Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / View New Posts (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board


Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

GAC Family Acquires Classic Sony Sitcoms; Remembering Betty Lynn from The Andy Griffith Show
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of October 18, 2021)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Could a Looming Strike Shut Down TV Production?; GAC Family Acquires Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, Silver Spoons, and More
Dickinson Final Season Date Announced; Superstar: Robin Williams to Air Next Week (Oct. 20)
Antenna TV's Bewitched 24-Hour Halloween Marathon; Rewind TV's Sabrina Witch-O-Ween Marathon
Head of the Class Reboot Premieres Nov. 4, Guest Stars Robin Givens; The Bear Coming to FX
CBS Picks Up First 2 New Series for Full Seasons; On My Block Spinoff Series Cast Set


New on DVD/Blu-ray (June-October)

Head of the Class - The Complete Third Season Family Ties - The Complete Series (2021 Release) Hot in Cleveland - The Complete Series (2021 Release) Young Sheldon - The Complete Fourth Season Maude - The Complete Series (2021 Release)

06/08 - The Critic - The Complete Series
06/08 - Fuller House - The Fifth and Final Season
06/08 - Fuller House - The Complete Series
06/08 - Our Cartoon President - Season 3
06/15 - The Office - Season 1 (Blu-ray) / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9
06/15 - Parks and Recreation - The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
07/07 - No Activity - Season 2
07/13 - The Unicorn - Season 2
07/20 - Head of the Class - The Complete Third Season
07/27 - Family Ties - The Complete Series (2021 Release)
07/27 - Hot in Cleveland - The Complete Series (2021 Release)
07/27 - The Neighborhood - Season Three
08/20 - The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet - Deluxe Edition (100 Episodes) (Time Life)
08/20 - The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet - Standard Edition (50 Episodes) (Time Life)
08/24 - The Jim Gaffigan Show - Season 2
09/07 - Young Sheldon - The Complete Fourth Season (Blu-ray)
10/19 - Maude - The Complete Series (2021 Release)
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-06-2011, 10:22 AM   #226
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
I'm sure Dixon was (possibly still is) considered a suspect by LE based off of the fact that he found the body and had access to Eric's house. This case seems like it's just missing that one crucial piece of evidence that would ultimately lead up to it being solved. Perhaps it's the murder weapon? And I don't care about the whole "polygraph is worthless/unreliable" argument...any innocent person will almost immediately agree to a polygraph since they have nothing to hide. If they're worried the test may show them lying there's probably a reason for that.
I don't know. To me it sounds like Sheriff Wampler doesn't care about this murder. Why in the world would you have someone who is not a police officer (Dixon) burn the victims bed? Wampler claims it was done so that the family did not have to see it. I don't mean to be cold but who cares. I'm sure the family would much rather have their loved ones murder solved and use the bed to find more direct evidence of the killer. Also, why have a friend burn the bed. If the whole reason you are burning the bed is to ease the pain of the family, then why have a supposed friend burn it when that person may be going through the same pain?? Maybe those rumors about Wampler's wife and Eric were true and he didn't care that Eric was murdered. Bottom line to me is that as Sherrif, you are in charge of the investigation and if nothing has been done in 10 years and you ordered the bed burned, it makes you look like you don't give a ***** about the case.

I agree with you about the polygraph. Also, I'd like to know why Dixon refused the polygraph offered to him by LE yet took one on his own dime and supposedly passed it? Can these results be verified?

The theory of Diana's ex boyfriend "Carter" killing Eric out of jealousy could have happened but the only one who has said this is mssamspede AKA Don Dixon.

In every theory that makes sense that points away from Dixon, I keep coming back to Dixon because of the way he acted. Why tell Eric's sister that there were no exit wounds? Why point the finger of blame at basically everyone else who lived in Hood River and knew Eric? Why give motives for said people? Why burn the bed when asked? Nothing he has done has made even 1% sense to me.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 10:56 AM   #227
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
I'm sure Dixon was (possibly still is) considered a suspect by LE based off of the fact that he found the body and had access to Eric's house. This case seems like it's just missing that one crucial piece of evidence that would ultimately lead up to it being solved. Perhaps it's the murder weapon? And I don't care about the whole "polygraph is worthless/unreliable" argument...any innocent person will almost immediately agree to a polygraph since they have nothing to hide. If they're worried the test may show them lying there's probably a reason for that.
Polygraphs are worthless as they provided no benefit to the people taking them and almost never detect true deception. An "innocent person" would be foolish to take a polygraph test, as it being inconclusive could be used w/ other information by lazy LE authorities to convict them of a crime.

