Batman,
You write:
Quote:Are you Joseph by proxy or what? Let the guy have some air time will ya!
My critique of your analysis does not deny any "air time" to Joseph. But it seems to upset you.
Quote:I don't know what you want me to respond to.
Honest?
Quote:I have come to my conclusions, whether you believe them to be right or wrong is of no consequence.
Perhaps.
Quote:Regardless, there is no way I would be able to convince you...
The only person you can truly know will not be convinced by rational argument is yourself, Batman.
Quote:...so I will simply state again, I believe Joseph did what his 16 year old neighbor accused him of, if not more. This is based on a variety of factors. He did not deny it in either of his posts (someone saying he was "telling the truth during the entire exam" is not a denial when he doesn't tell us exactly what he was asked during the exam), he failed a polygraph (even though we all know that doesn't count for anything), he confessed to it (but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired), and he failed a CVSA (for what that may or not be worth), but to his credit, he did not specify as to what issue he actually failed that particular test on, even though I suspect it pertained to the neighbor's allegation.
Joseph very clearly denied his then 16-year-old neighbor's accusation in his first post, multiple times, as I pointed out in my first reply to you. It's true that he did not explicitly state, "I did not fondle my 16-year-old neighbor's breasts," but he did state the following:
- "A criminal investigation was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's Department (I lived in a county area at the time) and I was cleared completely. I had proof that she was lying."
- "I was telling the entire truth during the exam." (The matter under investigation in the LAPD IAD polygraph exam was the neighbor's allegations.)
- "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner." (Again, this sentence admittedly contains a grammatical error, but the intent seems to have been, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, nor had I touched her in any other sexual or inappropriate manner.")
These statements substantively amount to a denial of the neighbor's accusation. But you seemingly disregard all this because Joseph did not explicitly state "I didn't do it." Your thinking in this regard seems to be heavily influenced by the doctrines of Avinoam Sapir of the
Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. As I recall (I took his "Scientific Content Analysis," or "SCAN" course in the mid-1980s), one of the cornerstones of his technique was to "scan" a suspect's statement for an explicit "I didn't do it" statement, and that the absence of such a statement was an indication of guilt.
It should be borne in mind, however, that Sapir's methodology (like CQT polygraphy) has no grounding in the scientific method. It's codified conjecture (some of it admittedly plausible) masquerading as "science." A second point that should perhaps be borne in mind is that Sapir's statement analysis methodology is centered on suspects (or potential suspects) who have been asked to "tell their story" to investigators. Joseph wrote his statement under a different set of circumstances. He didn't write this statement to give his side of the story to investigators who may have suspected him of a crime. Everything he wrote was prefatory to his question about how it is that he failed a CVSA "test" even though he was totally honest and did not employ countermeasures (a question I have not yet addressed).
You cite Joseph's failure of a polygraph "test" as a reason for not believing him, parenthetically adding, "even though we all know that doesn't count for anything." Well, obviously, his having "failed" a polygraph "test"
does mean something to
you, Batman. Why else would you cite it as a reason for not believing Joseph?
You note that Joseph confessed to the neighbor's accusation. Here at last is a plausible reason for doubting his denial. But you flippantly add, "but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired." I suggest that Joseph's explanation of how he was induced to make a false confession is entirely plausible, and consistent with experience in other cases, like that of Abdallah Higazy. (On the subject of false confessions, see Peter Brooks' op-ed piece
"The Truth About Confessions" in today's (1 Sep. 2002)
New York Times.) You also cite as a reason for doubting Joseph's veracity his failure of a CVSA "test." But failing (or passing) a CVSA "test" is evidence of absolutely nothing, and your citing this as a reason for disbelieving Joseph speaks more to your ignorance than to Joseph's truthfulness or lack thereof.
CVSA "testing" is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever. Like CQT polygraphy,
it's a fraud. Some anecdotal evidence that may nonetheless be of interest: I had the opportunity earlier this year to experiment with a CVSA laptop computer. I simply uttered the word "No" into the microphone without any question being asked. I was under no stress whatsoever. But about 1/3 of the time, the CVSA software indicated stress (and hence deception) in my voice.
You also write:
Quote:Why do you believe he didn't do it? What do you base that conclusion on?
I have not said that I believe he didn't do it. My point to you was that your conclusion that he did goes well beyond the evidence of his statement.
However, I do find that Joseph's account is completely plausible. His civil reply to your venomous and ill-reasoned accusations adds to his credibility, in my opinion.
Quote: You mention the possibility of his "leaving open the possibility he touched his neighbor's breasts...". What do you mean by this?
If you understood what the past perfect tense is, you would not have asked this question. What I meant was this: Joseph wrote in his first post, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts..." If this is true, it still leaves open the possiblity that he had touched his neighbor's breasts at some point in time
after the polygraph examination. Get it? Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, there is no rational basis for assuming this post-examination touching of breasts to have occurred.
Quote:Do you believe him or not?
I see no compelling reason not to. Of course, it's possible he has not told the truth here, but your ill-reasoned "statement analysis" is not convincing.
Quote:I would think you would get a little sore by constantly riding that fence. Personally I think you don't believe him, you're just afraid to say it. Well, I'm not. Joseph did what was alleged by his neighbor, if not more.
Perhaps I'm just more reluctant to label people as liars based on the scantest of evidence (or no evidence at all) than you are, Batman.