Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. Balloon Boy is a fine example. They bought the story of the kid being in there and that went on for hours and hours. Not once, not nobody, even mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. You cannot breath a helium atmosphere and live.
That story stunk from the git go as the balloon was obviously too small to lift the kid. I watched the whole thing and waited and waited for _someone_ to point out the scientific impossibilities.
No one is suggesting they lied about what happened. However, any reasonable interpretation of what they reported, including the 911 call itself, would lead to the conclusiong that it's 99% certain this guy is a liar. How about what Forbes pointed out? The guy claimed on the 911 call at one point he wouldn't shift to neutral because he didn't want to take his hands off the steering wheel. Yet, he also claimed he reached down, grabbed hold of the gas pedal, and couldn't bring it back up while driving along. Forbes tried it with an average size person and found that they could barely touch and UNPRESSED pedal with their finger tips and could not get at a depressed pedal at all. Then Sikes changed his story to he was afraid to put it into neutral because he thought the car might "flip". He was also afraid to just turn the car off for 20+ miles. Yet finally the car miraculously slows down to 50 and stops when the officer is driving next to him and tells him to put on the brakes and turn it off. The analysis of the brake pads showed no indication that they had been used for hard braking. The onboard computer showed the accelerator and brakes had been applied hundreds of times.
You believe this crap?
As for the police, while not lying, if they were doing their job, they would have asked him to show them how he could have reached the gas pedal while driving. And detained him for some serious questioning. And asked him to take a lie detector test. They did none of that yet if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he lawyer up?
I don't know what level of "proof" you need. You'll never have that in a situation like this unless the guy confesses. But clearly this one stinks to high heaven.
So? He was panicked. Hardly surprising in his situation.
Now THERE'S incontrovertable proof!
The brake pads were down to metal, and there was tons of evidence of recent hard braking.
And you know for a fact that they didn't?
Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.
Uh huh. So panicked that he couldn't just turn the car off or shift to neutral as he was repeatedly instructed to do by the 911 operator. But not panicked so that he could stand on his head and try to pull up the accelerator. I'd say that is very surprising, unless you're a liar.
Not according to the Wall Street Journal:
formatting link
"The brake wear was not consistent with the brakes being applied at full force for a long period, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday, citing three people familiar with the probe, whom it did not name. The newspaper said the brakes may have been applied intermittently."
Sure you can burn up a set of brake pads driving 94mph with partial braking and your foot on the accelerator at the same time.
According to all the news reports they just took the skunk at his word. I do know that in my own cars, reaching down to pull up an accelerator would be extremely difficult if not impossible while driving down the freeway at 94mph.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between police questioning someone and asking if the will submit to a lie detector test and arrest. They are distinctly different events. People are questioned and asked if they will take a lie detector test all the time without being under arrest.
Then you must not watch the news. I see lie detectors used frequently during investigations. They aren't admissable in court, but that is a different issue.
I'd say there is a good deal of evidence that he committed a number of crimes. The probablilities of the brakes not working, refusing to put the car in neutral, refusing to turn the car off, then doing exactly that after 20 miles when the cruiser arrives is 1 in a billion.. I suppose if you were on the OJ jury, you'd have let him off the hook too.
They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make you testify against yourself stuff.
Did this "chippy" graduate from the same police college as the one who killed himself and his family instead of using his brakes properly and shutting off the Lexus???
Well, that and the fact it is unrealiable. Regardless, people are asked to submit to one fairly often and most of them agree to it. Has nothing to do with being under arrest.
Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple times. The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'
No, there was no 'box' attached. There was one unconfirmed report that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that there was one. There was also the report that someone had seen the kid fall out of the thing. Also uncofirmed and proven false.
At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.
All a lie detector tells is how nervous you are. Most of the time, under the circumstances, that is same thing. But there are a high number of false positives.
Has absolutely no impact on the trial since, at least in the US, you can't introduce refusal to take a lie detector at trial. Makes the cops marginally more interested, but most of the more seasoned detectives know that refusal means nothing in real life. They still like to raise their eyebrows and pretend otherwise, but that is mostly to elicit other guilt responses in the person. BTW: At least when I was more active in the area in the 80s, most of the polygraph operators said they would only take voice stress analysis tests if it was them or their families. They thought it measured truthfulness better.
The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under the balloon.
Oh, look!
formatting link
...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box still attached to the bottom:
The CHP has a VERY large staff that even includes a lot of car mechanics, in addition to scientists from many disiplines. They have labrotories and millions of dollars of equipment. They have access to huge databases and other organizations with addtional expertise that you can't access. They have a budget for paying for tests and outside help when needed. My guess is that their car mechanics have a lot more education and experience than you.
Better look again. That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon. News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for the kid.
The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car' _suspended_ from the baloon.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.