- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by darlene hill
- Feb 11, 2011, 09:06 AMit is all about clarity of facts and figures...
Nazario is charged with Eight Killings... what is the official court version on this...
War is such an ugly thing...no framework...no rules....no mercy.. :-?
i am still not satisfied with the facts and figures...you know the thing is there are two lobbies working for and against...
for some one he is a hero and for other he is a killer...
we talked much on that..only objective neutral discussion can lead us to the result..
I am not surprised by the news that he passed LAPD tests and all...
until i fetch enough clues against him... :-/
____________________
Life is a bubble marine directory ....
Nazario is charged with Eight Killings... what is the official court version on this...
War is such an ugly thing...no framework...no rules....no mercy.. :-?
i am still not satisfied with the facts and figures...you know the thing is there are two lobbies working for and against...
for some one he is a hero and for other he is a killer...
we talked much on that..only objective neutral discussion can lead us to the result..
I am not surprised by the news that he passed LAPD tests and all...
until i fetch enough clues against him... :-/
____________________
Life is a bubble marine directory ....
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 06, 2008, 11:06 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 09:35 PMQuoteYou so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
Would this be the same loyalty or different loyalty than they exhibited when they gave their formal statements to investigators or as you put it ratted him out the first time?
What I can't understand is how YOU of all people can't seem to accept either the possibility or the verdict that Nazario is innocent when there is so much more corroberation that he is innocent of the accusations against him than currently exists that you are innocent of the accusations against you.
Sancho Panza
Sancho same ol' Sancho.
I was not making a statement accusing Nazario of anything, only that Polygraph well........... Do I really need to say it again?
OK.... Polygraph detects nothing more than a nervous reaction to a stimulus may it be the actual question that one is nervous about, ( not necessarily lying) or..... holding back a fart.
I know cause I failed mine even though I was completely honest.
Why? I don't know I was told the "test" was practicaly infallible
If Nazario was acquitted with due process, then I am satisfied.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 06, 2008, 10:14 PMIt would seem that the recording of Nazario's own admission regarding the ordering of the killings is sufficient evidence that he ordered the killings. Verdicts often have little to do with guilt or innocence, and often have much more to do with the skill of the opposing attorneys and the selection of the jury. The fact that a person was found guilty or not guilty in a trial is hardly proof positive that they did or did not commit the crime of which they were accused.
It seems unlikely an NCO would be under the impression that executing prisoners because it would be inconvenient to process them is legal. So, the idea that maybe he didn't consider the execution of prisoners a crime seems unreasonable.
It is reasonable to believe that Nazario, like most other law enforcement applicants, was asked some version of a question regarding any undisclosed crimes he may have committed in the past. Neither the polygraph nor its operator was able to discern that Nazario, by his own recorded admission, did indeed have extremely serious undisclosed crimes in his past.
I don't see how the pre-employment performance of the polygraph and its operator could be considered anything less than a failure in this instance.
It seems unlikely an NCO would be under the impression that executing prisoners because it would be inconvenient to process them is legal. So, the idea that maybe he didn't consider the execution of prisoners a crime seems unreasonable.
It is reasonable to believe that Nazario, like most other law enforcement applicants, was asked some version of a question regarding any undisclosed crimes he may have committed in the past. Neither the polygraph nor its operator was able to discern that Nazario, by his own recorded admission, did indeed have extremely serious undisclosed crimes in his past.
I don't see how the pre-employment performance of the polygraph and its operator could be considered anything less than a failure in this instance.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 09:35 PMQuoteYou so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
Would this be the same loyalty or different loyalty than they exhibited when they gave their formal statements to investigators or as you put it ratted him out the first time?
What I can't understand is how YOU of all people can't seem to accept either the possibility or the verdict that Nazario is innocent when there is so much more corroberation that he is innocent of the accusations against him than currently exists that you are innocent of the accusations against you.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 06, 2008, 09:18 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:36 PMNotguilty1 Where exactly is the "twist" in those six statements?
Sancho Panza
If you cannot read my post responding to that it's OK the rest of us can.
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 06, 2008, 09:14 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:31 PMDr. Maschke the implication of Nazario's squadmates invoking the 5th amendment is quite clear.
They were offerred immunity from charges pertaining to any criminal acts they may have committed during the alleged murder of prisoners that was the subject of Nazario's trial. Basically they could have admitted to committing or participating in murder and they could not be charged.
On they other hand the offer of immunity did not extend to any perjury committed during the trial. In other words the only thing that a 5th amendment assertion could protect them from once immunity was offered was a charge of perjured testimony. The clear implication is that they invoked their 5th amendment rights to avoid a charge of perjury stemming from either their sworn statements or the testimony that the prosecution expected them to present.
