Michael Irvin accused of rape

[Chevy13]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

How strong is the evidence here? I mean a polygraph test? Those things are a crock. I saw one case where a man met up with a couple in a forest once and the guy ended up shooting the husband and their dog in what he initially explained as a hunting accident, then raped the wife over the course of a week or so.

He let her go so long as she promised not to tell the cops. However soon after she rescinded on her promise and eventually the lack of evidence at the time called for a polygraph test. The man passed with flying colors. The woman on the other hand failed miserably. So how did this come to pass?

Well apparently polygraphs measure emotion, so when the women was asked about the rape she was obviously shook up. The guy on the other hand was a cold blooded killer with minimal remorse.

Eventually ballistics proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the guys story of a hunting accident was false and some other evidence came in that eventually proved the rape.

She should have gone to the cops back in 2007. This personally just sounds like a money grab. At the very least it's an attempt to break up Irvins marriage. Irvin insist that he's been faithful and changed his ways so his wife has stayed with him in spite of his infidelity.

Damn that's pretty messed up but I grew up with some people like that with no conscience, some of them were convicted of murder but they show no remorse. Out of all my childhood friends I'm the only one not in jail or dead, well there's one more but he's fiend and I doubt he'll be alive much longer. I looked up some info on polygraph tests and there's a studies that show it's only 61% accurate Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates. Maybe we should have Irvin do one of these other ideas I found
"In West Africa persons suspected of a crime were made to pass a bird's egg to one another. If a person broke the egg, then he or she was considered guilty, based on the idea that their nervousness was to blame."

"In ancient China the suspect held a handful of rice in his or her mouth during a prosecutor's speech. Because salivation was believed to cease at times of emotional anxiety, the person was considered guilty if by the end of that speech the rice was dry."

"In ancient India, a suspect was given neutral words and critical words closely related to the crime he had allegedly committed. The person was to blurt out the first word that came to his mind and hit the gong at the same time. It was observed that whenever a critical word was given, the suspect would hit the gong more forcefully."