Kavanaugh sexual misconduct in High School

[Strike 4,000]

Took a little digging around but the figures I keep seeing are around 80-90% accuracy. Heres one link:

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lie-detector-tests-tell-truth-29637.html

 

Probably worth noting that polygraphs are usually not admissible in court but theyre still used by probation officers. Its not a parlor trick.

 

I have no idea the credibility of that site or the writer. They don't link to any of the "studies" they reference. If that's the best you got it's not adequate.

 

And I don't care of PO's use lie detector tests. So do cops. And I would refuse either if they requested I take one.

[MDC 5,910]

 

I have no idea the credibility of that site or the writer. They don't link to any of the "studies" they reference. If that's the best you got it's not adequate.

 

And I don't care of PO's use lie detector tests. So do cops. And I would refuse either if they requested I take one.

You are welcome to use the Google box. There are a bunch of sites that say 80-90%.

 

I would refuse one too. But we both know in my scenario, if Ford passed and Kav failed he almost certainly did it.

[KSB2424 3,085]

MDC lets talk about probablity.

 

• Person A passes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct
• Person B failes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct.
• That means that we just went from a he said - she said of 50/50 to a he said - she said of 64/36. (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64)

64% is hardly convincing. It's why lawyers rarely advise clients to take one and they are hardly ever admissible as evidence.

 

It's why testimony from other witnesses, evidence, etc is far more relevant. In the real world, not on TV Drama's.

 

But carry on.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Took a little digging around but the figures I keep seeing are around 80-90% accuracy. Heres one link:

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lie-detector-tests-tell-truth-29637.html

 

Probably worth noting that polygraphs are usually not admissible in court but theyre still used by probation officers. Its not a parlor trick.

In this article:

 

"The courts in most jurisdictions doubt the reliability of lie detector tests and refuse to admit the results into evidence."

 

Gee, I wonder why?

[Strike 4,000]

 

 

I believe it is mostly because it is highly dependent on the administration of the test... not the mechanics of the test.

 

I do not know that for sure

 

That may be part of it. It also may have to do with the FACT that polygraphs can be cheated. So, someone who has mastered that skill would beat the polygraph 100% of the time. You can't have a test that is not that hard to manipulate and call it good scientific evidence. If these things were ever used in a widespread fashion IMO the numbers MDC is claiming would go down significantly because people would start training to beat it.

[seafoam1 1,879]

 

That may be part of it. It also may have to do with the FACT that polygraphs can be cheated. So, someone who has mastered that skill would beat the polygraph 100% of the time. You can't have a test that is not that hard to manipulate and call it good scientific evidence. If these things were ever used in a widespread fashion IMO the numbers MDC is claiming would go down significantly because people would start training to beat it.

Not to mention some of the most crazy serial killers don't show emotion the same way normal folks do. You wouldn't want to miss on those nut cases so you can increase convictions on shoplifters. Plus, some people just get nervous if cops show up at their door even without being guilty of anything.

[RLLD 3,455]

Polygraphs can be defeated, but a skilled tester can noodle out someone trying to confound it.

 

Witness and victim testimony from memory is not enough. There is no empirical data that proves women who claim to have been assaulted tell the truth more often than their male counterparts denying the act. The US National Research Foundation discovered that "unknown to the individual memories are forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and distorted.

 

Loftus has proven that relying on memory is too uncertain to allow it to be definitive in any way https://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

 

The fact is that one can convince themselves, remarkably easily, that something is true, and then run with it, and fool a polygraph.

[Bill E. 666]

MDC lets talk about probablity.

 

• Person A passes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct
• Person B failes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct.
• That means that we just went from a he said - she said of 50/50 to a he said - she said of 64/36. (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64)

64% is hardly convincing. It's why lawyers rarely advise clients to take one and they are hardly ever admissible as evidence.

 

It's why testimony from other witnesses, evidence, etc is far more relevant. In the real world, not on TV Drama's.

 

But carry on.

I am 100% for Kav but your math is off

In statistics there are 4 possibilities. AB are correct, A correct B incorrect, B correct A incorrect and both incorrect.

 

If you assume 80% accuracy, like you said the chances are 64% they are both correct. But there is a 16% each that one is correct and the other is incorrect for 32% . the chance that they both take the test and both are wrong is only 4%. But like others have said the questions and what the interviewer is trying to get to mean a lot.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,732]

It's said you can alter a polygraph if you tighten your sphincter. MDC would have difficulty using that trick from all the pegging his provider does to him.

[MDC 5,910]

MDC lets talk about probablity.