Sancho Panza
You so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
If you were in a field that respects loyalty to one and other you would.
Without their testimony .... no case....
Does not equal .... Ploygraph worked!
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:36 PMNotguilty1 Where exactly is the "twist" in those six statements?
Sancho Panza
Sancho Panza
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:31 PMDr. Maschke the implication of Nazario's squadmates invoking the 5th amendment is quite clear.
They were offerred immunity from charges pertaining to any criminal acts they may have committed during the alleged murder of prisoners that was the subject of Nazario's trial. Basically they could have admitted to committing or participating in murder and they could not be charged.
On they other hand the offer of immunity did not extend to any perjury committed during the trial. In other words the only thing that a 5th amendment assertion could protect them from once immunity was offered was a charge of perjured testimony. The clear implication is that they invoked their 5th amendment rights to avoid a charge of perjury stemming from either their sworn statements or the testimony that the prosecution expected them to present.
Sancho Panza
They were offerred immunity from charges pertaining to any criminal acts they may have committed during the alleged murder of prisoners that was the subject of Nazario's trial. Basically they could have admitted to committing or participating in murder and they could not be charged.
On they other hand the offer of immunity did not extend to any perjury committed during the trial. In other words the only thing that a 5th amendment assertion could protect them from once immunity was offered was a charge of perjured testimony. The clear implication is that they invoked their 5th amendment rights to avoid a charge of perjury stemming from either their sworn statements or the testimony that the prosecution expected them to present.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:29 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:10 PMQuoteFirst of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
OK let's see if I follow your "reasoning" here.
1. Nazario denies committing a crime. Either because he didn't do it or because he doesn't believe it was a crime.
2. He did not show deception on the polygraph at the question about whether he committed an undisclosed serious crime.
3. The trial court acquits him of committing a crime, i.e. says he didn't do it.
4 The findings of the court corroberate both his denial and his polygraph results.
5. You conclude a likelyhood that he passed his test because he didn't believe his actions were a crime based on your own pure supposition. BTW In order for this to be correct, he would not only have to believe that it wasn't a crime, he would have to believe that no-one else would believe it a serious crime either.
6. According to your logic, all of this agreement and corroberation somehow proves polygraph doesn't work.
I guess you think nothing is quite as deceptive as the obvious.
I think you are sliding down Occam's razor into a pan of alcohol.
Sancho Panza
As usual you twist things to favor your supposition that Polygraph does anything that Poligraphers and the APA claim it does.
Don't put words in my mouth.
If the question was as you mentioned. "Have you ever committed a undisclosed serious crime" either the question or the very accusation may or may not elicit a nervous response. SO, if Nazario did in-fact feel comfortable with his actions he would NOT have a measurable response on the chart.
And Sanho it is not necessary that he believe that anyone else thought it was a crime. All Ploygraph needs is a reaction to the situation. Can you say Gary Ridgeway?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:10 PMQuoteFirst of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
OK let's see if I follow your "reasoning" here.
1. Nazario denies committing a crime. Either because he didn't do it or because he doesn't believe it was a crime.
2. He did not show deception on the polygraph at the question about whether he committed an undisclosed serious crime.
3. The trial court acquits him of committing a crime, i.e. says he didn't do it.
4 The findings of the court corroberate both his denial and his polygraph results.
5. You conclude a likelyhood that he passed his test because he didn't believe his actions were a crime based on your own pure supposition. BTW In order for this to be correct, he would not only have to believe that it wasn't a crime, he would have to believe that no-one else would believe it a serious crime either.
6. According to your logic, all of this agreement and corroberation somehow proves polygraph doesn't work.
I guess you think nothing is quite as deceptive as the obvious.
I think you are sliding down Occam's razor into a pan of alcohol.
Sancho Panza
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 06, 2008, 07:30 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 05, 2008, 04:58 PMHmmm let's see here. Nazario Passed his police polygraph which included the question "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Then low and behold he was acquitted in Federal Court for the crimes charged?
I guess that would be one more piece anecdotal evidence that polygraph works.
Another case showing more proof that polygraph works; than Dr. Maschke or notguilty1 have that their own polygraphs were wrong.
Gee, I'll bet if he had been convicted George and all of his disciples would be here posting today. Thumping their collective chest and declaring polygraph a failure. I guess you guys are just gonna lose this one quietly, huh?
Sancho Panza
OK mr. Panza here arises the need to educate you, again.
First of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
Which shows the weakness of your machine to detect anything but an unreliable nervous reaction to a stimulus not necessarily due to deception .
If Nazario felt that his actions did not constitute a crime he would have no reaction to the question or the situation.
