I always wondered where those posters got the outlaw’s likenesses. How many wanted men ever sat down for a photograph or a sketch artist? (A few, I know).
Some criminals have prior convictions, and mug shots on record.
Others crimes have witnesses who can provide a description of the criminal, and an artist can make an image.
More difficult in old timey times which is where I picture most wanted posters.
John Mulaney’s description of what happens on every episode of Law and Order is hilarious, true, and worth four minutes of your time if you have never seen it before.
I saw a documentary on this. It’s not the polygraph results but that people tend to furrow their brow when they lie and this tell is surprisingly accurate. The lie-detector test is simply the mechanism for asking the questions.
He mentioned the Judge Who Allows Everything, but in contrast there’s also the Judge Who Tosses Out Everything: The district attorneys go in with video of the defendant committing the murder and a signed confession, but noooo; because of the most niggling of procedural questions that’s OUT. Now the D.A.s have to make a case by pressuring the witness who begged them to not be named to testify in open court.
To be honest, I never watched the show much. I’m sure you are right.
He forgets that either the Judge throws out the best evidence the police got, OR that the defense changes it’s verdict to something crazy- often literally.
Exactly.
I was trained in some of those techniques- not just that but also- being evasive, or either sticking to a script or changing their story. Other things too,. But let’s not kid ourselves- all that stuff only leads to a suspicion, and you can keep questioning or maybe leads the investigation into a new direction.
Yeah, I worked both retail and Security- unless some customer really stood out, you cant remember them.
I object to admitting this evidence since the police did not announce “Police!” before kicking in the door but as they were doing it.
Sustained.
That sounds like cop logic
They didn’t change their story and everyone always changes one or two tiny details therefore they’re lying and guilty.
OR
They changed this one little detail in their story therefore they are lying and guilty.
Doesn’t matter since none of it is admissible. A surprising number of people just flat out confess while taking a polygraph.
No, people remember things oddly, a story should change somewhat. But not a huge amount.
Notice I said police logic.
But at least in the case of the feds , you are wrong. If someone repeats a story by rote, liek reciting a script- they have been coached. If their story varies widely each telling, with added details springing up- they are often making stuff up.
Mind you- again, you cant convict anyone based on that- or at least you shouldnt.
Note - this is a discussion of things that happen in movies and TV. In movie logic, minor changes to the story = proof of lying, and sticking to the same story = proof of lying. Granted that you shouldn’t convict on that, but that is the point of the thread.
No, neither one is used as proof of lying iIRL or in TV at least AFAIK. It’s rote memorization vs wild changes.
Just a minute, according to my notes you said “cop logic”. Are you changing your story now?
IRL: I invoke my right to remain silent and have an attorney present.
TV show: Let me explain what happened.
Heh, I dunno, in real life I told an acquaintance of mine “As your non-lawyer, I advise you to shut up” when he started to explain that the meth he was being arrested for wasn’t even for him, he was taking it to a friend. He looked at me like I was a jackass because he didn’t seem to understand that he was making a simple possession case into a distribution case by chatting away.
Not unrealistic at all.