Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: Joe McCarthy
Posted on: Mar 8th, 2017 at 3:13am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
That came out of nowhere, or did I miss something in the string?
Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: Mar 8th, 2017 at 1:16am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Vile, Scum bag white trash pedo waste of oxygen

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Posted by: Lorrplif
Posted on: Mar 7th, 2017 at 11:02pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
TC and all the idiots against polygraph, when its over90% acurate and you still have the argument its flawed it makes you seem ignorant. Most of the men accused like Jeremy Park (aka convicted pedophile) if they have a inconclusive result will eventually end up caught and convicted. What goes on in the dark always comes out in the light. It just usuallyworksthatway. Unfortunately bc of people like you sometimes things like this do go on and on for years and meanwhile a baby gets raped over and over. He was sooo adament that he had never done anything like that, ha!! Then when convicted and sentenced he confessed, blaming meth!! Vile, Scum bag white trash pedo waste of oxygen
Posted by: Jennporqua
Posted on: Mar 7th, 2017 at 10:54pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
It would be in this websites interest to do a little MORE research in regard to this particular case. The polygraph test that Jeremy Park "passed" was checked by a different party. He did, in fact, FAIL! The poly that they said he 'passed' was given by a police dept employee that had an issue w the gma Bonnii. That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth. It had nothing to do w DrPhils questioning. It had everything to do w microexpression & how to spot a LIAR. It's not a hard thing to do once you educate yourself & know what to look for. It was painfully obvious & anyone defending this trash thinking he's innocent...I hope to GOD they never have children!

Posted by: Ex Member
Posted on: May 27th, 2014 at 1:50am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Jeremy Park should rot in Hell for what he did to his daughter!

Worry about your own soul.
Posted by: Teacher
Posted on: May 25th, 2014 at 11:55pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-04-05/news/29387024_1_kpep-kalamazoo-p...

Time always tells.  Read this and keep bashing Dr. Phil! Jeremy Park should rot in Hell for what he did to his daughter!
Cry
Posted by: stefano - Ex Member
Posted on: Nov 13th, 2012 at 7:44pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth.


So you are able to divine when someone is lying? Sounds to me like you have some unresolved anger issues.
Posted by: MsLauraLynn
Posted on: Nov 13th, 2012 at 6:59pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
It would be in this websites interest to do a little MORE research in regard to this particular case. The polygraph test that Jeremy Park "passed" was checked by a different party. He did, in fact, FAIL! The poly that they said he 'passed' was given by a police dept employee that had an issue w the gma Bonnii. That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth. It had nothing to do w DrPhils questioning. It had everything to do w microexpression & how to spot a LIAR. It's not a hard thing to do once you educate yourself & know what to look for. It was painfully obvious & anyone defending this trash thinking he's innocent...I hope to GOD they never have children!
Posted by: stefano - Ex Member
Posted on: Dec 25th, 2011 at 11:50pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
What the hell is the matter with you, with the court, with CPS?You're all talking about stupid BS and there is a BABY at stake here. What if it was yours? 

It's because we are here to discuss the inequities of the polygraph, not try to save the children of the world. If such is your quest, I'd suggest starting in Africa where they are starving and dying from pestilence. 

And, by the way, your post is 6 years late.
Posted by: bh
Posted on: Dec 25th, 2011 at 7:38pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
And have you idiots now seen that he was found with ABUSIVE child porn and convicted of the same? And have you seen his living conditions, as reported by his parole officer?  Dr. Phil's supposed grandstanding aside, it was so OBVIOUS that his guy was a sick F*ck.  My God.  This a SEXUALLY ABUSED BABY.  What the hell is the matter with you, with the court, with CPS?  You're all talking about stupid BS and there is a BABY at stake here. What if it was yours?
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Nov 24th, 2008 at 9:27pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Barium Bob,

In the previous post, GM pointed out that this person plead guilty to the charge of possession of child porn.  Also, that Mr. Park both PASSED and FAILED separate polygraphs (two coin flips, coming up "tails" once, and "heads" once).  So you can't really base anything  on the polygraph.

Whether or not he molested his daughter is another matter.

