would have significantly slowed her reaction times; she had no experience with guns and was incapable of firing the shotgun that killed her family; it was also shown that she could not have shot herself with the gun. (Bamber claimed that she had been trained to use guns by their parents; but of course, the parents couldn't be called upon to corroborate this.) There was also no other person's blood on her body, even though there was considerable blood splashing and spraying around the house.
She had no motive to kill her parents and sons. Even if she had suddenly and with no warning gone on some sort of insane psychotic rampage, it seems unlikely she would have killed herself as well; that requires a degree of sanity. Bamber, on the other hand, had an excellent motive - he stood to inherit £500,000.

£483,000 actually :p
Just been reading case files online and the one thing I found odd is Sheila was shot in the throat.How many gun suicides shoot themselves in the throat? I would wager very few-if any.

[digithead]

Is there any evidence that lie detector tests work? Or that they are infallible?

No, there isn't any evidence for that the polygraph or its cousins work beyond extracting confessions from the gullible...

The National Academy of Science in a 2003 report concluded that the polygraph had no basis in science and no expectation that it could have any degree of accuracy. See http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/ for the entire report.

There is also a site run by George Maschke, https://antipolygraph.org/ , that is a great resource on the pseudoscience of polygraphy and its variants...

[skeptifem]

ive heard of a pretty neat idea for a future lie detector test, apparently there is a part of the brain that becomes active when a familiar thing or image is shown to someone, so they might be able to show someone crime scene photos and see if they are familiar at all to the person. who knows how accurate that would be though, i know everyone gets deja vu, but i bet it would be better than traditional lie detectors...

[digithead]

ive heard of a pretty neat idea for a future lie detector test, apparently there is a part of the brain that becomes active when a familiar thing or image is shown to someone, so they might be able to show someone crime scene photos and see if they are familiar at all to the person. who knows how accurate that would be though, i know everyone gets deja vu, but i bet it would be better than traditional lie detectors...

This isn't lie detection but guilty knowledge detection (aka event related potential) in which there is a scientific basis that humans (and all cognitive organisms) will have a physical reaction from recognizing things that they know. Cognition always trumps emotion...

[Foster Zygote]

A good friend of mine is an FBI polygrapher. He maintains that the name "lie detector" is a terribly inaccurate description of what a polygraph is. Although, if the subject being interviewed wants to think of it as a "lie detector" that just makes his job that much easier so he won't necessarily disabuse him of that notion. He's explained that not just anyone can use the device effectively. In fact, the polygrapher is much more important than the polygraph itself. The machine is just a tool that helps to guide the interrogator as he uses his training in human psychology to reach a conclusion as to whether the subject is truthful or not.

[tim]

Much of the prosecution case against him was the testimony of his girlfriend, who said that he had talked to her about killing his family. So, if it works so well, why not give the girlfriend a lie-detector test as well?
I notice that his "lawyer" is now Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano). Bamber must be truly desperate - barrel-scraping isn't the word.

That link doesn't work for mwe. Try this one - http://www.answers.com/topic/giovanni-di-stefano

[John Jackson]

A good friend of mine is an FBI polygrapher. He maintains that the name "lie detector" is a terribly inaccurate description of what a polygraph is. Although, if the subject being interviewed wants to think of it as a "lie detector" that just makes his job that much easier so he won't necessarily disabuse him of that notion. He's explained that not just anyone can use the device effectively. In fact, the polygrapher is much more important than the polygraph itself. The machine is just a tool that helps to guide the interrogator as he uses his training in human psychology to reach a conclusion as to whether the subject is truthful or not.


If he'd done a polygraph test on Jeremy Bamber and deemed him innocent, as described in the OP, how much confidence could we place in his conclusion?

[sophia8]

That link doesn't work for mwe. Try this one - http://www.answers.com/topic/giovanni-di-stefanoThe Wikipedia page appears to have been taken down. The Answers.com article is a copy, so thank whatever for Answers.com!

ETA: Checked Wikipedia's deletion log - the page was deleted by one Jimbo Wales three hours ago: "(mostly unsourced mostly nonsense)"

[cgordon]

Edited for punching the wrong damn button.

