Dr. Phil's most compelling show

[MaggieD]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

 

[Lutherf]

I've never trusted polygraph machines.

Then again, I really don't trust most 17 year olds either.

Was any reason given for why she lied?

 

[Fearandloathing]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

indeed.

I wonder, with the record and the fact no court in the world accepts them, why anyone would suggest it. However, with some, refusing it is somehow an admission of guilt.

It sounds to me like dad has some issues of his own, such medications that would disrupt a polygraph are likely mood modifiers, anti-anxiety or anti-depressants etc. and are likely a big, big factor here. An anxiety prone, depressed dad is not going to be the best father. He admitted he was not a "good" father, I would suggest that in that admission there is a lot of vulnerability and guilt. A child molester is unlikely to go that route, but simply deny everything.


What concerns me is how far it got, to the point of charges being laid on the say so of one child. Was there no due diligence? A thorough examination of the testimony more than often would reveal inconsistencies not likely had the accusation been true. What were the girl's real resentments, her motivation?

Not the least of worries is the atmosphere we have created that allows a child to think she can make the charges and get away with it, and almost did. Wat message does that send to some other kid who has teen age angst.

In this case, what is the cost on going, to that family, to the extended family, and society? What will this girl's life be like having falsely accused her own father of a rape that never happened?

What is the cost to the parents having been dragged needlessly through an unholy mess?

 

[PirateMk1]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

Polygraphs have been proven to be able to be deceived. I have taken them and lied my butt off. I was asked my name and stuff for the baseline questions then they started asking the questions they were interested in in which case I gave completely untrue answers so they went back to the baseline questions and asked my name and what not and I just made it up on the spot to prove I was lying and they weren't getting "hits" on their machine that were recognizable as such. I made a bloody fine mess of their tidy little scribble chart. :mrgreen: I didn't get the position at the time not that I really wanted it. It would have to be used in conjunction with something else as part of a system and proven to be very very difficult to deceive. A lot of forensic "science" is less cut and dried as the TV shows would have you believe.

 

[WCH]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

Kids should have no rights until adulthood and CPS sucks.

 

[the_recruit]

Polygraphs are bull****.

 

[Goshin]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

Polygraphs are entirely unreliable. This is known and proven.


There is really only one reason for a polygraph, which is to attempt to scare the subject so badly that they are going to be found out that they confess or otherwise break down... which is what happened in this case.

 

[Your Star]

Polygraphs are bull****.

Was just about to post this. :lol:

 

[ginwood]

is the kid going to prison, as she most certainly SHOULD, for filing the false claim?

 

[sangha]

indeed.

I wonder, with the record and the fact no court in the world accepts them, why anyone would suggest it.

It's because some people are shameless hucksters who profit by exploiting the ignorant with psuedo-scientific techniques that satisfy their low-info audiences foolish need for moral "closure"

Yeah, I'm talking about Dr Phil.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

I don't really believe that these events were ever true - the alleged rape, everything.

She's 17. But yet accuses her father of raping her while she's ON TV? No immediate arrest by law enforcement? Instead a Jerry Springer showdown - and a night to sleep on it?

I smell a rat, and it's not the daughter's false accusation - it's the entire setup that screams BS to me.

I think at one time his show was supposed to be about advising parents, etc, but now it's just a talkshow.

 

[American]

The young woman should go to jail for ten years without parole.

 

[MaggieD]

I don't really believe that these events were ever true - the alleged rape, everything.

She's 17. But yet accuses her father of raping her while she's ON TV? No immediate arrest by law enforcement? Instead a Jerry Springer showdown - and a night to sleep on it?

I smell a rat, and it's not the daughter's false accusation - it's the entire setup that screams BS to me.

I think at one time his show was supposed to be about advising parents, etc, but now it's just a talkshow.

She accused her father two months before the show. Not sure when authorities were notified. The aunt she'd moved in with wrote to the show. There was no "night to sleep on it" in real time . . . just the airing of the episode. Apparently they didn't swoop in when the accusations were first made; if I recall correctly, a hearing was to take place reporting the findings of CPS. Seemed real to me.