Even if you are innocent, everybody has something that they want to hide. That something may not be illegal (it may only be immoral or embarrassing) but there's no reason that LE needs to know about it. It's very naive to subject yourself to LE questioning w/o having an attorney and then having the attorney instruct you which questions to answer and which to ignore.

Don Dixon was correct in refusing to take a polygraph. The fact that he later paid to take one himself is a sign to me that his mental state was/is extremely confused and that if he did commit the crime, he would probably be found incompetent to stand trial.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 11:49 AM   #228
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Polygraphs are worthless as they provided no benefit to the people taking them and almost never detect true deception. An "innocent person" would be foolish to take a polygraph test, as it being inconclusive could be used w/ other information by lazy LE authorities to convict them of a crime.
So when someone agrees to a polygraph and they pass and law enforcement no longer considers them suspects, how does that not benefit that person? An innocent person whose polygraph test was inconclusive would never be convicted on that alone. If you're innocent, there should be no "other information" that LE would drudge up, and it would be easy to be cleared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Even if you are innocent, everybody has something that they want to hide. That something may not be illegal (it may only be immoral or embarrassing) but there's no reason that LE needs to know about it. It's very naive to subject yourself to LE questioning w/o having an attorney and then having the attorney instruct you which questions to answer and which to ignore.
You have nothing to hide if you are a suspect in a murder and you didn't do it. How else would the line of questioning go? Q: Do you know who murdered Eric Tamiyasu? A: No. Q: Do you sometimes put on a diaper and pretend that you're a baby? There would be nothing embarassing exposed if you were truly innocent. They would question the crime itself, not anything from the suspects personal life. If you had nothing to hide, you would have no problem sharing with LE. An innocent person does not need an attorney if they haven't been charged with anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Don Dixon was correct in refusing to take a polygraph. The fact that he later paid to take one himself is a sign to me that his mental state was/is extremely confused and that if he did commit the crime, he would probably be found incompetent to stand trial.
Don Dixon has the right to refuse a polygraph. But don't you think law enforcement would investigate a suspect more thorough for the mere fac that they did refuse to take it? Obviously in their eyes he has something that he's hiding, and he then becomes even more of a person of interest in the case. And there is no proof that he ever took a polygraph test other than Dixon's own word.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:11 PM   #229
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
Don Dixon has the right to refuse a polygraph. But don't you think law enforcement would investigate a suspect more thorough for the mere fact that they did refuse to take it? Obviously in their eyes he has something that he's hiding, and he then becomes even more of a person of interest in the case. And there is no proof that he ever took a polygraph test other than Dixon's own word.
I agree. I believe that if Dixon refused the LE polygraph, then they should have investigated him more thoroughly. Then, if he goes on national tv and says he had a polygraph done on his own dime and passed, if I were LE, I'd want a copy of that report and then I'd ask why he refused ours but did his own and ask again if he would take one from us. If he refused to give me a copy of that report, I'd become even more suspicious.

If Don Dixon truly is innocent, then he is one of the biggest horses a$$ that I've ever seen or heard of. I've never seen someone as smug as him who points the finger at everyone else and gives a motive for those people all the while claiming that all he did was stumble onto the body.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:34 PM   #230
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
So when someone agrees to a polygraph and they pass and law enforcement no longer considers them suspects, how does that not benefit that person? An innocent person whose polygraph test was inconclusive would never be convicted on that alone. If you're innocent, there should be no "other information" that LE would drudge up, and it would be easy to be cleared.



You have nothing to hide if you are a suspect in a murder and you didn't do it. How else would the line of questioning go? Q: Do you know who murdered Eric Tamiyasu? A: No. Q: Do you sometimes put on a diaper and pretend that you're a baby? There would be nothing embarassing exposed if you were truly innocent. They would question the crime itself, not anything from the suspects personal life. If you had nothing to hide, you would have no problem sharing with LE. An innocent person does not need an attorney if they haven't been charged with anything.



