Deadly Accident or Murder (Dr. Phil)?
Did you catch Dr. Phil on Monday? He shares the story of a young man and his girlfriend. The two hadn’t seen each other in a few days, and the girlfriend, 21-year old Stephanie says she was upset when he showed up.
During this encounter, Chloe’s boyfriend, Malcolm, 19, ends up falling over the handrail and dies from his injuries. Malcolm’s mom is confident that Chloe pushed him. Chloe denies it.
What do you believe?
UPDATE: I confused Stephanie and Chloe’s name. Chloe is the girlfriend. So this is a new poll:
[polldaddy poll=9323733]
Old poll where people may have been confused with me.
[polldaddy poll=9322829]
I don’t watch Doctor Phil, but I managed to dig up some YouTube clips of their discussion about a polygraph test (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QPPKBj45U0.) I really don’t agree with Stephanie – it’s a lose lose situation for Chloe to take a polygraph because it’s not proof of guilt. If she were to pass, she would still be treated with suspicion and dislike by Stephanie, and it wouldn’t clear her name. If she were to fail, then that would solidify her guilt in Stephanie’s mind. Either way, Stephanie is determined that Chloe killed her son, and she is (understandable) furious.
Even so, I get the feeling that something is wrong when Chloe is talking about her attorney and her reluctance to take a polygraph test. Firstly she says “I’m open to doing one” when it’s clearly not the case. Then she keeps shifting the responsibility for not taking a polygraph test onto her grandfather, and her arguments for refusing the test aren’t consistent. They’re really hesitant and fragmented – it’s like she’s making it up on the spot. It doesn’t make sense either – her comment about “giving the detectives room to investigate” doesn’t make sense – polygraph tests can’t be used in a court of law or as a reason for arresting someone. There are several things Chloe does body-language wise (like shrugging her shoulder and qualifying what should be a really strong response with “y’know”) that makes me doubt what she’s saying – none of it fits together.
Eyes, I know you don’t comment on public cases anymore, but could you tell me if I’m on the right track or if I’m way off?
I don’t think it’s a big deal talking to your grandfather who happens to be an attorney about a legal issue you’re facing. But in any case, given the nature of the criminal justice system in the US, you’d have to be stupid or poor not to consult an attorney when potentally facing a serious criminal charge and it doesn’t matter whether you actually are guilty or not. And it was implied at various times there was some sort of criminal investigation and the polygraph was first proposed by investigators.
BTW I’ve commented above about polygraphs, I won’t repeat that part but I will say in regards to your comments you should not only look into (lack of) the science behind polygraphs, but also into how they are used in criminal investigations. It’s true that they can’t be used in court or as a reason for arrest but they definitely are used by criminal investigators in various ways including to try and induce a confession. (You may say there can be no confession if you aren’t guilty but I’d again I’d suggest you look at the history, it does happen.)
I didn’t watch the whole detail but the only thing which really struck me as odd, was the sister telling people she pushed the boyfriend. But that’s odd whichever way you look at it. Why would the sister go around telling people that she’d committed a serious crime whether she’d said that or not? It’s just very strange behaviour whatever Chloe actually said to the sister.
Other things the family tried to make a big deal of don’t seem a big deal. E.g. Changing stories except only really minor details changed and in a emotionally state and something which was surely over in a flash, and I guess it was dark as well, such minor details changing is probably more of an indication of telling the truth then lying, as people lying over such serious things often come up with one story then are careful to stick to it. “Not cooperating with investigators” well I think I’ve said enough about this. I’ll just repeat that in this case there’s limited advantage to her in being too cooperative. Sure she’ll want closure for the family but it’s unlikely they’re going to change their minds much. And significantly, it’s not like there’s some other killer other there who’s not going to be found because investigators are wasting their time looking into her instead.
I am sure she did not intend to hurt him. I totally believe her when she says she loved him. But I am absolutely convinced that she is lying when she says that she did not push him. I think she`s also lying when she gives her reasons why she wouldn`t take the polygraph. She would be an idiot to take it cause she sure knows she would fail it.
She absolutely intended to hurt him. I think it’s doubtful she intended for him to lose his life. She had a history of putting her hands on him and when mom said so she didn’t even bother to deny it.
Whenever violence is introduced in any relationship no one can predict what the end result will be. It could be a bloody lip or it could end someone’s life.
If you read up on the scientific evidence surrounding polygraph tests, you’d know that you shouldn’t need a lawyer to tell you not to do a polygraph test unless there’s some significant advantage to you, and it doesn’t matter if you’re telling the truth or lying. A significant advantage would be something like “results in a substanial payout” or “need it to keep your job”, not “to make a mother, even one you care about, feel slightly better but only slightly since she’s still going to blame you”.