I infer that the lawyer representing him sought to influence public opinion by subjecting him to an utterly unreliable method of questioning and releasing the results to the public. Which lawyers are entitled to do.
Now you answer my question.
And I say that to argue as RJK Jr. did, which is to cite the alleged “truth serum” test while ignoring Michael Skakel’s failure to come in for an official polygraph, is not credible evidence of innocence. It smells. You are free to pretend there is no odor.
Infer what you like. You’re doing a bad job of it. And you’re ducking this question: "What can we infer from your use of the strawman technique (i.e. pretending that I want to “rely” on polygraph evidence)?
Nope - I for one am not claimin you want to rely on it, merely you feel it was strange that he did not take one. I feel that no inferance about his failure to take one sould be made. No inference. as in none. as in it is perfectly understandable why some one would decline.
If I said you want to rely upon the results of a polygraph, I withdraw the statement.
However, you want to use reluctance to TAKE a polygraph as evidence of guilt. Or am I wrong about that?
Sometime in the late 1980s, I read a book about the Chappaquidick mess. Looking through Amazon.com, I believe it was Senatorial Privelege by Leo Damore. The book I read featured extensive interviews with one of the Kennedy cousins. Included in the book was a drawing by the coroners office. It showed the position of Mary Jo Kopechne’s body when she was found. The car had tipped over under water, and the air bubble had slowly leaked out. She had turned upside down, putting her head into the footwell of the front seat, which was now the highest point of the car, and followed the air pocket until it gave out. She was conscious, she knew what was happening, she wasn’t strong enough to open the doors or windeow against the weight of the water, but she did what she could to try to save herself. That is a really hellish way to die.
I’m sorry Amazon.com doesn’t have a “look inside” feature for this book, or I’d post a link to the drawing. Perhaps someone else can find it somewhere online.
You know, that does seem to infer that you suggest his reluctance to offer up for a polygraph is evidence of ‘something to hide’.
One doesn’t have to read complete post(s). Or even bother to see if a statement is directed at one and not somebody else.
Doing so does make one’s responses more intelligible, though.
Hijack: Am I the only one who thought the photo of Enro Ex-CEO Jeff Skilling was Skakel? They look so much alike, particularly in handcuffs.
Jesus, Jackmanii. No wonder Bricker appears to have abandoned this thread.
I understand that you feel there’s something fishy about Skakel. That’s fine. But your last few posts have been completely disingenuous. Bricker made a genuine attempt to answer your question about inference, and also withdrew his statement (if it ever existed) that “you want to rely upon the results of a polygraph.” But there is still a fair and extremely relevant question that you have refused to answer, to wit:
It may be true that you don’t believe the polygraph is not a completely reliable tool, and that it is “one among many law enforcement tools [and]…not a magic bullet.” You’ve made that clear.
However, some of your statements strongly suggest that a simple refusal or reluctance to take a polygraph should be interpreted as evidence of guilt. Let’s have a look at the original passage that Bricker was thinking of when he asked you about this:
When Bricker asked you what we should infer from this staement, all you could come up with was:
Well, that’s just the point, isn’t it? Bricker was inferring “what he liked,” which was that the statement suggested that you believe that reluctance to take a polygraph is evidence of guilt. And he wasn’t the only one who internpreted your statement that way.
Now, it may be that all of us who made such inferences from your statement are incorrect. I’m willing to concede that. But if that’s the case, then surely you should conclude that your attempt at communication was flawed or incomplete, and make some effort to clear things up?
Bricker wasn’t asking you to change your mind, and nor was he asking you to take a position that you don’t want to take. All he was saying is that he interpreted your statement in one particular way, and he’s looking for clarification as to whether or not his interpretation is correct. And if it isn’t, then intellectual honesty and decency requires you to clarify your position, rather than throwing gratuitous insults.
At least Bricker was almost honest enough to concede that he had falsely claimed that I want to “rely” on polygraph evidence as proof of guilt or innocence.
Now we have you resorting to innuendo to make a point.
Thank you for stating what I “may” believe. You could just take me at my word. But innuendo is more fun apparently.
As is selective quoting. Let’s try a fuller version.
"This is a guy whose family had him take some sort of private “truth serum” test(s) whose results were given to police (undoubtedly to get them to draw the appropriate “inference”). Apparently it is fine to try to manipulate police/public opinion in this way, but dastardly to suggest that someone who regarded as a major suspect in a murder might find it in his best interest to come forward for an official polygraph test, to confirm the previous alleged findings.
News flash: the polygraph is one among many law enforcement tools. It is not a magic bullet. It can help police and it can help figures in an investigation who are innocent."
Context, mhendo.
We have a stout Skakel defender, RFK Jr., arguing that among his laundry list of reasons why we should believe Skakel innocent despite the jury verdict of guilty, the alleged fact that he passed some kind of “truth serum” testing, at least according to a family attorney.
I don’t find that a compelling reason to think him innocent. Given that he did not come in for an official polygraph and there has been no evidence presented that any expert acceptable to police witnessed his performance, this sounds like a selective attempt to manipulate the police investigation. Together with the fact that other family members/acquaintances did submit to a polygraph, this sounds to me like one of numerous reasons to think that the jury did the right thing.
Now I understand that a few of you feel strongly about the unreliability of polygraph testing, at least as an official investigative tool, and you want to quickly squelch any suggestion that it can have some value. Fine. But falsely imputing to me the belief that a) the polygraph is reliable evidence of guilt or innocence, and b) that Skakel is guilty because he didn’t come in for a police polygraph, is intellectually dishonest and reflects poorly on your debating ability.
Have you never heard of the idiomatic use of the word"may"?
As in, “The United States may have the world’s most powerful military force, but this should not allow it to dictate to other nations.”