I've watched it about a year now. I don't know how it used to be, but seems it was always a talk show...the problems of people exposed to the world with advice and help coming before the end of the show. Whatever it is, the show offers real help to real people with real problems. Yeah, it's about ratings. But there's "good" happening, too.

We've simply got to believe kids when they tell us these things. But the devastation that can befall innocent people is frightening. "There but for the grace of God goes I," as they say.

I know of a family completely destroyed by the accusations of a 14-year-old. Synopsis: Mom, dad and their baby went to his best friend's house for Sunday dinner. "Best friend" had a 14-year-old daughter who invited her shirt-tail uncle upstairs in her room to see her new computer. The story goes that he touched her inappropriately. She told her parents who called police. The man was arrested forthwith and charged with sexual assault on a minor or some-such.

His wife stood by him saying it was impossible. (That doesn't mean much, but there you have it.) Over the next year, the family incurred over $100,000 in legal fees...lost their home, cashed out their 401Ks. He lost his job. Eventually, when they'd been spent broke, he took a plea deal to avoid jail time. (if I recall, he didn't spend any time in jail.) He and his wife divorced. He's a registered sex offender for life. On parole for I don't remember how many years.

There's no retraction at the end of this story. But since a good friend knows the family and found the accusation incredulous, it comes to mind. In a way, I hope he was guilty -- since he was completely destroyed...

Teenaged girls can be filled with angst. The power they wield in these situations is disconcerting, clearly illustrated in this story on Dr. Phil.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I've never trusted polygraph machines.

Then again, I really don't trust most 17 year olds either.

Was any reason given for why she lied?

She is a chick, does she need any other reason. Mommy like new guy, little girl didn't. Period, so little girl gets advice from friends on what to do. Accuse him of being a child molester. Bingo. Life ruined. Just like she saw her life ruined when mommy started spending more time with new daddy.
Women learn to be lying and cunning at a very early age to get the things they want.

 

[lawboy]

-- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

They can be, depends on the state and as to a Stipulation of admission by both sides, etc.

 

[lawboy]

Maggie, scroll down to the 11th case listed;


State v. Souel (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 123

POLYGRAPH

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie, scroll down to the 11th case listed;


State v. Souel (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 123

POLYGRAPH

Thanks, Lawboy.

State v. Souel (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 123 -- Syllabus: "The results of a polygraphic examination are admissible in evidence in a criminal trial for purposes of corroboration or impeachment, provided that the following conditions are observed:" (1) The prosecuting attorney, defendant and his counsel must sign a written stipulation providing for defendant's submission to the test and for the subsequent admission at trial of the graphs and the examiner's opinion thereon on behalf of either defendant or the state."(2) Notwithstanding the stipulation, the admissibility of the test results is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and if the trial judge is not convinced that the examiner is qualified or that the test was conducted under proper conditions he may refuse to accept such evidence."(3) If the graphs and examiner's opinion are offered in evidence the opposing party shall have the right to cross-examine the examiner respecting: "(a) the examiner's qualifications and training; "(b) the conditions under which the test was administered; "(c) the limitations and possibilities for error in the technique of polygraphic interrogation; and "(d) at the discretion of the trial judge, any other matter deemed pertinent to the inquiry. "(4) If such evidence is admitted the trial judge should instruct the jury to the effect that the examiner's testimony does not tend to prove or disprove any element of the crime with which a defendant is charged, and that it is for the jurors to determine what weight and effect such testimony should be given."

 

[lawboy]

Thanks, Lawboy.

Bliged!

 

[Removable Mind]

Kids should have no rights until adulthood and CPS sucks.

:shock: Kids no RIGHTS! Hummmmmm. Kids starting at what age?

CPS has a lot of problems, mostly related to lack of resources. Caseworker are given 50 plus cases and given all the paperwork they do...well, you do the math. Burnout rate is about 3 years. So there's really no significant experience and seniority to properly supervise. I've represented kids in CPS court. That's a nightmare. One day in CPS court...and minds seem to change about a lot of things never considered before.

 

[Removable Mind]

I don't really believe that these events were ever true - the alleged rape, everything.

She's 17. But yet accuses her father of raping her while she's ON TV? No immediate arrest by law enforcement? Instead a Jerry Springer showdown - and a night to sleep on it?

I smell a rat, and it's not the daughter's false accusation - it's the entire setup that screams BS to me.

