Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
The whole thing is nothing but a sham. No corroborating witnesses, in fact all the people she said were there said it didn't happen. That being said awkward teen dating isn't a crime. If every guy in high school was prosecuted for trying to round the bases but getting shut down we'd all be in jail.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
Strawman ass fucking and lying seems to be all you're good for Hondo. I never said that a nerd wouldn't hurt a fly. I said he was a nerd and that explained his horrible demeanor. Now get back in there, that strawman's asswhole isn't going to fuck itself.
The only way this has a good ending is if it turns out that he's always been completely gay and his wife is a beard. He sure looks and acts like a genuine faggot.
Thank god Pete wasn't coaching at UW when this little tryhard nerd was graduating from high school.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
Strawman ass fucking and lying seems to be all you're good for Hondo. I never said that a nerd wouldn't hurt a fly. I said he was a nerd and that explained his horrible demeanor. Now get back in there, that strawman's asswhole isn't going to fuck itself.
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Now the argument is. He was a nerd. A nerd would never hurt a fly.
Her polygraph test was a joke. Complete utter foolishness. Two questions and they were not specific. Polygraph tests require specific single subject questions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you clearly know nothing about polygraphs
The SOP is to ask the examinee a bunch of questions that are obvious "yes" or "no" questions that are irrelevant to the topic.
Then the polygrapher asks a VERY LIMITED number of questions, usually no more than 2-4... and the polygraph will hit or not hit on "deceptive response."
Too many questions and the machine will start hitting or not hitting on every question.
He only asked two. They were about the written story line prepared while the examiner was not in the room. It was heavily changed, scribbled and had parts inserted and redacted.
"The interviewer asked Ford whether “any part” of her statement was false or whether she made up any detail included in her initial report."
Funny experts think this isn't a valid poly. But please enlighten me.
That first story is entirely accurate and does not support your assertion. The second story you link is much more slanted but still does not support your assertion.
As I've said, all a poly does is tell you whether a subject is being "deceptive" or "evasive," which is pretty much what the first story says. Also, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, for the very good reason that they have to be interpreted and that interpretation is subjective.
Smart defense attorneys have ex-FBI, CID, or NCIS polygraphers on speed dial, because the investigative poly will almost invariably come along with the polygrapher, who also tends to be the best interrogator in the office (funny how that works).
Of course, while the poly isn't admissible, anything the accused says *is.* Which is the real reason for the season in terms of polygraphs.
Her polygraph test was a joke. Complete utter foolishness. Two questions and they were not specific. Polygraph tests require specific single subject questions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you clearly know nothing about polygraphs
The SOP is to ask the examinee a bunch of questions that are obvious "yes" or "no" questions that are irrelevant to the topic.
Then the polygrapher asks a VERY LIMITED number of questions, usually no more than 2-4... and the polygraph will hit or not hit on "deceptive response."
Too many questions and the machine will start hitting or not hitting on every question.
He only asked two. They were about the written story line prepared while the examiner was not in the room. It was heavily changed, scribbled and had parts inserted and redacted.
"The interviewer asked Ford whether “any part” of her statement was false or whether she made up any detail included in her initial report."
Funny experts think this isn't a valid poly. But please enlighten me.
That first story is entirely accurate and does not support your assertion. The second story you link is much more slanted but still does not support your assertion.
As I've said, all a poly does is tell you whether a subject is being "deceptive" or "evasive," which is pretty much what the first story says. Also, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, for the very good reason that they have to be interpreted and that interpretation is subjective.
Smart defense attorneys have ex-FBI, CID, or NCIS polygraphers on speed dial, because the investigative poly will almost invariably come along with the polygrapher, who also tends to be the best interrogator in the office (funny how that works).
Of course, while the poly isn't admissible, anything the accused says *is.* Which is the real reason for the season in terms of polygraphs.
How common is it for the person being given the polygraph to be asked only two questions?
Her polygraph test was a joke. Complete utter foolishness. Two questions and they were not specific. Polygraph tests require specific single subject questions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you clearly know nothing about polygraphs
The SOP is to ask the examinee a bunch of questions that are obvious "yes" or "no" questions that are irrelevant to the topic.
Then the polygrapher asks a VERY LIMITED number of questions, usually no more than 2-4... and the polygraph will hit or not hit on "deceptive response."
Too many questions and the machine will start hitting or not hitting on every question.
He only asked two. They were about the written story line prepared while the examiner was not in the room. It was heavily changed, scribbled and had parts inserted and redacted.
"The interviewer asked Ford whether “any part” of her statement was false or whether she made up any detail included in her initial report."