The question of US military superiority is not really up for debate–it is taken as a given. Similarly, i took it as given that you believed those things, and my use of “may” was idiomatic. And, for someone who’s so concerned about selective quoting, let’s see what you forgot, shall we:
You left out the bolded part, which makes it quite clear that i was not actually calling your own beliefs into question, but was simply pointing out that you had not made those beliefs very clear.
Well, first of all, the “context” you put forward was actually posted after the earlier piece that Bricker asked you about, which was presented with virtually no context whatsoever. Let’s have a look at the order in which you said things.
Way back at the beginning of the thread, you said:
Then, a little later:
What inference are we to draw from this thinly-veiled innuendo in these posts, other than that, because Skakel chose not to take a polygraph, he must have something to hide? How else could your posts reasonably be interpreted?
Then:
So, you concede that a polygraph is not the only tool used by police, but still keep suggesting that it’s in the defendant’s best interests to accede to one, despite the fact that you concede yourself the possiblity that it may be innaccurate. Sure, as you say, this “[s]ounds like a better idea than having a family attorney give vague assurances about some truth serum test conducted under unknown circumstances,” but the attempt to use the truth serum test is a separate issue from what Bricker was asking you about, to wit: do you believe that refusal to take a polygraph is evidence of guilt.
Others were also pointing out that taking a polygraph may not always be in a person’s best interest, and Bricker (the lawyer in this debate) had also noted earlier that
. Still, you marched on, providing the post that Bricker was pressing you about:
Like your earlier post, the first paragraph of this one leaves little room for interpretation, other than that you think the fact that Skakel didn’t take a polygraph means he must have something to hide. Even in the context of the rest of your arguments, that is the most reasonable inference to draw from this post. The issue of the truth serum is an example of lawyerly shenanigans that has no bearing on the implications of your statements about Skakel’s refusal to take the polygraph.
It was then that Bricker asked you what we should infer from that post, and you couldn’t be bothered giving him an answer. He asked again, and you still said nothing.
In fact, your first specific denial actually came in your most recent post addressed to me, in which you say:
Well, at least five posters (Bricker, spooje, wring, Fiddle Peghead, and me) deduced from your argument that you believed Skakel’s refusal to take a polygraph cast a suspicion of guilt on him. You were asked for clarification on more than one occasion, and instead of an answer you kept yapping about truth serum and the iniquity of defence lawyers. It could be that all five of us are dim, and just missed your argument completely, but Occam’s razor suggests that it was your level of explanation and clarification that was lacking in this debate.
And, now that you have stated that you don’t believe “that Skakel is guilty because he didn’t come in for a police polygraph,” maybe we can go back to the original question: Given the notorious unreliability of polygraphs, and the fact that passing one doesn’t necessarily get the police to leave you alone, and that failing one doesn’t necessarily mean you’re guilty, why are you so adamant that Skakel should have availed himself of this fantastic opportunity?
Well, Master Parser, a most detailed rendering on your part - which boils down to more ignoring of my comments, in favor of more labored attempts to attribute some nefarious motive to me.
A laughably feeble attempt to deny innuendo on your part. Hypocrisy, anyone?
Well, they’ve been made more than clear, multiple times, with context explained (repeatedly, as to the terminally dim), but you’re still ragging on to no purpose.
Much as you appeared aggrieved earlier that I had responded with insufficient civility to another poster intent on putting words in my mouth, I’m going to outrage Pit decorum again.
Take Occam’s Razor and stick it up your ass.
Gently, of course.
help me out then. I too am not certain what you’re attempting to communicate. what exactly do you infer from the fact he chose to not take a LD test? I’ll even go first. I attribute zero inference from that fact. I do not fault anyone for opting out of such a deal.
you?
Here ya go, wring. No points off for not paying attention the first time.
“We have a stout Skakel defender, RFK Jr., arguing that among his laundry list of reasons why we should believe Skakel innocent despite the jury verdict of guilty, the alleged fact that he passed some kind of “truth serum” testing, at least according to a family attorney.
I don’t find that a compelling reason to think him innocent. Given that he did not come in for an official polygraph and there has been no evidence presented that any expert acceptable to police witnessed his performance, this sounds like a selective attempt to manipulate the police investigation. Together with the fact that other family members/acquaintances did submit to a polygraph, this sounds to me like one of numerous reasons to think that the jury did the right thing.”
repeating something you’ve posted doesn’t really fit the bill of “explain this please”, ya know.
the only thing I can even see at all is possibly your point is that he apparently took a LD test, though refused the one given by the cops, and you seem to believe that means something.
what do you think it means? options as far as I’m concerned include:
- I don’t trust how the cops would administer the test, but maybe if I pass one they’ll see they were wrong.
- Lawyer recommends to not allow cop administered test, but ok;s one done by their own folks.
as well as an option that it means an intentional desire to appear innocent while really being guilty.
I have no problem w/the guilty verdict itself, by the way, just the concept that any useful assumption can legitimately be made from the fact that the defendant refused to take a LD test administered by the cops (even if they took one administered by their own folks).
Updating this thread of 14 years ago:
And the trial lawyer that was so ineffective? A public defender? A bottom of the barrel alcoholic attorney? No,Greenwich celebrity attorney Michael Sherman.
“This is how good I am: if I can’t get you acquitted by my skill as a lawyer, I guarantee you’ll get out because I wasn’t able to get you acquitted! There’s no way you can lose!”
All I remember from this case (and I do remember it, it was fairly big news at one point), is thinking “this guy does not look like he could possibly be related to the Kennedy family.” Surely enough, he’s the nephew of the wife of Robert Kennedy. That’s such a remote relation, calling him a “Kennedy cousin” is nothing but the media hyping up the case for attention.