I think at one time his show was supposed to be about advising parents, etc, but now it's just a talkshow.

I smell more than a rat. Even an accusation automatically will elicit action by the local law enforcement. An arraignment is likely and a judge will normally order the person accused of rape to evacuate the common home until an investigation is fully conducted.

When minors are involved...CPS involvement is required by law to also investigate, which can include polygraphs. A lot of counties contract specialists to interview the alleged minor age victims.

Police and CPS investigations can lead to a grand jury hearing. If insufficient evidence is found then a "No Bill" is issued or written on a Bill of Indictment Document by the foreman of the jury.

A spouse who just suspects the other of rape and doesn't report it...can get nasty, but more in particular as it relates to retaining parent-child relationship...if evidence shows such a rape took place.

An innocent person...who is simply "accused" of rape can have long-term negative effects.

That's some serious **** going on there...

 

[radcen]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

Polygraphs are junk science. Plain and simple.

On another track, I fail to see why the dad would have ever agreed to go on air. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Simply the accusation being thrown, even if since proven bogus, will be enough for many people to consider him guilty, and he will now live with that stigma.

 

[radcen]

She accused her father two months before the show. Not sure when authorities were notified. The aunt she'd moved in with wrote to the show. There was no "night to sleep on it" in real time . . . just the airing of the episode. Apparently they didn't swoop in when the accusations were first made; if I recall correctly, a hearing was to take place reporting the findings of CPS. Seemed real to me.

I've watched it about a year now. I don't know how it used to be, but seems it was always a talk show...the problems of people exposed to the world with advice and help coming before the end of the show. Whatever it is, the show offers real help to real people with real problems. Yeah, it's about ratings. But there's "good" happening, too.

We've simply got to believe kids when they tell us these things. But the devastation that can befall innocent people is frightening. "There but for the grace of God goes I," as they say.

I know of a family completely destroyed by the accusations of a 14-year-old. Synopsis: Mom, dad and their baby went to his best friend's house for Sunday dinner. "Best friend" had a 14-year-old daughter who invited her shirt-tail uncle upstairs in her room to see her new computer. The story goes that he touched her inappropriately. She told her parents who called police. The man was arrested forthwith and charged with sexual assault on a minor or some-such.

His wife stood by him saying it was impossible. (That doesn't mean much, but there you have it.) Over the next year, the family incurred over $100,000 in legal fees...lost their home, cashed out their 401Ks. He lost his job. Eventually, when they'd been spent broke, he took a plea deal to avoid jail time. (if I recall, he didn't spend any time in jail.) He and his wife divorced. He's a registered sex offender for life. On parole for I don't remember how many years.

There's no retraction at the end of this story. But since a good friend knows the family and found the accusation incredulous, it comes to mind. In a way, I hope he was guilty -- since he was completely destroyed...

Teenaged girls can be filled with angst. The power they wield in these situations is disconcerting, clearly illustrated in this story on Dr. Phil.

I have to ask... Why do we *have to* believe them?

Kids are no less capable of lying than adults, and the reasons why they might lie is as varied as the numbers of kids. No, we investigate and follow the evidence. Will it be perfect? No. But, probably closer than blindly believing and all the havoc that causes.

 

[MaggieD]

I have to ask... Why do we *have to* believe them?

Kids are no less capable of lying than adults, and the reasons why they might lie is as varied as the numbers of kids. No, we investigate and follow the evidence. Will it be perfect? No. But, probably closer than blindly believing and all the havoc that causes.

The initial tale of abuse, in my opinion, must be taken seriously. Of course, an investigation should take place. But one should never ever dismiss such an accusation out of hand. Psychologists do forensic interviews with these kids and make every attempt to verify charges of abuse with the best practices we have available with which to do so. That's the best we can do when it's a kid-says-he-says accusation.

As to lie detector science, I'm not sure it's junk. I think our courts have determined that it's not an exact science and is, therefore, inadmissible in court unless both parties agree. But neither is whether one believes another's words or not. In this case, the proof was in the pudding. Jack De Marco, who is considered an expert polygraph administrator -- who works for the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, etc. -- came right out and said he believed his test showed the girl was lying.

As it turned out? She was.