Don Dixon has the right to refuse a polygraph. But don't you think law enforcement would investigate a suspect more thorough for the mere fac that they did refuse to take it? Obviously in their eyes he has something that he's hiding, and he then becomes even more of a person of interest in the case. And there is no proof that he ever took a polygraph test other than Dixon's own word.
1) If you doubt me,talk w/ an attorney and ask if they believe that taking a police department polygraph test is a "good idea." the overwhelming majority will tell you "No." If a trained professional thinks that this is a poor idea, it is almost certainly a poor idea.

2) You always have something to hide. If you don't think so...perhaps you need to think harder. And once you have submitted to taking a polygraph test, they can ask you any questions they want. If they asked have you ever committed a crime and you reply "No." it can said that you have deceived as you probably have received a traffic or parking ticket in your life. If you use illegal drugs (or illegally use prescription drugs) you could be asked about that. If you don't answer honestly, it could be seen as deception.

3) Let's say you take the test and fail or the results come back as "inconclusive." Then what? Even if you are "innocent" and the results can't be used in court, the police can tell your family, friends, employers that you have failed the test in an effort to obtain additional information about you. How's that going look?

4) Talking w/ the police about anything other than a minor crime that you are reporting is a poor idea. There are simply too many ways that you can say or do something foolish that can make you a suspect in whatever they are questioning you about. It's your right to have an attorney present when you are questioned or to simply not talk to the police at all. Whether or not that makes you "look guilty" is irrelevant; the police aren't concerned w/ your rights. Only you and your attorney are.


When you submit a polygraph test, you have then made the decision to place your freedom and your future in the hands of people that don't have your best interests in mind. How is that ever a good decision?
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 01:48 PM   #231
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
1) If you doubt me,talk w/ an attorney and ask if they believe that taking a police department polygraph test is a "good idea." the overwhelming majority will tell you "No." If a trained professional thinks that this is a poor idea, it is almost certainly a poor idea.

2) You always have something to hide. If you don't think so...perhaps you need to think harder. And once you have submitted to taking a polygraph test, they can ask you any questions they want. If they asked have you ever committed a crime and you reply "No." it can said that you have deceived as you probably have received a traffic or parking ticket in your life. If you use illegal drugs (or illegally use prescription drugs) you could be asked about that. If you don't answer honestly, it could be seen as deception.

3) Let's say you take the test and fail or the results come back as "inconclusive." Then what? Even if you are "innocent" and the results can't be used in court, the police can tell your family, friends, employers that you have failed the test in an effort to obtain additional information about you. How's that going look?

4) Talking w/ the police about anything other than a minor crime that you are reporting is a poor idea. There are simply too many ways that you can say or do something foolish that can make you a suspect in whatever they are questioning you about. It's your right to have an attorney present when you are questioned or to simply not talk to the police at all. Whether or not that makes you "look guilty" is irrelevant; the police aren't concerned w/ your rights. Only you and your attorney are.

When you submit a polygraph test, you have then made the decision to place your freedom and your future in the hands of people that don't have your best interests in mind. How is that ever a good decision?
1) Of course an attorney would say it's a bad idea to take a polygraph without an attorney present. They want your business!

2) You don't have to have things to hide. Not everyone uses illegal drugs, and of course if you were given a minor traffic ticket you would say "no" to when asked about if you ever committed a crime.

3) If the test is inconclusive, I fail to see how law enforcement could go around town saying you failed. They could be sued for libel if that were the case. Again, let's say that this was true...the cops are trying to get information about you by telling people that you failed the polygraph. If you are innocent there will be nothing that would come out of their "investigation" into you.

4) I really get annoyed when people make it seem like "the man" is out to get everyday people. The police are trying to solve a case, and if you are being questioned about it there is probably a good reason why. And if you are innocent you would be immediately cleared. And lets say for S and G's that you were involved in an illegal activity that involved the murder victim somehow. Wouldn't you want to come clean about that to avoid further suspicion thrown on yourself in the murder?

The bottom line is the police were trying to catch Eric's murderer. And if Don Dixon was his best friend like he claims, wouldn't he do everything in his power to cooperate with authorities to help catch his killer? If innocent, why would he even have any reason to not trust the police?
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 03:07 PM   #232
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
1) Of course an attorney would say it's a bad idea to take a polygraph without an attorney present. They want your business!

2) You don't have to have things to hide. Not everyone uses illegal drugs, and of course if you were given a minor traffic ticket you would say "no" to when asked about if you ever committed a crime.

