« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 47   Go Down

Author Topic: outlandish Theory's  (Read 71977 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33783
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #555 on: December 06, 2015, 03:22:PM »
Quote from: lookout on December 06, 2015, 03:13:PM




It wasn't so long ago that some cretin had gone through the test with a negative result,released and then re-offended. It won't be the last time it happens,so going on your theory about a psychopath passing the test------------it also says that paedophiles too are psychopaths.

I can't think of any reason -given their lack of empathy for their victims- why they shouldn't be.
Logged

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #556 on: December 06, 2015, 03:40:PM »
Quote from: Jane J on December 06, 2015, 03:22:PM
I can't think of any reason -given their lack of empathy for their victims- why they shouldn't be.





Well there you are.
But on the other hand,why should/must Jeremy show empathy for something he DIDN'T do ?
Logged

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #557 on: December 06, 2015, 03:45:PM »
Quote from: Jane J on December 06, 2015, 02:38:PM

Yes, in sex offences, but as a reliable science, it remains highly questionable.

If someone is an expert in any particular field or specialist subject, their opinion is admissible as evidence, whereas an ordinary persons opinion on a specialist topic is not. An 'Expert Witness', as is Mr Mullins, can give evidence stàting his opinion, and if unchallenged, his opinion would have to be treated as factual...

To be specific, his would be considered ' factual opinion'...
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 03:52:PM by mike tesko »
Logged
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33783
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #558 on: December 06, 2015, 04:00:PM »
Quote from: mike tesko on December 06, 2015, 03:45:PM
If someone is an expert in any particular field or specialist subject, their opinion is admissible as evidence, whereas an ordinary persons opinion on a specialist topic is not. An 'Expert Witness', as is Mr Mullins, can give evidence stàting his opinion, and if unchallenged, his opinion would have to be treated as factual...


Thank you for that, Mike but I'm fully cognisant of what an "Expert Witness" is. It was part of my partner's work in his own field of expertise. He was, on occasions, challenged, but never lost the case he was representing. However, his field was a much more reliable science with no ambiguity.
Logged

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #559 on: December 06, 2015, 04:02:PM »
Quote from: Jane J on December 06, 2015, 04:00:PM

Thank you for that, Mike but I'm fully cognisant of what an "Expert Witness" is. It was part of my partner's work in his own field of expertise. He was, on occasions, challenged, but never lost the case he was representing. However, his field was a much more reliable science with no ambiguity.

So is interpretation of polygraph test results...
Logged
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33783
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #560 on: December 06, 2015, 04:07:PM »
Quote from: mike tesko on December 06, 2015, 04:02:PM
So is interpretation of polygraph test results...

No, it's totally ambiguous which is why it isn't universally used.
Logged

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33783
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #561 on: December 06, 2015, 04:11:PM »
Quote from: lookout on December 06, 2015, 03:40:PM




Well there you are.
But on the other hand,why should/must Jeremy show empathy for something he DIDN'T do ?

Because for others, empathy comes naturally. It isn't about choosing whether or not to show it.
Logged

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #562 on: December 06, 2015, 04:12:PM »
 There was only one " yes " in answer to the 12 questions that Jeremy was asked. The question being :
Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shootings ? Yes,answered Jeremy.
Logged

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21120
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #563 on: December 06, 2015, 04:16:PM »
He was honest on No. 12 at least. Just a pity he had no conscience when it came to killing five members of his family.
Logged

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #564 on: December 06, 2015, 04:44:PM »
The reason that he doesn't " appear to have a conscience " to some is that he didn't do anything to give him a conscience.
Logged

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #565 on: December 06, 2015, 04:50:PM »
Quote from: Jane J on December 06, 2015, 04:07:PM
No, it's totally ambiguous which is why it isn't universally used.

No, its not ambiguous, the questions are there for all like minded experts to see, so are the answers, and the various readings from all the equipment...
Logged
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #566 on: December 06, 2015, 05:00:PM »
Quote from: mike tesko on December 06, 2015, 02:19:PM
Wrong, it is a science, and as the test is carried out by an expert, his 'Expert Opinion', is admissible in evidence...

It is so scientific that in 2003, Gary Ridgway admitted he was the Green River Killer, having murdered 49 women in the Seattle area. Ridgway had passed a lie detector test in 1987, while another man - who turned out to be innocent - failed. Ridgway is a psychopath - he passed!

Further reading here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640
Logged
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #567 on: December 06, 2015, 05:03:PM »
Quote from: lookout on December 06, 2015, 12:47:PM





Some psychopaths DO react to lie detectors. They're so set and keen to give the right answers that stress./anxiety and sweat show themselves. This is a FACT.

Not sure where you're getting your info from Lookout but this is just incorrect!
Logged
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #568 on: December 06, 2015, 05:04:PM »
Quote from: lookout on December 06, 2015, 04:44:PM
The reason that he doesn't " appear to have a conscience " to some is that he didn't do anything to give him a conscience.

So you're admitting he has no conscience? GOOD!
Logged
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21120
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #569 on: December 06, 2015, 05:07:PM »
How many times are we told Jeremy and others such as Adam Lanza,Marty Tankleff,David Bain and others "wouldn't hurt a fly". It's never the loudmouths down the pub I fear;always those who clandestinely harbour a grudge.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 47   Go Up
« previous next »