 

• Person A passes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct
• Person B failes a poly and that poly is 80% of the time correct.
• That means that we just went from a he said - she said of 50/50 to a he said - she said of 64/36. (0.8 * 0.8 = 0.64)

64% is hardly convincing. It's why lawyers rarely advise clients to take one and they are hardly ever admissible as evidence.

 

It's why testimony from other witnesses, evidence, etc is far more relevant. In the real world, not on TV Drama's.

 

But carry on.

I think your math is off. Lets say the odds of a polygraph supporting a lie or falsely indicating that someone telling the truth is lying are each around 20%. The likelihood of BOTH of these things happening would be significantly lower than 20%.

 

I havent taken statistics in years so its probable in the ass hole here. Im not saying it should be admissible in court.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,732]

Didn't one of the child rapists that Hillary defended beat a poly butvwas actually guilty? Is that the one she was laughing about?

[MDC 5,910]

I am 100% for Kav but your math is off

In statistics there are 4 possibilities. AB are correct, A correct B incorrect, B correct A incorrect and both incorrect.

 

Like you said the chances are 64% they are both correct. But there is a 16% each that one is correct and the other is incorrect for 32% . the chance that they both take the test and both are wrong is only 4%. But like others have said the questions and what the interviewer is trying to get to mean a lot.

Exactly.

[RLLD 3,455]

I really wish Cornyn would have turned to Feinstein and said "I really think you released the memo, because I think it, the FBI should investigate you.....that's fair......right?"

[KSB2424 3,085]

I am 100% for Kav but your math is off

In statistics there are 4 possibilities. AB are correct, A correct B incorrect, B correct A incorrect and both incorrect.

 

If you assume 80% accuracy, like you said the chances are 64% they are both correct. But there is a 16% each that one is correct and the other is incorrect for 32% . the chance that they both take the test and both are wrong is only 4%. But like others have said the questions and what the interviewer is trying to get to mean a lot.

 

How is my math off? The only way you can make an argument for two polygraph tests being a determinant of truth is if BOTH are correct. I said there was a 64% chance that BOTH people's test were correct. Which is the only outcome to make a truthful determination.

 

If either is correct but the other incorrect; or if both incorrect the whole thing is invalid anyway.

[SenatorRock 708]

Let's cut the she is credible talk, that is just is trying to be nice to her because she has a vagina.

 

She lied about not flying

 

She lied about giving her notes from the therapist to the press.

 

She has no idea when she took her polygraph.

 

She has no idea who paid for the polygraph.

 

She has no idea the names of the people who she talked to on the beach in July who told her to go public.

 

She had no idea what the term exculpatory meant, despite having a PhD and 2 top notch Dem lawyers at her side.

 

 

And that is all in the last 90 days.

 

 

Going back further:

 

She never told her therapist that it was Kavanaugh.

 

She never told her husband it was Kavanaugh.

 

She told her therapist there were 4 guys in the room.

 

She doesn't remember how she got to the house.

 

She doesn't remember how she got home.

 

She doesn't remember where the house was.

 

She doesn't remember when it happened.

 

She claims she was just about to be raped and murdered yet she left her best friend at the house.

 

She admits to attending half a dozen parties with Kavanaugh in attendance over the course of the summer.

 

 

 

She was hopped up on benzos yesterday.

 

She altered her speech to sound like a child and more innocent. (Valley girl uptalk)

 

She played dumb, really focking dumb, like how can a woman those dumb have a PhD and be a professor.

 

She deleted her entire social media footprint.

 

Her school deleted the yearbook pages showing her and her friends drinking and chasing cack.

 

 

Oh, and I forgot, the 3 people she named as witnesses have all not corroborated her story. None of them. Not even her best friend. Who she threw under the bus in the hearing by saying "well, she has some serious medical issues right now". What a focking count.

 

 

I want to be sympathetic towards here because I am human, it is instinct to care for the wounded.

 

But lookong back at the entire picture, there is a 99% chance she is full of .

 

 

Now that Flake cucked and the FBI is investigating o hope that lock the biotch up for false accusations.

[12th Man 884]

Clown show. Dems needed to get light of the FISA DECLAS. The country fell for it.

[SenatorRock 708]

She is not credible, but that doesn't mean that she's not 'telling the truth'. I believe this woman has been abused - and not just once, and not just sexually. More on that in a minute.

 

A George Constanza line comes to mind: "it's not a lie if you believe it". I think that captures this dizzy broad's persona. Asserting that YOU believe Kavanaugh "has the most to gain by lying" is a false dilemma you arrange to try to add credibility to your position. Clearly, the political stakes are enormous on both sides, and - as such - the GOP would have required stringent background checks on their applicant to be willing to risk putting up a nominee in such a politically charged climate.

