1. The Name Itself– The first misconception to address is the very name lie detector test. It is more correctly known as a polygraph, and can be more accurately considered to be a truth verifier test, because …
2. They Don’t Detect Lies – Polygraphs can confirm that a person is responding truthfully to a question; however, the body functions that are monitored in a polygraph test will not specifically identify a lie, simply an abnormal physiological reaction.
3. They Are 100% Accurate – When administered by an experienced professional examiner, a polygraph test can be very accurate in establishing truth or indicating deception, but there are many factors that can alter their reliability.
4. They Are Not Admissible In Court – Contrary to the belief even among some lawyers, this is no longer universally true. There have been cases where polygraph results have been entered as evidence in trials.
5. You Can “Beat” A Polygraph Test – A professional examiner will conduct a polygraph in three phases – the pre-exam interview, the polygraph exam, and the post-exam interview – over the course of several hours. The exam will include control questions, which are designed to confirm the truthfulness of the responses.
6. Drugs Can Help You Beat The Exam – Drugs or medications won’t aid in defeating a polygraph. Part of the pre-exam phase is for the examiner to ensure that the subject is fit to take the exam, and verify if any medications have been taken.
7. Nerves Can Affect The Results Of A Test – Nervousness does not register in the same way the physiological response of the nervous system does during a polygraph. Also, the examiner will work with the subject throughout the process to ensure that they are as relaxed as possible.
8. Polygraphs Include Trick Questions Intended to Elicit A Response – In fact, the respondent will be made aware in advance, of every question he will be asked in the polygraph exam. There are no surprise questions.
9. Control Questions Are Standard Questions With Standard Responses – Not exactly. A control question is not something like “Is your last name Lipschitz”. The purpose of a control question is to induce the subject into giving a deceptive answer, so that the examiner can have reliable measurements of what a deceptive response will look like.
10. You Only Fail If You Lie – While polygraphs do have a high percentage of accuracy when administered by a well-trained and qualified examiner, it’s quite possible to be completely truthful and still “fail” a polygraph exam.

For more information on this topic and much more check out this link here.

The post 10 Misconceptions About Lie Detector Tests appeared first on Crime Museum.

The use of light being held at oblique angles towards a document is one of the simpler methods of examining indented writing. In Vickers’ case it was an effective method of identifying what she wrote. In forensic cases, examiners may want to look for indentation caused from pages several sheets above the original document, which calls for a much more sensitive device. An electrostatic detection device (EDD) is a piece of equipment that is used to find impressions left on a questioned document. The device is about the size of a standard home printer and its basic components include a grounded plate and thin piece of film. After a questioned document is placed in between the plate and the film, an electrostatic charge is passed through the paper. Special toner is added to the device and is attracted areas of indentation, which have a higher charge.

While Vicker’s case called for a simple method of identifying indented writing and did not require specialized equipment, EDD has been helpful in visualizing writing in pages that are several sheets above the original document. This type of sensitivity may be very helpful in determining who wrote a document or where it may have came from, such as kidnapping cases that involve ransom notes.

The post Recovering Indented Writing appeared first on Crime Museum.

Ravi’s roommate, Tyler Clementi, killed himself in September of 2010 at the age of 18 by jumping off the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River after finding out about the secret webcam documenting his sexual relationship with another man.

After facing two counts of invasion of privacy, Molly Wei, a fellow student at Rutgers University who admitted to joining Ravi in spying on his roommate, reached a plea deal required her to testify against her friend and former high school classmate as well as to complete a three-year program on cyber bullying and do 300 hours of community service.

Ravi turned down a plea deal offered by Middlesex County prosecutors that would have allowed him to avoid jail time in exchange for undergoing counseling, doing 600 hours of community service and disposing of any information that could identify the man who appeared in the Web video with Clementi.

Prosecutors also offered to help him avoid deportation, though they said they could not guarantee it.

Ravi, who had been studying on a visa at the New Jersey university, did not testify on his own behalf.

In Twitter messages from that day, Ravi wrote that he’d gone into a friend’s room, “turned on my webcam” and saw his roommate “making out with a dude.”

Then on September 22, 2010, Clementi took a train to New York and posted a mobile status update on his Facebook page that read, “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.”

The post Cyber Bullying Case at Rutgers University appeared first on Crime Museum.

Patti Krieger disappeared on October 2, 2010. She was on a hiking trip with her friends on Sauk Mountain. The police were unable to find her and until recently nothing has been heard about her. At the end of October 2011, over a year after her disappearance, a ransom email was sent. Alan Patterson, Krieger’s son, created a website in order to receive reliable tips concerning his mother’s disappearance. The ransom email sent to the website contained “options” for Patterson to choose from. He was told to wire $250,000 to Ghana in order to see his mother again. At the end of the email, the sender even offered to cut off one of his mother’s fingers to prove she was alive and being held hostage. The sender signed the email as “The Keeper.”

On November 6, 2011, two-year-old Sky Metalwala disappeared after his mother and four-year-old sister left to go get gas. A Facebook page was developed in order to help search for Sky, and they received an email. This email was very similar to the email regarding the disappearance of Patty Krieger. Both emails had similar grammatical errors, offered to fingers as proof the victims were alive, and were signed “The Keeper.”

Is “The Keeper” some sort of con-artist who runs a scam on these websites that are set up as a tipline? Patterson, Krieger’s son, claimed this has to be a scam when he received the email about his missing mother. And now that Sky is missing, will the Metalwala family feel the same way?

The post More Ransom Emails from “The Keeper” appeared first on Crime Museum.

The number of cell phones inside prisons has quadrupled over the past three years. Prisoners are under secure monitoring, so how are they getting that many phones past security? These inmates, essentially these criminals, are making unmonitored phone calls while supposedly having their rights restricted while in prison.  

Former New York City Correction Commissioner Martin Horn argues that prison is used as punishment by separating the inmates from society. How does this punish them if they still have access to the outside world through the possession of cell phones? Horn believes these efforts are useless.

Facebook applications such as Farmville might not be the only thing they are working on using their Smartphones. As far as we know, they could be planning the same sorts of crimes for which they were sent to prison. The best example of an inmate continuing the criminal life through prison doors using a cell phone is Anthony Kidd. Kidd arranged the murder of his girlfriend from inside a prison in New Jersey. As technology improves and time passes, criminals get smarter. They think of new ways to get around the security systems the same way they think of other ways to commit crimes.

Since these inmates are getting smarter, how can the prisons keep these cell phones out? The security officials monitor the activities of the inmates to the best of their abilities, but they can’t watch the entire facility every second of the day. There has been talk of employing K-9 units to sniff out the cell phones inside the prisons. The dogs would be able to detect the ionization in the cell phone batteries. This may be effective in recovering some of the phones, but will it be available for use in all prisons?

Even the most watched inmates are finding ways to sneak phones in. Charles Manson had access to a cell phone. This man orchestrated several murders by simply convincing other people to commit them. Imagine what sorts of things he could be working on with this access to unlimited unmonitored calls.

For information on cell phones in prisons in general, go here or here.

The post Prison Cell Phone Usage appeared first on Crime Museum.