Lie Detector Test for 3

I believe that in the case of Jussie Smollett and the gang they should all under go lie detector test performed by someone separate from the cpd and state of Illinois.

It is not at all common place for people who admit to crimes to be giving a pass for such serious crimes just to claim circumstantial evidence against a third person.

So far the state has presented nothing solid in evidence against jussie and they seem to have simply concocted a story to fit their narrative.

The police are currently under investigation for serious information being leaked throughout the investigation.

It is very possible that the 2 brothers have lied to police to stay out of jail or possibly something worse.

I find that it would be helpful to the case to have all three of the people involved in this to be givin lie detector test performed by maybe the fbi.

This could go far in determining where the truth is in this situation.

Simply put what would the two brothers have to lose by submitting to a test if they are being honest?

Is anyone opposed to the 2 or 3 undergoing a lie detector test and if so why?

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence so getting them to take one probably wouldn’t change a thing.

Didn’t Jussie alleged answer the door with the noose still around his neck? That dosent make much sense to me. If I had a noose forcefully tied around my neck I would be removing it the moment I could not leave it on for hours.

No having the noose around neck for when the police show up isn’t evidence of the crime. The marks left on his body would tell the tale of what really happend. Bruises,and scuffs from being dragged etc.

The whole situation seems strange to me. I don’t know for sure what happend to Jussie but his version of events isn’t believable.


a reply to: UncleTomahawk

a reply to: Athetos

I don’t know for sure what happend to Jussie but his version of events isn’t believable.

That's funny givin that his story is true.

His version said someone beat him up. The two have admitted to that.

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence so getting them to take one probably wouldn’t change a thing.

Surely you find it strange that the brothers never were asked to under go such test?

That is usually standard for police when there is a he said she said case.

They just took the brothers word and dropped all inquiries into them in favor of circumstantial evidence.

It would go very far in the case if they all three took the test and the brothers failed and jussie passed or vice versa.

Who's paying for all of this Dick Tracey work that very few care about?

How is the truth of this possibly fabricated event getting priority to the dozens of murders that get 1/10 the attention that this case has?

Sure parts of his story can be true. It’s the attempted hanging hate crime part that I don’t believe.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Dude should be charged with having the ugliest sounding name ever. What kind of name is Jussie Smollett anyway? Did his parents hate him or something?

No reason too, lie detector tests are inadmissible in court, might as well hang Jussie by his heels til he confesses. It would mean as much and you already knew that. (in simple terms, it would not be used to base any legal decision) not illegal, just unlawful! why do you want to do something unlawful to help Jussie?? that is not Justice.

There is a security camera that caught the brothers in the act, so yes, they did rough him up.
Jussie’s problem is that he reported that his attackers were white.
They are not white.
He knows them personally.
How do we get around that and why would we need a lie detector involved at that point?

originally posted by: Athetos
Sure parts of his story can be true. It’s the attempted hanging hate crime part that I don’t believe.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Believe it.

It happened.

The only question is if it was jussies idea or the brothers idea. Should that question equal to the two brothers getting away completely from facing justice for their role?

If 3 people rob a bank and two of them claim one paid them to do it should the two get away free? That should raise your suspicion in this case.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Athetos

I don’t know for sure what happend to Jussie but his version of events isn’t believable.

That's funny givin that his story is true.

His version said someone beat him up. The two have admitted to that.

You can cite were the brothers said they struck Jussie? you made that up completely.

a reply to: butcherguy

That is not correct, the camera was facing away from the "crime", check your source. there was nothing recorded

I get what your saying. It happens but it’s how and why its happened that mattered.
To me it seems like a complete fabrication with all 3 parties being complicate.

So what is being claimed to have happend didn’t really happen it was made to appear that it happend in that way with a specific goal in mind or the real reasons for it happening are not being disclosed by the parties involved.

We are on the same page I think. Different editions though.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: butcherguy
There is a security camera that caught the brothers in the act, so yes, they did rough him up.
Jussie’s problem is that he reported that his attackers were white.
They are not white.
He knows them personally.
How do we get around that and why would we need a lie detector involved at that point?

He went on gma and admitted they had their identities hidden and he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays.

That in no way equates to jussies guilt.

All that says is that jussie is subject to the msm daily feeding the hate between whites and blacks.

In the interview he admitted they could have been white or black but that he believed they were white based on what one of them said.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Lie detectors are useless, you can beat them with the proper techniques which is why they are inadmissible in court.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

To directly answer your question, I don't think the police can compel anyone to take a lie detector test. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I believe they can only request/offer a polygraph, and can use it in weighing whether or not to press charges, but it cannot be used in court.

But in that context, I would be very interested to know if the police did make such a request/offer, and if not, why not? And if so, what was the response? For all we know, polygraphs were administered and they're just not telling us. Or maybe one or more volunteered to take it without prompting.

In general, I agree that we haven't seen any evidence/proof of what Smollett is charged with. I'm on the fence with this. Nothing adds up yet. I don't believe that Smollett is entirely innocent, but I honestly don't know what the whole truth is at this point.

originally posted by: Athetos
I get what your saying. It happens but it’s how and why is happened that mattered.
To me it seems like a complete fabrication with all 3 parties being complicate.

So what is being claimed to have happend didn’t really happen it was made to appear that it happend in that way with a specific goal in mind or the real reasons for it happening are not being disclosed by the parties involved.
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Keep in mind the police claim jussie felt like he was not paid enough money at his job and that was his motivation.


Using that logic the majority of american employees are guilty. Heck even Jeff Bezos feels like he is not making enough money else he would stop making money.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Lie detectors are useless, you can beat them with the proper techniques which is why they are inadmissible in court.

Yes but it would go far in proving this case.

On top of that it is highly unlikely the two brothers could both trick a lie detector test since their stories are intertwined in this.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


Lie detectors are useless, you can beat them with the proper techniques which is why they are inadmissible in court.

Yes but it would go far in proving this case.

On top of that it is highly unlikely the two brothers could both trick a lie detector test since their stories are intertwined in this.

Okay.
They were caught on camera buying the items used in the attack the day before.

They were friends of Jussie.

He paid them $3,500.00

They testified before the grand jury.

The grand jury indicted Jussie.