 

Likewise, the Dems have ON RECORD said that they will do "everything possible" to #resist - and this is evidence that they've been following through on their promise. Just the complex ties this woman has to various big Dem players intimately involved in this scene should raise suspicion - and it does...to those open to the consideration.

 

But what really clinched it for me is a laundry list of inconsistencies. In no particular order, and taking into consideration the reality that many of the abused do not report abuse, what matters here is the nature of how THIS allegation came to light, and the circumstances subsequent::

 

- she chose to make her allegation political, INSTEAD of making it about justice. To this day, no charges have been filed in order for Maryland authorities - the proper jurisdiction - to look into the claims. There is no statute of limitations on a charge leveled of sexual impropriety, if the specifics of the claim are severe enough. The FBI has no jurisdiction, and the FBI has repeatedly explained it. The only reason that the FBI had purview in Hill/Thomas incident is because it took place on federal property, between federal employees.

 

- she still refuses to share her therapy notes

 

- the nature of the polygraph: questions asked/details have not been disclosed; have been intentionally manipulated with a narrative that begs an appeal to authority which doesn't exist.

 

- she named people she believed would corroborate her claims. None of them did; the best any of them (one of them) did is say "they believe her".

 

- her side/her have been caught lying. When Grassley/Graham offered to go to HER to get her testimony, she didn't appear to even KNOW that the offer was made. That means that she was heavily 'handled', and not at ALL in control. They claimed she was in California at the time, events revealed subsequently demonstrated that she was actually in Delaware, and fully able to make the time frame that was initially offered. She claimed that she was afraid of flying, yet she was flying all over the country before and during this circus.

 

- she was handled even in the hearing; bracketed by two supposedly pro-bono attorneys - one of which had an envelope (one of two in her hands) by Sheila Jackson-Lee. Pro-bono?

 

- Her own mannerisms belied the fabrications layered on top of vague truths. She pivoted immediately from little-girl/weepy voice during her read testimony to bright/sunny "I got my coffee" voice in literally 5 seconds. That indicates intentionally contrived emotion. In addition, she looked like a spastic pigeon when arriving in the hearing room; rapid/quick head movements indicate intent to lie. As does protecting vulnerable parts of her body - in her case, her neck - while testifying. She pressed her chin into her neck and lowered her head, looking up each and every time she touched upon the claim that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her: a clear physical cue belying honesty. https://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs-someone-is-lying-2014-4

 

- She swung from use of complex terms and words to claiming she didn't understand even the simplest words and terms. This too was manipulative nonsense.

 

- her social media/HS history was scrubbed from the 'net before she was put before the public.

 

We cannot allow legally unenforceable claims to disqualify someone, and ruin their lives. If we do, we have put 'beliefs' ahead of the presumption of innocence.

 

And that is the end of civility and rule of law.

 

The Democrats have been rebuffed by the American public. Make no mistake: if the US believed that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist, he wouldn't be getting this confirmation.

 

The American public has concluded that Blasey-Ford is ill/confused - but is manifesting a Constanza - and they are also likewise suspicious that the Dems orchestrated the use of this woman as a means to an end; to #resist in every way they possibly could to take down Kavanaugh.

 

They've failed, and they've used every ounce of their political capital in the process. They are going to be crushed in November.

Wow.

 

You should post more often.

[SenatorRock 708]

 

Of course it doesn't. That would make too much sense and be too convenient. Let's all speculate based on our own bias, instead of using the results of a test that are generally very accurate and require quite a bit of training and know with all to trick.

 

"law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses & the tests serve law enforcement purposes. - BK

Since you admittedly don't follow any of this...

 

She stated the polygraph occured right after flying (which allegedly terrifies her) and the day of her grandmother's funeral. And that the was crying nonstop during the polygraph.

 

 

Do you think under those conditions (assuming she is telling the truth) any results would be accurate?

 

Do you think the polygraph administrator would even give a test under those circumstances?

 

(Answer is no)

[posty 2,296]

She is not credible, but that doesn't mean that she's not 'telling the truth'. I believe this woman has been abused - and not just once, and not just sexually. More on that in a minute.

 

A George Constanza line comes to mind: "it's not a lie if you believe it". I think that captures this dizzy broad's persona. Asserting that YOU believe Kavanaugh "has the most to gain by lying" is a false dilemma you arrange to try to add credibility to your position. Clearly, the political stakes are enormous on both sides, and - as such - the GOP would have required stringent background checks on their applicant to be willing to risk putting up a nominee in such a politically charged climate.