Also, I would bet that the fact that he passed that Polygraph was not even entered in evidence.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 06, 2008, 08:48 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 06, 2008, 07:49 AMQuoteI don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.As a matter of law, Nazario was innocent before he went to trial and his trial failed to overcome argument to the contrary. There is nothing left to assume. Why don't you write the jurors and tell THEM that their conclusions are unreasonable.
I'm not arguing that the jurors' verdict was unreasonable based on the evidence with which they were presented. My point is that it is not reasonable to assume, as you seem to have done above, that acquittal at trial is proof of actual innocence. Cf. People v. Orenthal James Simpson.
QuoteI think it is implicative that his squadmates still refused to testify after being granted immunity for everything except perjury.
I think it is implicative of something, too. But perhaps something other than what you have in mind.
QuoteI'm sorry Dr. Maschke while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, whether supported by information or fantasy, as to whether or not he committed the crimes with which he was charged; branding him guilty solely to support your opinion regarding is polygraph is improper argument and you know it. The court's finding clearly supports the results of his polygraph. What do you have to support your claims about yours?
I have not branded José Nazario as guilty. Had I served on his jury, based on the evidence admitted at trial, I might have agreed with the other jurors that his guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, it appears to me that there is reason to doubt his actual innocence.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Sep 06, 2008, 07:49 AMQuoteI don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.As a matter of law, Nazario was innocent before he went to trial and his trial failed to overcome argument to the contrary. There is nothing left to assume. Why don't you write the jurors and tell THEM that their conclusions are unreasonable. I think it is implicative that his squadmates still refused to testify after being granted immunity for everything except perjury.
I'm sorry Dr. Maschke while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, whether supported by information or fantasy, as to whether or not he committed the crimes with which he was charged; branding him guilty solely to support your opinion regarding is polygraph is improper argument and you know it. The court's finding clearly supports the results of his polygraph. What do you have to support your claims about yours?
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 06, 2008, 01:56 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 05, 2008, 04:58 PMHmmm let's see here. Nazario Passed his police polygraph which included the question "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Then low and behold he was acquitted in Federal Court for the crimes charged?
I guess that would be one more piece anecdotal evidence that polygraph works.
Another case showing more proof that polygraph works; than Dr. Maschke or notguilty1 have that their own polygraphs were wrong.
Gee, I'll bet if he had been convicted George and all of his disciples would be here posting today. Thumping their collective chest and declaring polygraph a failure. I guess you guys are just gonna lose this one quietly, huh?
Sancho Panza
I don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged. Nazario admitted to ordering the extrajudicial killing of prisoners -- a war crime -- in a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation. Los Angeles Times staff writer Tony Perry reports ("Ex-Marine's case goes to Riverside County jurors," 28 August 2008):
QuoteAs their final piece of evidence, prosecutors played the recording of a phone call between Nazario and Sgt. Jermaine Nelson, one of two Marines in Nazario's squad facing charges at Camp Pendleton.
During the call, recorded at the request of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Nelson sought to get Nazario to incriminate himself.
On the tape, Nelson, using a derogatory word for the Iraqis, asked Nazario who gave the order to kill the prisoners. Nazario replied, "I did."
He then told Nelson they had no time to process the Iraqis as prisoners because "we were moving."
"What we did wasn't illegal. . . ," Nazario said. "You can't play Monday-morning quarterback."
In addition, two key witnesses, Nazario's squad mates, the aforementioned Jermaine Nelson and Ryan Weemer, whose admissions during a Secret Service pre-employment polygraph examination initiated the investigation, refused to testify at trial. L.A. Times reporter Tony Perry writes:
QuoteIn interviews before they retained counsel, [Nelson and Weemer] said that, upon orders from Nazario, they each killed a prisoner and that Nazario killed two.
Posted by all4Justice
- Sep 05, 2008, 06:13 PMGentlemen: There is a middle-road position on this: To wit: Polygraph examination is NOT an exact science. Secondly, a clear conscience cannot be registered by a machine. And lastly, if anyone thinks they have to 'beat' the examination, there should be no question as to the character of the person being examined. Lying is what it is. There are two examples through both an old Indian saying as well as the Bible:
First: "A clouded mind cannot see". The Bible: "As a man thinks, so is he".
Lastly, Killed 8 people and passed the Polygraph? Now that is a prime example of a person with a 'seared' conscience. But don't worry, because there is no greater lie detector than God almighty when He said: "And the hidden things shall be made known". He's not going to get away with anything.
Stay friends!
First: "A clouded mind cannot see". The Bible: "As a man thinks, so is he".
Lastly, Killed 8 people and passed the Polygraph? Now that is a prime example of a person with a 'seared' conscience. But don't worry, because there is no greater lie detector than God almighty when He said: "And the hidden things shall be made known". He's not going to get away with anything.
Stay friends!