3) If the test is inconclusive, I fail to see how law enforcement could go around town saying you failed. They could be sued for libel if that were the case. Again, let's say that this was true...the cops are trying to get information about you by telling people that you failed the polygraph. If you are innocent there will be nothing that would come out of their "investigation" into you.

4) I really get annoyed when people make it seem like "the man" is out to get everyday people. The police are trying to solve a case, and if you are being questioned about it there is probably a good reason why. And if you are innocent you would be immediately cleared. And lets say for S and G's that you were involved in an illegal activity that involved the murder victim somehow. Wouldn't you want to come clean about that to avoid further suspicion thrown on yourself in the murder?

The bottom line is the police were trying to catch Eric's murderer. And if Don Dixon was his best friend like he claims, wouldn't he do everything in his power to cooperate with authorities to help catch his killer? If innocent, why would he even have any reason to not trust the police?
1) Yes, an attorney is in business to make money. However, they are also trained professionals that have experience in dealing w/ the police that neither you nor I do. Why would you assume that your judgment surpasses their abilities?

2) Don't know how many times (or ways) that I can say this: Everybody has something to hide. It may not be something illegal;it could be an affair, a sexual preference, drug use/abuse, dishonesty to a spouse, loved one,employer,etc. There are many things that people don't want others to know. By agreeing to a police examination against legal advice, and w/ little or no benefit for you, the possibility that any number of things that you have been keeping secret will be revealed for no useful purpose and to your detriment.

If you are somebody that has NOTHING that you don't care to have revealed to the public, then you are among the very few people for which that is true. Ask the late Richard Jewel how it is to be completely innocent and still have your life ruined by the authorities.

3) They could be sued for slander, not libel. Libel would be putting false or malicious statements into print. And actually they couldn't be sued for slander as they would simply be informing people that you failed a test that YOU took voluntarily or that your results were inconclusive. There's nothing untrue about those facts and they (LE) can do nothing to control people's perceptions of you when they learn those facts.Also, it's very difficult to sue public officials for slander and even more difficult to win such a suit.

4) You yourself have stated in multiple postings that you are a supporter Fredric Ross. If Ross had simply asked for a lawyer instead of running his mouth to the police, he would probably not be in prison now or he would have received a lower sentence than he did. ANd according to your to your postings, he's "innocent."

I don't think LE is out to "railroad" or "frame" most people. I DO think that they are capable of taking their perceptions of a situation and transforming them into "facts" when those "facts" make doing their job easier. I also believe that they capable of making many mistakes and then defending those mistakes vigorously when they are proven to be mistakes later. Both of those judgment and logical errors can cause significant issues for people who are actually innocent.

There's simply no reason for an innocent (or frankly, a guilty) person to take a polygraph test. It provides neither group w/ any benefit and could be used to your detriment. An attorney, who is a trained legal professional believes that and I have no reason to doubt that judgment. If the police believe that you are a suspect (and you know that you are not) isn't that more a sign of how poorly their investigation is going rather than a need for you to "clear yourself?"
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 03:45 PM   #233
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,830
Default

The main issue about the polygraph is that Don Dixon refused to take one offered to him by LE yet took a private one on his own dime and claims to have passed it but will not reveal the results. Very odd thing to do.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 05:02 PM   #234
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone2421
The main issue about the polygraph is that Don Dixon refused to take one offered to him by LE yet took a private one on his own dime and claims to have passed it but will not reveal the results. Very odd thing to do.
Don Dixon is a flake. If he says something, it's either not true, exaggerated or possibly something he imagined. I think that it's safe to say that if you assume that he didn't take a polygraph you probably won't be wrong.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 05:30 PM   #235
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
1) Yes, an attorney is in business to make money. However, they are also trained professionals that have experience in dealing w/ the police that neither you nor I do. Why would you assume that your judgment surpasses their abilities?

2) Don't know how many times (or ways) that I can say this: Everybody has something to hide. It may not be something illegal;it could be an affair, a sexual preference, drug use/abuse, dishonesty to a spouse, loved one,employer,etc. There are many things that people don't want others to know. By agreeing to a police examination against legal advice, and w/ little or no benefit for you, the possibility that any number of things that you have been keeping secret will be revealed for no useful purpose and to your detriment.