 

Likewise, the Dems have ON RECORD said that they will do "everything possible" to #resist - and this is evidence that they've been following through on their promise. Just the complex ties this woman has to various big Dem players intimately involved in this scene should raise suspicion - and it does...to those open to the consideration.

 

But what really clinched it for me is a laundry list of inconsistencies. In no particular order, and taking into consideration the reality that many of the abused do not report abuse, what matters here is the nature of how THIS allegation came to light, and the circumstances subsequent::

 

- she chose to make her allegation political, INSTEAD of making it about justice. To this day, no charges have been filed in order for Maryland authorities - the proper jurisdiction - to look into the claims. There is no statute of limitations on a charge leveled of sexual impropriety, if the specifics of the claim are severe enough. The FBI has no jurisdiction, and the FBI has repeatedly explained it. The only reason that the FBI had purview in Hill/Thomas incident is because it took place on federal property, between federal employees.

 

- she still refuses to share her therapy notes

 

- the nature of the polygraph: questions asked/details have not been disclosed; have been intentionally manipulated with a narrative that begs an appeal to authority which doesn't exist.

 

- she named people she believed would corroborate her claims. None of them did; the best any of them (one of them) did is say "they believe her".

 

- her side/her have been caught lying. When Grassley/Graham offered to go to HER to get her testimony, she didn't appear to even KNOW that the offer was made. That means that she was heavily 'handled', and not at ALL in control. They claimed she was in California at the time, events revealed subsequently demonstrated that she was actually in Delaware, and fully able to make the time frame that was initially offered. She claimed that she was afraid of flying, yet she was flying all over the country before and during this circus.

 

- she was handled even in the hearing; bracketed by two supposedly pro-bono attorneys - one of which had an envelope (one of two in her hands) by Sheila Jackson-Lee. Pro-bono?

 

- Her own mannerisms belied the fabrications layered on top of vague truths. She pivoted immediately from little-girl/weepy voice during her read testimony to bright/sunny "I got my coffee" voice in literally 5 seconds. That indicates intentionally contrived emotion. In addition, she looked like a spastic pigeon when arriving in the hearing room; rapid/quick head movements indicate intent to lie. As does protecting vulnerable parts of her body - in her case, her neck - while testifying. She pressed her chin into her neck and lowered her head, looking up each and every time she touched upon the claim that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her: a clear physical cue belying honesty. https://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs-someone-is-lying-2014-4

 

- She swung from use of complex terms and words to claiming she didn't understand even the simplest words and terms. This too was manipulative nonsense.

 

- her social media/HS history was scrubbed from the 'net before she was put before the public.

 

We cannot allow legally unenforceable claims to disqualify someone, and ruin their lives. If we do, we have put 'beliefs' ahead of the presumption of innocence.

 

And that is the end of civility and rule of law.

 

The Democrats have been rebuffed by the American public. Make no mistake: if the US believed that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist, he wouldn't be getting this confirmation.

 

The American public has concluded that Blasey-Ford is ill/confused - but is manifesting a Constanza - and they are also likewise suspicious that the Dems orchestrated the use of this woman as a means to an end; to #resist in every way they possibly could to take down Kavanaugh.

 

They've failed, and they've used every ounce of their political capital in the process. They are going to be crushed in November.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yes the word credible has been tossed around a lot by those playing the delay/defame game.

 

What ounce of credibility has she brought. Factually, scientifically.

 

Anything.

 

Someone?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,732]

Yes the word credible has been tossed around a lot by those playing the delay/defame game.

 

What ounce of credibility has she brought. Factually, scientifically.

 

Anything.

 

Someone?

Chelsea Handler and Ben Stiller say she is and that's good enough.

[avoiding injuries 1,226]

Is there a time limit on this investigation, or will it be multiple years like the FBIs other current investigation?

[drobeski 3,061]

Chelsea Handler and Ben Stiller say she is and that's good enough.

so has every leftist hack on this site and on the committee yesterday.

It's a nonsense buzzword that in no reasonable way applies to her of the evidence she's provided.

Credible is when even one of the witnesses that was supposedly at this supposed party where this supposed event happened.

None did, therefore she has no credibility whatsoever.

 

Pure nonsense

[RLLD 3,455]

Is there a time limit on this investigation, or will it be multiple years like the FBIs other current investigation?

 

I suspect the Dem's would love it to take until after the next election, assuming they win it...

[Djgb13 2,338]

Where has Slonuts been? Hes been awfully quiet here for a while

[drobeski 3,061]

Where has Slonuts been? Hes been awfully quiet here for a while

with the other girls,screaming at the sky

[wiffleball 4,652]

No. He's out of politics for good come January.