TC
Posted by: Bob from Berrien
Posted on: Nov 24th, 2008 at 9:06pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Just to let you know that Jeremy Park was convicted of possession of child pornography (it was found on his personal computer).  I'm happy that you're still arguing "possibilities" while this scumbag was getting his jollies by looking at naked children.  Look it up if you don't believe me.

It's gratifying to know that even morons like you folks are allowed internet access.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 18th, 2008 at 4:43am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.


Hi, David, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. Am I correct in inferring that you are the David Lynch who assisted with the HelpKaylee.com website? I appreciate your concern for Kaylee. But you're mistaken about lie detectors.

I don't know whether Jeremy Park sexually molested his daughter. But I do know that polygraph chart readings offer no answers in this regard. As you will recall (and has been discussed earlier in this message thread), while Park failed the polygraph administered by Dr. Phil's hired polygrapher, he passed one administered by the Michigan State Police.

As for being "pretty dumb about lie detectors," you should know that the consensus view among scientists is that polygraphy has no scientific basis. By contrast, virtually the only ones supporting the validity of polygraphy are those with vested interests in this pseudoscience. That would include Dr. Phil McGraw, who regularly uses the lie detector as a ratings gimmick. I think that which you should find outrageous is that McGraw, who with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology should know better, exploited Kaylee's plight by pretending that such quackery as polygraphy could resolve the serious question of whether she was sexually molested.

As you correctly note, Jeremy Park was arrested earlier this year (12 June 2008) and extradited from South Bend, Indiana to Berrien County, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography. In a plea agreement, he pled guilty to two counts of "possession of child sexually abusive materials" and in August was sentenced to 270 days in jail and five years' probation:

Quote:
http://www.nilesstar.com/articles/2008/06/14/news/ndnews4.txt

Arrest made on child porn charge

Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:35 AM EDT

ST. JOSEPH - A South Bend man is expected to be extradited to Berrien County on a warrant for child pornography charges.

On Thursday, June 12, at approximately 11:45 a.m. officers from the South Bend Police Department and the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department arrested Jeremy A. Park, 28, at his apartment at Bonfield Place in South Bend, Ind.

He was charged with four counts of possession of child sexually abusive material and four counts use of computer for criminal act.

Park was arrested on a warrant issued by the Berrien County Trial Court earlier this month resulting from an investigation that begin March 18.

Park was lodged in the St. Joseph County Jail pending extradition to Berrien County.

On March 18, officers from the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department responded to a report of a domestic assault at 9064 Kephart Lane, Berrien Springs.

At that time, Park alleged he had been assaulted by his wife. Officers were not able to substantiate that an assault occurred and no arrests were made on that allegation; but, as a result of the living conditions in the apartment along with the incident officers were called to, officers took the Park's one-year-old child into protective custody. Child Protective Services was notified and the child was placed into foster care at that time.

During the investigation a laptop computer was turned over to officers along with information that it contained child pornography on it.

A search warrant was obtained for the computer and it was analyzed by Det. Sgt. Mike Danneffel, a forensic computer analyst with the Berrien County Sheriff's Department.

Pornographic images and movies were located on the computer during the examination. The images and movies were examined by a doctor qualified as an expert in determining a person's age from the recovered evidence. It was determined that two images and two movies containing pornographic material were of an underage female.

Following the investigation by the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department and the Berrien County Sheriff's Department with assistance from the FBI, Berrien County Prosecutor Art Cotter authorized a warrant for Jeremy Park as specified, which was then issued by the Berrien County Trial Court.

This case remains under investigation.


Quote:
http://www.sbtinfo.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080812&Category=News01&ArtNo...

Berrien Springs man sentenced in child-porn case
'Dr. Phil' show films session in Berrien court.
By DEBRA HAIGHT Tribune Correspondent

NILES -- It's not every day that a television crew from a nationally syndicated television show is filming inside a local courtroom, but that was the case Monday in Berrien County Trial Court here.

Jeremy Park, 28, of Berrien Springs, was sentenced for possession of child pornography.

He had appeared on the "Dr. Phil" show in late 2006 to defend himself against allegations that he has sexually abused his young daughter.