If you are somebody that has NOTHING that you don't care to have revealed to the public, then you are among the very few people for which that is true. Ask the late Richard Jewel how it is to be completely innocent and still have your life ruined by the authorities.

3) They could be sued for slander, not libel. Libel would be putting false or malicious statements into print. And actually they couldn't be sued for slander as they would simply be informing people that you failed a test that YOU took voluntarily or that your results were inconclusive. There's nothing untrue about those facts and they (LE) can do nothing to control people's perceptions of you when they learn those facts.Also, it's very difficult to sue public officials for slander and even more difficult to win such a suit.

4) You yourself have stated in multiple postings that you are a supporter Fredric Ross. If Ross had simply asked for a lawyer instead of running his mouth to the police, he would probably not be in prison now or he would have received a lower sentence than he did. ANd according to your to your postings, he's "innocent."

I don't think LE is out to "railroad" or "frame" most people. I DO think that they are capable of taking their perceptions of a situation and transforming them into "facts" when those "facts" make doing their job easier. I also believe that they capable of making many mistakes and then defending those mistakes vigorously when they are proven to be mistakes later. Both of those judgment and logical errors can cause significant issues for people who are actually innocent.

There's simply no reason for an innocent (or frankly, a guilty) person to take a polygraph test. It provides neither group w/ any benefit and could be used to your detriment. An attorney, who is a trained legal professional believes that and I have no reason to doubt that judgment. If the police believe that you are a suspect (and you know that you are not) isn't that more a sign of how poorly their investigation is going rather than a need for you to "clear yourself?"
1) Someone who administers a polygraph is a "trained professional". When they say that polygraphs are reliable and effective, are they lying?

2) Why does everyone have to be a seedy character in some pulp fiction novel? This isn't a Tarrantino movie. How could a murder investigation lead to questions involving affairs, drug use, etc. The focus of the questioning would be on the murder itself, not how many times the person being questioned toked up while listening to the Doobie Brothers.

3) A public official saying someone failed a test when the results were inconclusive would result in a lawsuit. I misused the word libel, I meant slander.

4) Again, not everyone trusts lawyers. Do they honestly have your best interest in mind, or are they more worried about your wallet? Why is it so hard to believe that someone who is innocent feels no need to obtain a lawyer? And Frederick Young is trivial in this matter. He never took a polygraph.

Why are polygraphs still given today if they are worthless? Have you ever worked in law enforcement, and do you know firsthand how "pointless" they are?
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 05:53 PM   #236
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
1) Someone who administers a polygraph is a "trained professional". When they say that polygraphs are reliable and effective, are they lying?

2) Why does everyone have to be a seedy character in some pulp fiction novel? This isn't a Tarrantino movie. How could a murder investigation lead to questions involving affairs, drug use, etc. The focus of the questioning would be on the murder itself, not how many times the person being questioned toked up while listening to the Doobie Brothers.

3) A public official saying someone failed a test when the results were inconclusive would result in a lawsuit. I misused the word libel, I meant slander.

4) Again, not everyone trusts lawyers. Do they honestly have your best interest in mind, or are they more worried about your wallet? Why is it so hard to believe that someone who is innocent feels no need to obtain a lawyer? And Frederick Young is trivial in this matter. He never took a polygraph.

Why are polygraphs still given today if they are worthless? Have you ever worked in law enforcement, and do you know firsthand how "pointless" they are?
Let's see:

1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...9-09-lie_x.htm

2) Seriously? If you submit to a lie detector test, you don't get to choose what questions they ask. Nor do you get to choose which ones you'll answer.


3) I never said that they would say inconclusive was failing. What I said was they can take the fact that your test was inconclusive or failing to various people and that can cost you your job, friendships and ruin your family.

Again, Richard Jewel.

4) Really? Umm..so not trusting lawyers is supposed to be seen as a "logical thought process?" The police are more "trustworthy?" Or you are capable protecting your own rights w/o using a trained advocate? If so...and I doubt that's the case...then you are the exception and not the rule.

Frederic Young. Thanks. I forget his last name.

Polygraphs are primarily given for two reasons:

1) To get the guilty to confess when they are confronted w/ a "deceptive" or inconclusive test.
2) A bad idea, once sown as a seed, grows into a hardy weed. Polygraphs are a bad idea that has grown into almost a religion among LE and intelligence agencies.

Polygraphs are not accepted as evidence in court and have no scientific validity. Taking one is a waste of time and effort.