[digithead]

A good friend of mine is an FBI polygrapher. He maintains that the name "lie detector" is a terribly inaccurate description of what a polygraph is. Although, if the subject being interviewed wants to think of it as a "lie detector" that just makes his job that much easier so he won't necessarily disabuse him of that notion. He's explained that not just anyone can use the device effectively. In fact, the polygrapher is much more important than the polygraph itself. The machine is just a tool that helps to guide the interrogator as he uses his training in human psychology to reach a conclusion as to whether the subject is truthful or not.

Since being a polygraph operator requires neither a college degree in psychology nor a college degree in general, it's highly unlikely that they have any level of training in human psychology and are simply victims of their own deceptive art...

Quite simply, the polygraph is an elaborate prop that is able to extract confessions from the gullible. No human or machine has been nor can be designed to detect deceit in humans because nature did not equip us with a specific physical response solely correlated with lying...

[skipjack]

I think there was a lot more to the case than his girlfriend.Surely a man capable of killing his family is capable of lying convincingly enough to fool a machine?
Actually, there wasn't much evidence against him, and his girlfriend didn't accuse him initially, only after being jilted; even then, she had to be interviewed dozens of times before a usable statement was obtained, and she said he'd hired a hitman (who turned out to have a reliable alibi). The jury was not entirely convinced of his guilt, two jurors refusing to find him guilty, but the legal system allowed his conviction by a majority verdict. Earlier, a coroner had accepted the police view (at the time) that the deaths consisted of four killings and a suicide. Even a man capable of shooting his own family can't be sure of doing it without any mark on himself, and without any forensic evidence being left that specifically indicated he did the killings, or had recently fired any shots at all. As for the lie detector test, I doubt that it's as reliable as some suggest, but surely it's much easier to pass it by telling the truth than by lying really calmly.

[commandlinegamer]

Looks like the gremlins have struck again; over 2 years for the last post to appear. Oh well.

Anyway, reading this reminds of story from Tom Shields' (columnist for the Glasgow Herald newspaper) Diary:

Two somewhat unscrupulous detectives were interrogating a none too bright suspect. The chap confessed after a lie detector test. Said detector was actually a metal colander with wires attached to their office photocopier.

[Azrael 5]

Actually, there wasn't much evidence against him, and his girlfriend didn't accuse him initially, only after being jilted; even then, she had to be interviewed dozens of times before a usable statement was obtained, and she said he'd hired a hitman (who turned out to have a reliable alibi). The jury was not entirely convinced of his guilt, two jurors refusing to find him guilty, but the legal system allowed his conviction by a majority verdict. Earlier, a coroner had accepted the police view (at the time) that the deaths consisted of four killings and a suicide. Even a man capable of shooting his own family can't be sure of doing it without any mark on himself, and without any forensic evidence being left that specifically indicated he did the killings, or had recently fired any shots at all. As for the lie detector test, I doubt that it's as reliable as some suggest, but surely it's much easier to pass it by telling the truth than by lying really calmly.

Ah the forum troll re-appears. :rolleyes:

ETA I clicked on this topic without noticing I started it!

[skipjack]

Since you repeated my post without disagreeing with any of it, I assume you agree with its content.

How many gun suicides shoot themselves in the throat? I would wager very few-if any.
How else would someone do it if only long-barrelled firearms are available, and how could a murderer achieve such a shot without the victim's help? More important, how could the victim's wounds still be bleeding and quite fresh-looking five hours later?

[Professor Yaffle]

This is the most recent news report I could find on the case (from March last year):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/15/jeremy-bamber-appeal-murder

[dogjones]

The greatest use of the polygraph is to force a confession. (We can see you're lying. Look at these squiggly lines!)


Heh, there was a great scene in The Wire when they use a photocopier as a "lie detector" - they attach a suspect to it with spurious wires and at crucial questions photocopy a sheet of paper that says "LIE" in big letters - and they force a confession. Genius.

[skipjack]

Much of the prosecution case against him was the testimony of his girlfriend, who said that he had talked to her about killing his family. So, if it works so well, why not give the girlfriend a lie-detector test as well?
It's hardly likely that she'd be willing to be tested.

I notice that his "lawyer" is now Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano). Bamber must be truly desperate - barrel-scraping isn't the word.
I thought Giovanni di Stefano had already been replaced when you wrote that. Anyway, Simon McKay (http://www.mckaylaw.co.uk/Solicitors/simon.htm) is now acting for Bamber.

[Kid Eager]

Is it your intention to necrothread this every year or so?