Krista Mehl, his ex-girlfriend and mother of his daughter, and her mother, Bonii Dyjasek, appeared on the show to make the allegations. No criminal charges have been filed as a result of the abuse allegations.

While the allegations made on the television show aren't connected with the pornography case, people from the "Dr. Phil" show were on hand to film Berrien County Trial Judge Scott Schofield's sentencing of Park. They plan to air the sentencing on their season opening show in early September.

In the criminal case, Park was sentenced on two counts of possession of child sexually abusive materials, which carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison.

He had originally been charged with two more counts of the child sexually abusive materials and four counts of use of a computer to possess child sexually abusive materials. Those six charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

All eight charges stemmed from an investigation by the Berrien Springs/Oronoko Township Police Department in March. A laptop computer belonging to Park was turned over to police and pornographic images and videos were found on it.

Monday, Assistant Prosecutor Kelly Travis said she believes Park needs to be monitored, register as a sex offender and have no contact with minor children. For his part, Park said he was very regretful and ashamed of his actions and what it had done to himself and his family.

"It's nice you feel bad for yourself and your family, but the real victims are the children who were portrayed in the pornographic pictures," Schofield said. "They don't have the ability to consent.

"Their self-esteem and ability to form romantic relationships in the future are at terrible risk. There would be no reason for them to be forced into this activity if not for people like you willing to view and purchase it."

Park was placed on five years' probation and ordered to serve 270 days in jail with the first 90 in jail and the balance at the end of the probation term. He was given credit for 61 days already served and must also spend 180 days on tether after he's released from jail.

He must pay $2,120 in fines and costs and restitution of $1,255.74 to a leasing company he bought the computer from. He must register as a sex offender, not own a computer or camera and have no contact with children age 17 or younger. After the sentencing, Dyjasek, her family attorney James Boardman and Berrien Springs Police Chief Milt Agay spoke on camera to the "Dr. Phil" crew.

Agay said he is continuing to look at the child abuse allegations involving Park to see if charges can be brought in connection with that case. The initial investigation was closed in 2007 with no charges filed.

Boardman said he's looking to formally terminate Park's parental rights through proceedings in the Berrien County Trial Court's Family Division.

Dyjasek said she still blames Child Protective Services for not doing its job in protecting her granddaughter.

"CPS didn't do their job," she said. "Hopefully they'll not fail the next child calling out for help the way they failed. ... Not only does Jeremy have a lot to answer for, but also CPS has a lot to answer for." She said she and her daughter will continue to pursue justice for the young girl.

"We are going to pursue this case so there is justice for (the girl), this case is far from over. Krista said today that justice is only halfway served."
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Nov 18th, 2008 at 2:03am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.


Good post!  Very edifying, and timely too.   

He was arrested for possession of child porn?  Well, he must be guilty then.  That is quite obvious.  If it was on Dr. Phil it must be true, though one should probably wait for verification from the Enquirer!

Pardon the sarcasm

TC, idiot moron




Posted by: David Lynch
Posted on: Nov 17th, 2008 at 11:59pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.
Posted by: paris
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 3:11pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I've never thought much of lie detector "tests", but now after reading ;your posts i realize how bogus they are indeed!

It is shameful for Dr. Phil, who must know better, to try to fool the american audience, and worse yet, to create such a witch hunt with virtually no evidence of foul play.

I guess you can see how someone like Hitler could come to power, with use of pseudo-science, control of the media, and a very dynamic personality.....
Posted by: furedy
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 9:01am
  Mark & Quote
REPLIES TO JOCHAASTA AND JUSTAGIRL

jOCCHASTA.

       The statement about the "inadequacy" of the "control" was in the context of defending (successfully) an individual in a legal context where, even in polyraphic terms, the "control" question was inadequate because there was no attemmpt to make it have anywhere near the emotional impact of the relevant question for an innocent person.  In general terms, as I've emphasised in many papers and a book, no polykgraphic "control" is adequate, because it is not a control in the normal scientific sense of control.

