3 polygraphs?
Mother passes first polygraph, they try again. She passes second, they try harder. She then allegedly fails the third and they use that against her?
shareand they did all that to her with absolutely no evidence against her.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > 3 polygraphs?
FBI are cops. Their job is to catch the bad guys. Cops will be aggressive in making a case.
Its up to the courts to decide if the cops' methods were legal.
However, three polygraphs highlights how dangerous an unchecked FBI or other police agency can be.
Agreed. My thoughts from an earlier thread (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1966604/board/nest/206842104?p=2&d=218691891#218691891)
She passes the test, then passes it again. They try a third time -- something that would never usually be done -- and then she reportedly fails "every question" ("EVERY question"!) by a huge margin. That sounds to me as if it defeats the entire purpose of a polygraph examination, which is intended to measure the difference in stress levels between true and untrue answers. In other words, the mother's overall stress had increased when forced to undergo (lengthy?) testing for a third time. Stating that as if it proves she was lying seems to indicate notable bias or incompetence, which casts some doubt on the impartiality of other testimony from the FBI agent. (Keep in mind that she herself believed the imposter when he said he had been kidnapped by a multinational military force who changed his hair and eye colour using mysterious chemicals. She may have reason to subconsciously shift some responsibility.)share
Old thread, but I'll reply anyway. What bothered me was that every time she passed a polygraph test the FBI agent kept saying "I don't understand." Do you mean you don't understand because the results didn't go your way?
Because to her it didn't make sense that the lady would have willingly brought a stranger into her home who wasn't her son. It also didn't make sense to her why she refused to get DNA tested. That meant that she did in fact suspect he wasn't her son, so why would she have refused. The whole thing is bizarre.
shareOld post, but just throwing this out there. Maybe she wanted it to be her son so bad she was blinded by what was right in front of her. The death of a child is one of the worst things to have happen to anyone, maybe she didn't want them to be right because that would mean that she would have to go back to that dark place of knowing someone killed her child. 3 years of heartbreak then finding out your son is alive would be the most incredible thing in the world, to have to face the fact that not only is your son not alive but this person took advantage of you......incredibly stressful to say the least.
shareYou have to understand these weren't the brightest individuals then this bizarre story makes a little sense. Similar to the Making of a Murderer family.
shareMy problem is that surely someone working for the FBI would know you can't use a Polygraph test as evidence in a court because they're unreliable, are easy to fool, and the results are entirely up to the interpritation of the person conducting the test.
-[ Why does modern horror movie suck?]-
[deleted]
[deleted]
-[ Why does modern horror movie suck?]
Well they don't actually. Depends on the film.
But the better question is Why can't you put together a coherent sentence?
Maybe you would like modern horror better if you understood how to write English properly.
Here's some help for you genius, the correct sentence would be:
WHY DO MODERN HORROR MOVIES SUCK?
One polygraph? Even that is enough to frown upon. It's pathetic that it's even used in the USA. It holds no ground either way.
shareThey don't use a polygraph as evidentiary material, the courts have long dismissed them as unreliable. But police do use them all the time to gain leverage in questioning suspects. If you fail a polygraph they will hold that over your head when questioning you, if you pass it they just ignore it. That is why the FBI agent kept having the mother retake the polygraph until she failed.
shareOld post I know but this was actually explained in an article titled the chameleon in the New Yorker. The mother who was an addict turned out to be under the influnce during the two first tests. When they redid it after the drugs had worn off, she failed miserably. That being said; polygraph tests isn't worth *beep* as evidence.
shareThat is a complete lie... as is 50% of the information in the New Yorker article.... Mr Graham was conned by the con man, he took everything Federic said as truth and printed it!!....hmmmmm imagine that
shareThe writer's name is David Grann, and he didn't rely just on Frederic Bourdin's word - he interviewed the FBI agents, the private investigator Charlie Parker, the mother Beverly, the sister Carey and Carey's children Codey and Chantal. Beverly admitted to lying on the third polygraph but claimed that it wasn't about Nicholas. The obvious question would be, why lie in the first place if you have nothing to hide? Bourdin would not have known about the polygraph results (he was incarcerated by this time) nor would he be aware that Child Protective Services had been notified just prior to Nicholas's disappearance.
Your defense of the family, especially the brother Jason, is concerning. Where is the concern for Nicholas, why does the family not seem to care about finding him?