Last edited by cocytus; 01-07-2011 at 10:50 AM.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:05 PM   #237
Old School TV
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 104
Default

Ed Walters of Gulf Breeze fame which was covered UM season 1 passed polygraph tests with flying colors and look how he was exposed? More info on walters here

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dime...GulfBreeze.htm


In addition, just the fact that the local sheriff is a possible suspect would only give more apprehension for an innocent person to cooperate with authorities as fear of being framed.

If Don Dixon had refused to give a written statement or an affidavit that it adds more suspicion, but i don't think refusing a polygraph adds any more suspicion to the question of innocence or guilt.

As for who is more trust worthy cops or lawyers, that in itself is a different topic. There has been plenty of corruption in all fields that it makes the comparison futile. I have seen law offices and medical offices due collusion by deliberately getting PI patients more injured to collect larger settlements. In addition, the use of quantum meruit to hustle clients for more money, deliberately getting a lien place on a settlement so they can hold the money in escrow to get more interest, etc.

This is a very intriguing case that i haven't seen in a few years, i am not sure if they ever did? But Eric's famiy should have got a private investigator and had an independent autopsy done.
Old School TV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:29 PM   #238
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 882
Default

Remember Jerry: it's not a lie if you believe it.
__________________
"You can't say the words that the rock makes you feel like." - Patty Johnson
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 09:59 AM   #239
MegtheEgg86
Member
Forum 4K Club Member
 
MegtheEgg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2008
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 4,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mozartpc27
Remember Jerry: it's not a lie if you believe it.
Excellent point.
__________________
"Why is she lying?, it makes me wonder. What is she hiding?, it makes me wonder."

Go Vols!
MegtheEgg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2011, 06:41 PM   #240
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Forum Veteran
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Let's see:

1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...9-09-lie_x.htm

2) Seriously? If you submit to a lie detector test, you don't get to choose what questions they ask. Nor do you get to choose which ones you'll answer.


3) I never said that they would say inconclusive was failing. What I said was they can take the fact that your test was inconclusive or failing to various people and that can cost you your job, friendships and ruin your family.

Again, Richard Jewel.

4) Really? Umm..so not trusting lawyers is supposed to be seen as a "logical thought process?" The police are more "trustworthy?" Or you are capable protecting your own rights w/o using a trained advocate? If so...and I doubt that's the case...then you are the exception and not the rule.

Frederic Young. Thanks. I forget his last name.

Polygraphs are primarily given for two reasons:

1) To get the guilty to confess when they are confronted w/ a "deceptive" or inconclusive test.
2) A bad idea, once sown as a seed, grows into a hardy weed. Polygraphs are a bad idea that has grown into almost a religion among LE and intelligence agencies.

Polygraphs are not accepted as evidence in court and have no scientific validity. Taking one is a waste of time and effort.
1) There are people for and against lie detector tests. Some say they are reliable 61% of the time while others are in the 80-90 % range. Who are we to believe? It seems foolish that almost every law enforcement agency in the world would use something that is "worthless".

2) Yes you can choose to not answer certain questions. It's not like the administrator has a hammer to hit people in the hand when they don't answer questions. A simple, "I'd rather not answer that." would suffice. And they wouldn't ask any questions other than what would pertain to what you're being questioned about.

3) Police departments obviously are trying to solve cases, and by using a polygraph that someone failed of course they are going to look into that person deeper than they would someone who passed a polygraph.

4) Yes the police are more trustworthy than lawyers, IMO. As soon as a case is over with a lawyer will leave you quicker than a one night stand. A lawyer's interest in "protecting your rights" is all legal "red tape" as far as I'm concerned.

Here's an example. A person who gets a DUI is told by police, the courts, and commissioners that you should get a lawyer so he can fully explain your rights and would also assist you in the legal process, etc. It's almost like a scare tactic when some even talk about those who show up in court without a lawyer and they get a harsher sentence. Then when you obtain the said lawyer and drop thousands of dollars later, this person shows up on your court date and says no more than five minutes of trivial background information about the person on trial. That is not someone interested in protecting your rights, it's all about lining their pockets.

Enough of the polygraph debate, back to Eric Tamiyasu...I still stand by my statement that Dixon being the only person who could gain entry to Eric's house undetected makes him the number one suspect alone.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 AM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.