Well, yeah, point to a random squiggle and say “this does/doesn’t look good. This means they were being <truthful/untruthful/evasive/forthcoming/whatever>”
The Reid Technique is used by police to get confessions in interrogations and seem to be effective at doing so but, usually, because the police have all the evidence they need and walk the accused down a path that traps the suspect and elicits a confession.
“Other clues” seems to not work however.
…Reid believed that “tells” such as fidgeting was a sign of lying, and more generally believed that trained police interrogators could intuitively check lies merely by how they were delivered. Later studies have shown no useful correlation between any sort of body movements such as breaking eye contact or fidgeting and truth-telling. While police can be effective at cracking lies, it is via gathering contradicting evidence; police officers have been shown in studies to be no better than average people at detecting lies merely from their delivery.[2] - SOURCE
I’ve watched Interrogation cam and the detective always, or nearly always discuss the body language and changes in demeanor as big tells and boy they pounce on suspects.
How do they get away with it, if it’s so sketchy?
An authority figure, speaking with confidence (real or faked), and with the power of the state behind them tells you something, and you’re going to find it easy to doubt them?
A lot of people associate an accusation alone with proven guilt. It’s not hard to nudge them along that path vs somebody pulling up academic studies and making you feel dumb
I’m not sure a lie detector would be useful now. The parents have told their story so many times over the years. It started with talking to police and then reporters when they held vigils for their missing granddaughter.
They certainly seemed extremely concerned at the time. I related to them because there was a similar situation in my extended family. Daughter got knocked up, wouldn’t keep a job, and dumped most of the child-rearing on my cousin and his wife. The daughter got busted several times for shoplifting. She was selling the stolen stuff for cash. My cousin and his wife basically raised that child and eventually helped him go to college on a partial scholarship. He’s a good kid and works hard.
I always thought Casey left the child in the car while she visited friends. Summer heat in Florida is brutal. Casey panicked and put the body in the trunk. The odor after a few days forced Casey to abandon the car in a shopping center. Somebody helped her dump the body in the woods near her parent’s home. A place she knew well. That came out in the trial.
A stupid, and totally senseless death. The media frenzy looking for the child probably shocked Casey. The verdict was even more shocking.
Well, I guess in Florida, or anywhere, if you murdered or were an involved in the murder of a child you could still be charged.
At any time.
(No need to rehash Casey’s innocence or guilt. I think there’s 1000 threads on this board about it. She was found innocent. So that’s that)
There is no statute of limitations on murder of anyone (child or otherwise).
If a person was found not guilty of murder then that is the end of it (double-jeopardy). They cannot be re-tried for that murder.
Agreed.
My question is can the Anthony’s implicate themselves? And do we care?
At most the grandfather might have helped with the dumping. The trial mentioned he had a unique way of wrapping and disposing of pets. I don’t remember details now. But it was presented by the defense because they were shifting blame to the grandfather.
That would be a crime in most states. But proving it now?
They deserved academy awards if true. They seemed so believable during those vigils.
I really can’t get too worked up about it now. The crime he could be charged with isn’t murder. He might fail some questions on a lie detector test.
A polygraph machine accurately records pulse rate, breathing rate, and galvanic skin response.
As a sign of whether someone is lying, those scratches and squiggles are 100% bullshit, just absolute junk science. But as a dramatic prop, in the hands of a skilled investigator, it can be very useful in getting people to say things that they didn’t plan to say. (True, false, who cares, that’s the defense attorney’s problem).
Not at all. This is like OJ and “If I Did It.”
They won’t be under a duly administered oath, the polygraph tester won’t be a cop, the whole thing will probably be scripted. As long as they stick to the same story they’ve been telling since 2008, there’s no legal jeopardy whatsoever, even if the machine says “liar liar pants on fire”.
In fact, it’s even better for them if the polygraph says they’re lying. Though the results are meaningless, the viewing public will go apeshit over the new controversy, and the Anthony’s appearance fees will balloon.
I never believed all he did was move the body. I believe he negligently murdered her in the pool.
But my beliefs are just that, my beliefs.
I just wondered if this polygraph could put him in jeopardy of being reinvestigated and charged by things he could/would say on TV.
I dunno but I’d bet investigators will be sure to watch it.
Oh yeah. The subject aint paying for that test.
I can also tell when the person is lying- most of the time. That’s the issue with this. Sure, “tells” “cold reading” “body language” and even the polygraph is more often than not- right. So, it is a clue, it is not evidence.
If you think they are lying, you probe further and harder. you gather real evidence, you find witnesses, etc.
If a cop or an agent says "My gut told me he was lying, so i dug further, and found solid evidence of his guilt- I believe him. But “the gut” isn’t evidence.
Not 100%. If a good operator told the investigators “he is lying” so they investigated further and found real evidence- that’s fine. It is an “indicator” that the suspect might be lying. Or nervous, Or just really good at lying so that even if is sounds innocent, he really is guilty. That is why the Polygraph isnt admissible.
As a tool to get a confession- well okay, but.
How about the grandmother? IIRC she testified that she was at work that morning. She saw the child and grandfather before leaving. Perhaps no one told her anything until much later?
That would explain her grief and concern at the vigils. She may have genuinely thought the child was only missing 
Although eventually the grandfather probably said something to her.
We’ll nevwr know for sure. But the lie detector could indicate a cover up.
She certainly smelled the evidence in the car.
She knew that baby was dead.
I’m sure I could, probably would make myself believe it wasn’t true.
Lie detectors are no good at detecting lies. There is one thing they are good at though, they are good at detecting psychopaths.
Wrong, police investigate under the assumption that everyone lies until proven otherwise. They don’t need a polygraph to tell them what they’ve already assumed.
By the way there’s no such thing as a simple “polygraph technician”. People who give polygraphs are trained interrogators. They pressure, they intimidate, they bluster, they lie. The polygraph machine helps them do this; that’s the only real value it provides.
My experience is that I’ve been polygraphed at random in the military. The investigator did this very theatrical performance where they asked menacing questions, and if the machine squiggled, they got even more aggressive with the questioning, making me nervous, and causing even more squiggles. At the end of the interview they told me I failed, that I was lying about all the squiggly areas. What lie did you catch, I asked? “That’s for us to know.” Nothing came of it, nothing whatsoever.
That’s when I learned for myself that polygraphs are junk, and they only work if you’re afraid of them, and that’s probably why they polygraph young recruits such as myself. My polygraph wasn’t about that day at boot camp in 1989, it was to ensure I was scared of polygraphs in case I turned spy or something 10 years later. This is the same reason police leak polygraph results to the press. It wouldn’t stand up in court for 2 seconds, but it can be very effective in the court of public opinion, which can be very effective in getting more resources for your investigation.
I think they should be against the law to use in a criminal investigation, if only because refusing to take one is often viewed as a sign of guilt. That’s an unfair position to put a defendant in IMO.
Right, I should have mentioned that, but it’s the very first step in the intimidation process. “Oh, you’re afraid to take a polygraph? Only liars are afraid of polygraphs! Sounds like you’re a liar!” and boom, they get you to agree to the process.
And you probably do it without your lawyer present, because you don’t realize you’re agreeing to be interviewed by a trained police interrogator. You think you’re talking to some neutral disinterested science nerd whose only job is to run the machine.
It’s just lies, threats, and intimidation all the way down. No science or evidence whatsoever.
My SIL was kept out of the police force for failing a polygraph. She’s a firefighter/EMT now.