Latest Vlog _ Jeremy's Polygraph Test

[Caroline]

FGS,I was using SJ as a comparison of uselessness the same as you'd described TM. It was the usual tit for tat that I have to contend with,but as soon as I mention anything that goes against the grain you're immediately up in arms----------and exaggerating too because I wasn't particularly " banging on " about SJ the same as you were ripping into TM ! Don't expect EVERYONE to agree with you ALL of the time.

There is no comparison, as usual, you were trying to deflect. Supporters have been BANGING on about how Bamber passed a 'lie detector' test (which is actually a polygraph) dropping in words like 'expert'. Well this is your expert - you should be keen to sing his favours NOT looking for excuses or comparisons!!

You get the tit for tat (as you call it) because you take ANY criticism of Bamber or negative comment about the case - PERSONALLY. It's not about you. Try a little objectivity and JUST discuss the case. No one was 'ripping into' TM we were discussing the VLOG, it's out there for discussion! If you don't want to discuss it, that's up to you but there is NO comparison for how long it takes to study for a police sergeant's exam and it is VERY difficult to pass.

After 11 years TM will certainly know all there is to know about polygraphs NOW - perhaps he should conduct the test again?

[Caroline]

You've become quite paranoid at any mention of anything if it happens to be in JB's favour.
Chill out,there are worse things going on in the world besides this. I know,because I'm not blinkered.

Errr what has happened in his favour? 

[Caroline]

If she has nothing to hide why not?

Because I imagine she wants nothing to do with Jeremy, the case or the supporters who slag her off daily. If she passed would that convince anyone here that she was telling the truth? If she failed would it mean she was lying? It's not a lie detector test so ........ ?

[lookout]

Errr what has happened in his favour? 

Well the present legal team who are working for him aren't doing it for the good of their health are they ?

[Caroline]

Well the present legal team who are working for him aren't doing it for the good of their health are they ?

Neither were the last lot but ........

[lookout]

Neither were the last lot but ........

Yes,and look what happened,it was disallowed.  Did everyone fear opening that can of worms ?

[Caroline]

Yes,and look what happened,it was disallowed.  Did everyone fear opening that can of worms ?

No, it wasn't good enough for an appeal. So what 'positives' are you talking about? I imagine his new legal team are tearing their hair out after the grave side stunt. I am sure they would have advised against it. I can't see any positives at the moment.

[lookout]

No, it wasn't good enough for an appeal. So what 'positives' are you talking about? I imagine his new legal team are tearing their hair out after the grave side stunt. I am sure they would have advised against it. I can't see any positives at the moment.

That goes with the territory doesn't it ? Guilty versus non-positive.

[Caroline]

That goes with the territory doesn't it ? Guilty versus non-positive.

Sorry Lookout, you're the one who mentioned that there were positives but you're unable to name even one! You made yet another personal dig stating that I was paranoid every time there is a positive - so what exactly am I supposed to be paranoid about? Perhaps you were simply projecting 

[lookout]

Sorry Lookout, you're the one who mentioned that there were positives but you're unable to name even one! You made yet another personal dig stating that I was paranoid every time there is a positive - so what exactly am I supposed to be paranoid about? Perhaps you were simply projecting 

Ooooh,a usurped word thrown in for good measure too----------" projected ".

[notsure]

Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative.  They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.

who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.

I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.

WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.

i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.

[Caroline]

Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative.  They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.

who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.

I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.

WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.

i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.

We certainly are the people who decide credibility on THIS forum and are here to express an OPINION - otherwise no one would be debating anything and the forum would exist. However, as you say, you are also guilty of deciding which experts have credibility so I don't see what point you are trying to make?

[lookout]

Lie-detectors are used purely for the benefit of the police in not being adept enough in being able to tell whether a person's lying or not,otherwise they're useless machines which sadly replace common sense.

[guest154]

You've become quite paranoid at any mention of anything if it happens to be in JB's favour.
Chill out,there are worse things going on in the world besides this. I know,because I'm not blinkered.

What has happened in Bambers favour? All that has occurred recently is a grave yard Vlog anda video with the polygraph expert.

 The Grave yard V log brought Bamber a lot of national negative press, exposed Trudi as someone who is willing to lie for Bamber and showed that some supporters will back him whether he is right or wrong and that guilt or innocence isn't as important to them as defending Bamber is.

The Polygraph video showed that one of the OS's biggest claims comes from a man that was relatively new in his training and is still in touch with the defence.

[guest154]

Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative.  They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.

who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.

I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.

WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.

i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.

You've been selective yourself in the past, choosing to ignore the rest of the sentence "In contact with someone inside WHF - no response" you posted the first part of the sentence as a reason you believe in Bambers innocence and gave the most convoluted explanation as to why you left out  the no response part.

I don't think people/members are picking and choosing who they believe when they say I DONT BELIEVE IN THE POLYGRAPH TEST IN ANY WAY. 


There are plenty of people who don't believe the polygraph is foolproof, you say that the police use it but you leave out that they only use it in certain cases and that it isn't admissible in court, there are reasons for that.

It isn't just forum members that dis-credit the polygraph test, in the past when this has come up alot of research was posted about the polygraph test.

Asking Bamber, who is very likely a psychopath questions about something 30 odd years ago that he will have distanced himself from and saying that charts show him to be telling the truth means nothing,

It wouldn't have matter if he was found to be lying either, because his freedom apparently depends on it so he would claim he was stressed and supporters would believe that. It wouldn't bother me if he was found to be lying because it's a cheap stunt and would wouldn't have heard about it anyway because this was paid for by the defence/campaign team and that rings enough alarm bells as it is.