Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: cyncooper
Why wasn't this allowed in court then?

On the tapes, officers remark that there "was a 100 percent probability of deception" What officers, and based on what? I can not see the actual results myself, so I have nothing I can base this on. The PERSON doing the test is the one that sees the graphs of all the pertinent data and makes the determination.

I have been listening to the RR show, and did miss some parts of it. I would love to have someone fill me in. Someone objective.

I have not heard anyone state, so far, that particular sentence. Did I miss it? Or is this just conjecture or unidentified source again?

194 posted on 01/08/2003 7:50:58 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]


To: UCANSEE2
Why wasn't this allowed in court then?

This will be my last post to you.

It wasn't allowed in court because polygraph examinations are not allowed in court, and any reference or implication that a polygraph was administered is not allowed in court. That is why it was not allowed in court.

The officers inform DW that he failed the polygraph and KFMB played a segment of it at the top of the hour.

redlipstick posted yet another article, which I was posting an excerpt (obviously) from in which it details Westerfield's reaction to this news. Read the article if you care to--and understand it is a newspaper article, not redlipstick's or my opinion. When I hear the rest of the tape I will hear for myself the exact words and the context in which they are said.

Tomorrow the rest of this block of tape will be played. I would think it will be available on the internet by tomorrow if it isn't already.

BTW, Val is correct. It is a fact that the blood from the jacket was available for testing by the defense. The bloodstain was cut out of the jacket and DNA extracted and the defense could have tested that same segment. You are wrong in your reply to her. You are constantly ignoring facts, or getting them wrong.

It is a fact that Feldman went to trial quickly to hopefully minimize the amount of testing that could be done.

It is not a sign of open mindedness to state that 2+2=5 when it is a fact that 2+2=4. We are dealing with facts here, not vagaries open to any old interpretation one cares to dream up.

Do not post to me again, and do not invoke my name in a post.

196 posted on 01/08/2003 8:08:55 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson