Chicagoist: Mya Lyons' Father Questioned, Submits To Lie Detector

Vermin

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:02:07 -0600

Ol' Daddy did it, those crocodile tears aren't foolin' anyone!

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:59:49 -0600

Jenny: Can you cite a source on that statistic? A 1997 survey of psychologists found a 61% accuracy average. Little better than a coin toss. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-lie_x.htm (Yes, it's USA today, shrug) Getting a lawyer is ALWAYS the first thing you do when the police want to talk to you about ANYTHING. Even if you're innocent as a lamb.

jennyblur

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:09:16 -0600

Lie detectors are generally pretty accurate,anywhere from 80-90%, which is why as an investigation tool, it is the same as confessing basically. Get a lawyer. NOW.

Marcus Gilmer

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:44:38 -0600

Ingrid - Honestly, I think there was a point when in the same day, either the Trib or ST said she WAS while the other paper said she WASN'T sexually assaulted.

Ingrid

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:41:13 -0600

Has it been established for sure that she was not sexually assaulted? Last I heard, the news was that she was not but Why would someone just kill a little girl like that? When I first heard this story, my immediate thought was that the father did it. It makes no sense that she went to bed and then was found in the alley a short time later...now I'm thinking that maybe someone else snuck inside the house while everyone was outside and hid inside of her bedroom and took her out when everyone in the house was in bed. Maybe the father has some 'iffy' associates. What, what what was the reason for this? It just makes no sense.

Albanyparkour

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:32:47 -0600

Jenny: Polygraphs are used only as a means of getting an edge on a "person of interest" or suspect. It's a tactical move, since they are inadmissible and generally about as effective as tea leaves. I, sadly, thought that it was someone close to this girl from the word go. The timeline has always been very suspect. Whoever did this...no...no words for the kind of hell they deserve.

TomDArch

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:21:18 -0600

Wow! Someone invented an actual "lie detector"!?! He probably submitted to a polygraph examination. Polygraphs are not "lie detectors" - they're gizmos that track various physiological data such as heart rate and breathing. From that data, a human interpreter arrives at what the Supreme Court called "an opinion" about whether or not the individual was attempting to be deceptive. Polygraphs are notorious for both false positives (claiming someone is lying when they aren't) and false negatives (missing when someone is lying). On top of all that sloppiness, there are a variety of ways that it can be administered (in terms of questioning strategy) and the tone of the person asking the questions can have a huge impact on the "results." Basically, polygraphs have more in common with the Scientology organization's "e-meter" than they have different. Please don't call it a "lie detector" and there are no "test results," only the opinion of the person who administered it.

jennyblur

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:21:37 -0600

Um, I hope that whole family is excercising their right to counsel. Polygraphs are sooo tricky. I would never take one, especially without a lawyer present.