       JUSTAGURL;

         It's sensible to ask whether a science-based, specifiable and standardized test is affect by such factors, but does not make sense even to raise such questions for an unstandardized interrogatory interveiw like the CQT polygraph, except that perhaps a person with a disability may be more subject to post-test interrogatory pressures than one without a disability.  Still, in most criminal contexts, especiallyk those involving child sex abuse, by the time someone gets into the clutches of a polygrapher, that person is likely to be unbalanced because of the terrible presures he is under.

All the best, John


Posted by: justagurlinseattle
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 4:36am
  Mark & Quote
ecchasta wrote on Nov 30th, 2006 at 1:27am:
In regards to this question posted earlier,

"I was just wondering... I heard that a polygraph should not be preformed on a person who is on medication.... or who has ADD or ADHD... Is this true?"

The answer... A person on medication or with ADHA should not be given a polygraph.  And neither should a people who are not on medication and are perfectly normal.

Polygraphs do not detect lies on anyone!  Polygraphy is an interrogation tool just like lying to a suspect is an interrogation tool that occasionally leads to confessions.  Don't be head-faked.


I understand all of that.. and I personally DON'T believe in polygraph...
It is total BS....

I was wondering though.... if there are criteria of people who do believe in it... and try to pass it off.... 

such as not doing a polygraph when someone is pregnant..... 

I thought I had heard once that an ADHD person would not be a good canidate for polygraph.... 
(and I know... NOBODY IS A GOOD CANIDATE)

Smiley
Posted by: ecchasta
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 4:26am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I read the last reply.  It is quite good and reasonable.  I want to "correct" Wink one thing you said.  It was:

".... the polygrapher did not come up with an adequate 'control' question."

This statement (it seems to me) implies that there might be such a thing as an "adequate  control question".  There can never be an adequate control question because polygraphic lie detection is as you say "snake oil", not capable of detecting lies.

Later
Posted by: furedy
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 2:14am
  Mark & Quote
Polygnov06reply

SPECIAL PERILS TO INNOCENT SUSPECTS IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

In these cases with which Dr. Phil is dealing, there is a special danger because the relevant questions arouse much greater emotion in the innocent than those pertaining to other less disgusting crimes such as theft and even murder.  So the relevant questions about child sex abuse by Dr. Phil and his fellow entrails-reading polygraphers must have aroused considerably more emotion in innocent suspects than the “standard” so-called “control” questions like “did you ever do anything you were ashamed of in your life”.  You don’t need a PhD in psychology or psychophysiology, or even a high-school degree, to understand, by an exercise in common sense, that an innocent suspect would give a bigger response to such relevant questions than to control questions.

It’s interesting that 29 tears ago a criminal lawyer and I made the same point (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Cconfess.doc). ; The relevant passage from that paper is pasted below:

Another mitigating condition arises when the "control" questions, which are meant to generate as much emotion (even in the innocent) as do the relevant questions, patently would not have done so. One such "control" question that the polygrapher generated in the Middleton case, was "Did you ever lie to someone in authority?". It surely strains the bounds of credulity to suppose that, even in the innocent, the amount of emotion generated by this question would compare to that generated by the relevant question ("Did you lick X's vagina", when X was 4 years old?). Even the staunchest defender of the general accuracy of CQT polygraphy would admit that, even for the innocent, the relevant question is much more emotive than the "control" question, and that, in this case, the polygrapher did not come up with an adequate "control" question.


     It’s even more significant that 20 years on, Dr. Phil and his polygraphers are using the same “control” question, although now the few psychophysiologists who support the CQT polygraph, are using the (meaningless) term “comparison” question.  This, perhaps, is the clearest demonstration that the CQT polygraph.  This, perhaps, is the clearest way to distinguish science and science-based applications from pseudo science and the snake-oil-type applications that are based no that pseudo science.

     A science revises it terms and concepts in the light of the evidence, and the technologies associated with that science gradually improve in their accuracy.  That’s how we got from the 20 feet flown by the Wright brothers to the flight to the moon.  In contrast, a pseudo-science and snake-oil technology based on that pseudo science revises its terminology in a rhetorical attempt to mislead the public, and, like entrails reading, produces no real but only illusory improvements in its accuracy.  It also helps, of course, when an articulate and formally educated figure like Dr. Phil espouses this peculiarly American flight of technological fancy that continues to reap havoc in North American society, as well as weakening its national securitiy.