Yah, in my best Black woman voice:.mmmmmmmmHmmm mm.

 

Because everybody knows New Hampshire in March is absolutely a tourist Mecca.

-----------

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) took his boldest step yet in stoking speculation about his political future by traveling to New Hampshire to critique President Trump.

 

Flake, who is set to retire after one term in the Senate, spoke at a Politics and Eggs breakfast at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, a Granite State tradition that draws declared presidential contenders and those who at least want to be mentioned as possible candidates.

 

For now, it seems, Flake fits in the latter category.

 

It has not been in my plans to run for president, but I have not ruled it out, Flake said when asked by a member of the audience about a potential presidential campaign.

 

I hope that someone does run in the Republican primary, somebody to challenge the president, Flake added. I think that the Republicans want to be reminded what it means to be a traditional, decent Republican.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,732]

What's up with Arizona? Why so many a-holes??

[wiffleball 4,652]

Cheney: it's been pretty well confirmed that members of the Iraqi government and Osama bin Laden met in Europe prior to 911.

 

(We subsequently Goto bulshit War)

 

Meet the Press. Vice president Cheney you said months ago then it was pretty well confirmed that the Iraqis met with...

 

No I didn't.

 

mr. Vice President, we have you on digital tape. You said it on National Television.

 

No I didn't.

 

But...

 

Never said it.

 

----------------

 

Thank God he didn't lie about Saddam Hussein dry humping some Nut Job college professor.

[vuduchile 1,941]

On a side note, I was actually in Ocean City, MD and Rehoboth Beach during Kavanaghs Beach week in 1982.

 

I graduated HS in 82 and my friends and I went there for 10 days. We didnt call it Beach week like others are reporting in the press, but it was definitely a week long party.

 

We drank a lot, banged chicks, tried to bang more chicks, swam naked, walked the boardwalk, got in fights, ate crabs and got crabs.

 

Back then, the drinking age was 18 for beer and wine. It was short lived, as it changed later that year.

[wiffleball 4,652]

What's up with Arizona? Why so many a-holes??

Jerry's fan club.

[RLLD 3,455]

On a side note, I was actually in Ocean City, MD and Rehoboth Beach during Kavanaghs Beach week in 1982.

 

I graduated HS in 82 and my friends and I went there for 10 days. We didnt call it Beach week like others are reporting in the press, but it was definitely a week long party.

 

We drank a lot, banged chicks, tried to bang more chicks, swam naked, walked the boardwalk, got in fights, ate crabs and got crabs.

 

Back then, the drinking age was 18 for beer and wine. It was short lived, as it changed later that year.

 

We called it Senior week.....

[wiffleball 4,652]

 

We called it Senior week.....

because you hit the nursing homes with a box of wine and started sweating to the oldies?

[seafoam1 1,879]

 

We called it Senior week.....

We just called it Friday night.

[Fireballer 2,393]

I'm reminded of Casey Anthony who claimed that she was at work when her child disappeared. She went with a detective to her so-called job site. Talked her Way past security into the office around the office for an extended period of time and even when the supervisor said we have no record of this woman ever working here, she looked at him as if he had three heads.

 

Susan Smith? Crystal Mangum?

 

the capacity for women to talk themselves into their own lie such that they literally believe it to be so is continually motherfuking amazing to me.

I just attended a case study on this incident. Women are deviant whoores.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/03/16/she-set-fire-to-her-young-sons-beds-then-locked-the-door-and-left-them-to-die-police-say/

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,554]

We just called it Friday night.

We just called "yesterday".

[Mr. Hand 482]

Is there a time limit on this investigation, or will it be multiple years like the FBIs other current investigation?

One week but now Ford’s attorneys don’t want that and want a broader scope. Shocking.....however they have no control in this situation. They keep getting lower and lower.

[Fireballer 2,393]

Polygraphs really mean nothing. I took an interview and interrogation class from General Counsel of a very respected state police agency. The most effective part of the process is studying body language and neural linguistics if the person when you ask them to take it.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,554]

One week but now Fords attorneys dont want that and want a broader scope. Shocking.....however they have no control in this situation. They keep getting lower and lower.

Jeff flake is a f@cking traitor. And a puzzy.

 

Dems are going to use this to magically find other accusers.

 

So stupid to delay once again

[Djgb13 2,338]

###### Jeff flake is a f@cking traitor. And a puzzy.

 

Dems are going to use this to magically find other accusers.

 

So stupid to delay once again

Apparently a bunch of those feminist women cornered him and followed him in an elevator