Alternatively, the liar's experienced, good at his craft, and more capable of jumping around.
"Bags are subject to search" means "We will search your bags". "A shooting involving Tacoma County Police left two suspects dead" means "Tacoma County Police shot two suspects."
1. I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely not a cover-up for "We will"
2. Again, not a lie. And I don't mean in the "not technically a lie". There are many cases where there is a shootout involving police and the cause of the suspect's death is ultimately determined as suicide. So the "A shooting involving..." phrase is perfectly acceptable in a breaking news update when no determination has yet been made.
Clippy says: "Hey, it looks like you're trying to start a semantic argument! Can I help with that?"
> I've seen the "bags are subject to search" phrase many times, including the public library. I cannot remember the last time my bag was searched, even at the airport when the search is differentiated from the usual scan. So that phrase is definitely not a cover-up for "We will"
Congratulations on being middle class and white.
> There are many cases where there is a shootout involving police and the cause of the suspect's death is ultimately determined as suicide. So the "A shooting involving..." phrase is perfectly acceptable in a breaking news update when no determination has yet been made.
There are many cases where this isn't the case, too.
That said, I don't think the exonerated voice is a particularly skillful one. A careful listener can easily pick up on that.
"unless coerced/brutalized by police/DAs" is not really exceptional, once in a decade, type case, sadly it is rather routine.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
(EDIT: And this one) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.htm...
There will be truth-tellers who fail this test, but you find nothing conviction worthy. They'll be fine.
There will be liars who pass this test. Hopefully you catch them later by other means, just as you would have otherwise.
And of course, there will be those who pass who are never caught. This tool does not make that any worse.
If the false positive rate is too high and the prior probability a given person being interviewed actually lied, then the test is actively harmful.
I.e., if a positive result is more likely a false positive, then you end up wasting investigation resources. In this case you'd have been better off just flipping a coin to decide if someone warranted more investigation.
>There will be truth-tellers who fail this test, but you find nothing conviction worthy. They'll be fine.
Tell that to all the people who lost jobs, or spent months of their life under investigation because of failed polygraph tests.
I should of course mention that not everyone uses these tools correctly. I suppose that could be harmful. But then again, if an investigator is simply looking for a reason to find someone guilty, then the accused is eff'ed either way.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/liespotting-pamela-meyer/110...
http://www.amazon.com/Liespotting-Proven-Techniques-Detect-D...
I won't oversell it and tell you that the book turns you into a human polygraph. It simply surveys what is known about deception and human behavior and how you can apply that to your interactions with others.
The example given is an employee who is consistently late for work. If you ask them to recount why they are late one day, a liar will tell you the story linearly: "I woke up, ate breakfast, hopped in the car, was on my way, minding my own business, then someone hit my car. I got out to trade insurance ... [etc]".
A truth teller jumps around, usually starting with the climax "Someone hit my car on the way in. I then realized my insurance was expired. I had just been going through my bills the previous night ...".
This is easily ascribed to the fact that the liar is either making the story up as they go or are repeating a rehearsed lie. A truthful person can jump around easily because they are recounting distinct memories.