All the best, John
Posted by: ecchasta
Posted on: Nov 30th, 2006 at 1:27am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
In regards to this question posted earlier,

"I was just wondering... I heard that a polygraph should not be preformed on a person who is on medication.... or who has ADD or ADHD... Is this true?"

The answer... A person on medication or with ADHA should not be given a polygraph.  And neither should a people who are not on medication and are perfectly normal.

Polygraphs do not detect lies on anyone!  Polygraphy is an interrogation tool just like lying to a suspect is an interrogation tool that occasionally leads to confessions.  Don't be head-faked.
Posted by: paris
Posted on: Nov 29th, 2006 at 10:54pm
  Mark & Quote
justagurlinseattle wrote on Nov 29th, 2006 at 7:34pm:



First off...I have a feeling that Jeremy is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed....

and, I thought it was a pretty good show... That hypnosis guy was something else.... He was being uncooperative.... he never answered as to HOW Jeremy was being uncooperative..???... That hypnosis expert was MAKING ME MAD.....

as for the Polygraph expert Swabash.... he is so BIAS... and he sure thinks he knows it all... including... he is 100% sure that Jeremy is a pedophile... What a negligent statement that is..... Unless he has some kind of gift.....

I personally thought it was CLASSIC when Krista was one minute, talking about what happened when she was picketing the court house....
then when Dr. Phil asked her if she was picketing the court, she denied picketing... she said she was only there to pick somebody up....
SHE JUST LIES!!!!
and Dr. Phil bearly called her on it....

This guy Jeremy needs a lawyer.... and QUICK....
there are so many people ready to hang him... over NO EVIDENCE..
It is insane..... somebody at the Kaylee board mentioned getting Bill O'Reilly
involved... and this is just the kind of thing he would get involved with....
and just because a bunch of people are ignorant and onlt see what they want to see.... Jeremy might end up 
in real trouble....

I also hated the fact that they were again, badgering him.... and twisting his words..... 
like when they were talking about, how he drinks on his medication.... 

This guy needs to exercise his right to remain silent... I am just NOT sure he has the ability......

No, Jeremy is not that bright. I think that he is actually innocent, and thinks that this is enough. He has underestimated how people can be manipulated. 

I said from the first show that Jeremy should  have a lawyer with him. This is not a session of pyschotherapy (I thought this was what Dr. Phil does) but an unofficial court trial, without the protection the man should have. It is outrageous Dr. Phil. 
 
There is the Miranda law, so people don't say things under pressure or unitentionally that might increminate them. Jeremy is being slandered, and the wife/grandmother 's behavior are outrageous, to pay for a billboard, distribute flyers, picket, etc. and then have the gaul to say they are not doing anything to enflame the situation? It is sad for jeremy, and the little girl who must be very confused.
Posted by: justagurlinseattle
Posted on: Nov 29th, 2006 at 7:34pm
  Mark & Quote
paris wrote on Nov 29th, 2006 at 5:21pm:
SAW THE SHOW YESTERDAY!

It was amazing.

1. First they discussed why the 2nd lie detector test was opposite from the first. Dr. Phil had the same person on to say why the 2nd test was "not a good test" (taken by the police department) for various reasons, including they asked if jeremey "touched" the child vs. penetrating her. Then they went on about jeremey being on medications, or not, etc. that would effect the results. So, they are talking out of both ends of their mouths: either lie detector tests are valid or they are not.
2. then they tried to hypnotize jeremey, but the Dr. Phil "expert" said he could not hypnotize jeremy because he was not "cooperative". (It is in fact not easy to be hypnotized).
More hocus-pocus. This proves what??
3. The mother/grandmother's case keeps getting rejected by:
the judge, the CPS, the court assigned psychiatrist, the OB/GYN who examined the girl, etc. etc., as NO ONE has found any evidence or believes the child, who is clearly being traumized.

Even Dr. Phil finally had to attack the mother/grandmother as being hysterical, and their own lawyer had to admit he was "perplexed" by lack of evidence.

