Ex-Marine & Cop Jose Nazario, Charged with Eight Killings, Passed LAPD & Riverside P.D. Pre-Employment Polygraph Examinations

[notguilty1]

Hmmm 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? .  Could it be he was telling the truth on his polygraph?

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.

[SanchoPanza]

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.

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

[notguilty1]

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.

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?

[SanchoPanza]

Dr. 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

[SanchoPanza]

Notguilty1  Where exactly is the "twist" in those six statements?

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Dr. 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!

[notguilty1]

Notguilty1  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.

[SanchoPanza]

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?

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

[Sergeant1107]

It 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.

[notguilty1]

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?

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.

[darlene hill]

it 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 ....