Funny experts think this isn't a valid poly. But please enlighten me.
That first story is entirely accurate and does not support your assertion. The second story you link is much more slanted but still does not support your assertion.
As I've said, all a poly does is tell you whether a subject is being "deceptive" or "evasive," which is pretty much what the first story says. Also, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, for the very good reason that they have to be interpreted and that interpretation is subjective.
Smart defense attorneys have ex-FBI, CID, or NCIS polygraphers on speed dial, because the investigative poly will almost invariably come along with the polygrapher, who also tends to be the best interrogator in the office (funny how that works).
Of course, while the poly isn't admissible, anything the accused says *is.* Which is the real reason for the season in terms of polygraphs.
How common is it for the person being given the polygraph to be asked only two questions?
fuck off misogynist she was crying due to having to take a plane to take the poly test #believewomen
Dude, this guy's demeanor is horrible. Did anyone even prep him to be a witness? He reminds me of a rookie CID agent that wanted to fight the defense attorney and almost single-handedly lost a rape case I prosecuted.
The guy is a nerd, who the hell kept a daily calendar when they were 17? Better yet, who keeps those calendars? Highly organized, intelligent, obsessive compulsives. I'm sure he wasn't what would have been considered cool in school but he was most definitely a good student who if he were 17 today would be really into computers.
Understandably, BK comes from a world that would be like Mars to a person of your background. To the contrary, being an athlete and a good student in the world of prep schools and money does not translate to your hackneyed stereotype. In his world, he was in all likelihood socially successful and mobile.
The ironic, cut-off-their-nose-to-spite-their-faces fact is that Kavanaugh, with a passable wife and two daughters, would probably be more favorable to womens rights and issues than almost any other conservative judge Trump might choose.
Her polygraph test was a joke. Complete utter foolishness. Two questions and they were not specific. Polygraph tests require specific single subject questions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you clearly know nothing about polygraphs
The SOP is to ask the examinee a bunch of questions that are obvious "yes" or "no" questions that are irrelevant to the topic.
Then the polygrapher asks a VERY LIMITED number of questions, usually no more than 2-4... and the polygraph will hit or not hit on "deceptive response."
Too many questions and the machine will start hitting or not hitting on every question.
He only asked two. They were about the written story line prepared while the examiner was not in the room. It was heavily changed, scribbled and had parts inserted and redacted.
"The interviewer asked Ford whether “any part” of her statement was false or whether she made up any detail included in her initial report."
Funny experts think this isn't a valid poly. But please enlighten me.
That first story is entirely accurate and does not support your assertion. The second story you link is much more slanted but still does not support your assertion.
As I've said, all a poly does is tell you whether a subject is being "deceptive" or "evasive," which is pretty much what the first story says. Also, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, for the very good reason that they have to be interpreted and that interpretation is subjective.
Smart defense attorneys have ex-FBI, CID, or NCIS polygraphers on speed dial, because the investigative poly will almost invariably come along with the polygrapher, who also tends to be the best interrogator in the office (funny how that works).
Of course, while the poly isn't admissible, anything the accused says *is.* Which is the real reason for the season in terms of polygraphs.
How common is it for the person being given the polygraph to be asked only two questions?
Substantial questions? Very common. The polygrapher asks a lot of easy questions, both right and wrong, to calibrate the machine. Like, where were you born? And then they only ask a couple of substantial questions because the signal-to-noise in the poly goes way down after about 3-4 Qs. That's what I was told by my CID expert witnesses when this came up anyway.
Ford believes Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh believes he didn't. Only one has any corroborating evidence for their claims, and it isn't Ford.
Ford believes Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh believes he didn't. Only one has any corroborating evidence for their claims, and it isn't Ford.
You're the base. You've already made up your mind.
Comments
He sure looks and acts like a genuine faggot.
Thank god Pete wasn't coaching at UW when this little tryhard nerd was graduating from high school.
Might actually be Hondo’ s sister.
As I've said, all a poly does is tell you whether a subject is being "deceptive" or "evasive," which is pretty much what the first story says. Also, polygraphs aren't admissible in court, for the very good reason that they have to be interpreted and that interpretation is subjective.
Smart defense attorneys have ex-FBI, CID, or NCIS polygraphers on speed dial, because the investigative poly will almost invariably come along with the polygrapher, who also tends to be the best interrogator in the office (funny how that works).
Of course, while the poly isn't admissible, anything the accused says *is.* Which is the real reason for the season in terms of polygraphs.
#believewomen
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1809251359.pdf#page=3
48 percent of white evangelical Protestants would support Kavanaugh even if the allegations were true.