My only question is: that poor slob, jeremy, continues to come on alone, without a lawyer or some expert to speak in his defense!!



First off...I have a feeling that Jeremy is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed....

and, I thought it was a pretty good show... That hypnosis guy was something else.... He was being uncooperative.... he never answered as to HOW Jeremy was being uncooperative..???... That hypnosis expert was MAKING ME MAD.....

as for the Polygraph expert Swabash.... he is so BIAS... and he sure thinks he knows it all... including... he is 100% sure that Jeremy is a pedophile... What a negligent statement that is..... Unless he has some kind of gift.....

I personally thought it was CLASSIC when Krista was one minute, talking about what happened when she was picketing the court house....
then when Dr. Phil asked her if she was picketing the court, she denied picketing... she said she was only there to pick somebody up....
SHE JUST LIES!!!!
and Dr. Phil bearly called her on it....

This guy Jeremy needs a lawyer.... and QUICK....
there are so many people ready to hang him... over NO EVIDENCE..
It is insane..... somebody at the Kaylee board mentioned getting Bill O'Reilly
involved... and this is just the kind of thing he would get involved with....
and just because a bunch of people are ignorant and onlt see what they want to see.... Jeremy might end up 
in real trouble....

I also hated the fact that they were again, badgering him.... and twisting his words..... 
like when they were talking about, how he drinks on his medication.... 

This guy needs to exercise his right to remain silent... I am just NOT sure he has the ability......
Posted by: paris
Posted on: Nov 29th, 2006 at 5:21pm
  Mark & Quote
SAW THE SHOW YESTERDAY!

It was amazing.

1. First they discussed why the 2nd lie detector test was opposite from the first. Dr. Phil had the same person on to say why the 2nd test was "not a good test" (taken by the police department) for various reasons, including they asked if jeremey "touched" the child vs. penetrating her. Then they went on about jeremey being on medications, or not, etc. that would effect the results. So, they are talking out of both ends of their mouths: either lie detector tests are valid or they are not.
2. then they tried to hypnotize jeremey, but the Dr. Phil "expert" said he could not hypnotize jeremy because he was not "cooperative". (It is in fact not easy to be hypnotized).
More hocus-pocus. This proves what??
3. The mother/grandmother's case keeps getting rejected by:
the judge, the CPS, the court assigned psychiatrist, the OB/GYN who examined the girl, etc. etc., as NO ONE has found any evidence or believes the child, who is clearly being traumized.

Even Dr. Phil finally had to attack the mother/grandmother as being hysterical, and their own lawyer had to admit he was "perplexed" by lack of evidence.

My only question is: that poor slob, jeremy, continues to come on alone, without a lawyer or some expert to speak in his defense!!
Posted by: paris
Posted on: Nov 28th, 2006 at 5:17pm
  Mark & Quote
Quote:


Dr. Phil: In your opinion, were you observing countermeasure efforts on Jeremy's part? 
 
Howard Swabash: Yes I was. 
 
Dr. Phil: So you think he was attempting to defeat the test? 
 
Howard Swabash: Yes sir. 
 
Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): Is that true? 
 
Jeremy: Huh. I wouldn't... Like I said, I wouldn't have any idea how to do that. 
 
Dr. Phil: Do you have access to a computer? 
 
Jeremy: At the library, yeah. 
 
Dr. Phil: Do you know how to use a computer? 
 
Jeremy: Ah, I know how to get on the e-mail, that's about it. 
 
Dr. Phil: Do you have an e-mail address that is analbastard@[redacted].com? 
 
Jeremy: Yeah, I do


I'm sorry, but this is an incredible lack of logic. Are the Dr. Phil audience this stupid?

OK. "do you have access to a computer" "Yes." Aha! That proves it. He has access to a computer! (So does practically every American....so what?)

"Is your screen name analbastard" "Yes". As they say, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?
So he's guilty of trying to beat the test because he has a nasty email address screen name? (Note that the screen name was not "love_little_girls'_privates".

The logical deduction is loose and misleading.


This demonstrates the gullability of the American public and the power of the media. I am interested what will happen on today's show.
 
  Top