(As an aside, my post indicated the father was very nervous about the polygraph, even though he agreed to take it. De Marco decided not to give him the test because he thought his physical condition (involuntary responses like sweating and twitching) would make the results of his test useless no matter what it showed. The reason the guy was so nervous was that he'd failed a poly many years ago and was later proved innocent by an iron-clad alibi. It occurred to me that the police could have lied to him about the results. That's the point I'd make about that.

 

[radcen]

The initial tale of abuse, in my opinion, must be taken seriously. Of course, an investigation should take place. But one should never ever dismiss such an accusation out of hand. Psychologists do forensic interviews with these kids and make every attempt to verify charges of abuse with the best practices we have available with which to do so. That's the best we can do when it's a kid-says-he-says accusation.

As to lie detector science, I'm not sure it's junk. I think our courts have determined that it's not an exact science and is, therefore, inadmissible in court unless both parties agree. But neither is whether one believes another's words or not. In this case, the proof was in the pudding. Jack De Marco, who is considered an expert polygraph administrator -- who works for the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, etc. -- came right out and said he believed his test showed the girl was lying.

As it turned out? She was.

(As an aside, my post indicated the father was very nervous about the polygraph, even though he agreed to take it. De Marco decided not to give him the test because he thought his physical condition (involuntary responses like sweating and twitching) would make the results of his test useless no matter what it showed. The reason the guy was so nervous was that he'd failed a poly many years ago and was later proved innocent by an iron-clad alibi. It occurred to me that the police could have lied to him about the results. That's the point I'd make about that.

re: believing

You originally said "believe". Maybe it's semantics, but I strongly disagree that we automatically believe, but I agree with the second way you phrased it... take seriously. To me, there is a distinction.

re: polygraphs

I have seen several detectives on true crime shows and documentaries, as well as read in books, admit that polygraphs are junk science (my phrase), and that its more legitimate use is in intimidating ignorant people into telling the truth. By establishing that it is a virtually foolproof device in the mind of the person being questioned, people who don't know any better are more prone to tell the truth.

In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, anybody who agrees to take a polygraph is a fool. Guilt or innocence is wholly irrelevant. As is the opinions of the ignorant masses who will jump to the conclusion that you must be guilty if you refuse.

 

[Ikari]

It was a two-parter. Concluded today from yesterday. A 17-year-old girl was there with her parents (mom's natural child, dad adopted) and aunt (with whom she is now living) and had, two months ago, accused her adoptive father of raping her three times and inappropriately touching her when she was eight years old. An arrest warrant had just been issued for dad. Dad admitted he was a lousy father, but swore he'd never touched her...never abused her.

Dr. Phil made polygraphs available to both of them. The examiner, Jack deMarco, called off the exam on dad because of concerns he had about his results being unacceptable (whether it showed lying or truth) because of some medical conditions dad had. The dad was also a complete mess because, when he was a young man, he failed a polygraph for a theft case and was later completely exonerated by the fact that he was provably out of the area and couldn't possibly have been the thief. (He didn't trust polygraphs.)

The first time Jack deMarco tried to administer the test to the young woman, he called it off because he was pretty sure counter-measures had been taken. The next morning, he administered the test without warning.

When asked the results of the test on the young woman, he said, "I can state with absolute certainty that she is lying."

Shortly thereafter, the young woman admitted she lied.

OMFG. This family has been completely destroyed over this.

If she had not admitted that on air, this man would have gone to jail for the rest of his life -- despite the results of the polygraph because, of course, those result are not admissible in court.

Is it time we looked at polygraphs and their place in the criminal justice system? They've come a very long way from their beginnings -- and so has our knowledge. Your thoughts?

Sounds like this whole thing was just set up for television. I mean, if it's true the girl should be charged with false statements and falsifying a crime. But I don't really believe anything I see on these entertainment shows since most everything is scripted and contrived. That was the whole thing with Jerry Springer, right? The main bouncer dude was actually a Chicago cop and he was about to get in trouble because there were people admitting to sleeping with children and all sorts of crimes and he hadn't arrested them or informed anyone about it, so they had to admit that it's all set up and make believe.

I would lean towards this just being some scripted event, they claim the girl went to the police some months ago and blah blah blah...ratings.