|
Post by rick62 on Apr 17, 2006 16:25:00 GMT -5
Shortly after the kidnapping and not long after Violet Sharpe gave inconsisitant stories....CAL was approached to try the new technology on his servants: There were several leads, but all quickly dried up. Curiously, a maid named Violet Sharpe, who worked for Lindbergh's in-laws, gave inconsistent stories. The police questioned her several times and after one interrogation, she swallowed a silver polish compound and was dead within minutes. At this point, officials approached Lindbergh about using a new lie detection instrument called a polygraph on his servants. Leonarde Keeler was one of two prominent criminologists who went to Hopewell to try to persuade Lindbergh to accept their expertise in lie detection. Keeler assured the state police that the polygraph had achieved a ninety-percent accuracy rate. Lindbergh rejected the proposal because he did not believe that anyone who worked for him could be guilty. However, that was not the last time that the polygraph would be considered in this case. www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/polygraph/
|
|
|
Post by rick62country pi on Apr 18, 2006 2:48:06 GMT -5
ana/ Gods on Olympus do not take lie detector tests. Good attorneys, like the ones paid by John Ramsey, do not permit thier clients to take lie detector tests either. CAL did everything possible to chase down every possible lead "in the Press" and behind the scenes block every possible means to catch anyone. Two facts prove the Big Lie:
None of the extortion gangs have any live Charlie. Only a sleeping suite.
CAL used every possible means at his disposal, including threats, to insure noone ever got caught under the quise of Charlies safety--but noone had Charlie (see above). To further this end, no lie detectors were going to be used--not on BRH for certain.
|
|
anne50
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by anne50 on Apr 27, 2006 12:13:24 GMT -5
Rick, you replied on April 18 to a post I made that day or the day before. In my post I asked why Lindbergh was exempt from taking the polygraph.The comment about the post you replied to is only a reminder of the aforementioned original post I made on April 17 or 18. Anyone reading your answer would wonder where the question preceding it is, so I thought I'd help the next reader out. That post was one of 125 that I asked Rita to delete because I thought I was quitting the forum. By the way, I love the introduction to your answer. anne50
|
|