Will Mr. Brewer be found guilty this time?

hes guilty

I honestly believe this man is guilty but no I do not think he will be found guilty. In campton it is not what you do it is who you are and everyone knows that. It would take 10 or 20 little girls saying this to make this town wake up. I think most people know he is guilty but he still will not pay for what he has done. They should move this new trial and maybe some justice will be served.

I voted no before I realized the one said he is guilty but will get off. That is really my choice. He will be found innocent again but he is guilty. I would never leave a child alone with Robert.

no he is not guilty, known the man for over 20 yrs. no way would he do what is accused of him

No one really knows someone like they think they do. MOst molestors are very well liked and noone would ever suspect them; that is how they get away with it. Tell that to the 4-5 little girls that say he molested them. They all aint lyeing. He did it. If he were innocent he would have taken that lie detector test when offered. GUILTY GUILTY. Pervert

I will respect the jury.

YALL NUTS wrote:

No one really knows someone like they think they do. MOst molestors are very well liked and noone would ever suspect them; that is how they get away with it. Tell that to the 4-5 little girls that say he molested them. They all aint lyeing. He did it. If he were innocent he would have taken that lie detector test when offered. GUILTY GUILTY. Pervert

If this man was given the opportunity to have a lie detector test done and he refused then that tells it all right there. Let someone accuse me of something like that and If I didn't do it I would gladly take a lie detector. He must have known he wouldn't or couldn't pass it.

YALL NUTS needs to study the laws of this United States.

I didnt know what to believe when I heard of this whole thing. I dont like him myself but didnt know whether hed do something like this or not. But not taking a lie detector test is a little fishy to me. If innocent why not prove it and take one?

A lie detector is not 100% correct. Courts won't admit it as evidence.

But a innocent person would be happy to take one! If only for themselves and their family. That is if they could pass it.

Ed Johnson wrote:

A lie detector is not 100% correct. Courts won't admit it as evidence.

Is a polygraph admissible in court?

Yes, if ruled on by the judge. The judge is least likely to use a polygraph test if it was given by an unaccredited examiner

ed you are wrong--most courts do allow lie detector test as long as given by the proper authorities. Robert was offered to take one before he was ever charged by the ky. state police--had he passed it they may not have even charged him. He declined after being offered several times-he could not pass it because he is guilty. If I were innocent of something someone accused me of and was offered a lie detector test before I was ever charged I would gladly take one and if innocent pass--but if I were guilty Id be like robert and refuse as well. In ky they are allowed as evidence if given by the state police.

What law school did you go to Mr. wrong? Any first year law student learns that polygraph results are inadmisible in a court of law. Not scientifiicably reliable. Doesn't meet the Daulbert standard. You should recognize Daulbert, most any lawyer would. The mere mention of a "lie detector" during a trial results in a mistrial.

But you're not a lawyer. You are a spin master. From West Liberty, of course. Same computer, I suppose. "Mom/Im one of the mothers/YALL NUTS/wrong, etc" You have an agenda. And it doesn't involve the truth.

Lawman wrote:

What law school did you go to Mr. wrong? Any first year law student learns that polygraph results are inadmisible in a court of law. Not scientifiicably reliable. Doesn't meet the Daulbert standard. You should recognize Daulbert, most any lawyer would. The mere mention of a "lie detector" during a trial results in a mistrial.
But you're not a lawyer. You are a spin master. From West Liberty, of course. Same computer, I suppose. It seems now if both sides agree then it is admissable if the judge allows it.

NUTS/wrong, etc" You have an agenda. And it
doesn't involve the truth.-I know my truth is not what you all want since it means Robert Brewer is a guilty pervert. All those little girls are not making up all this shit. there just aint no way.

Wrong again--IF you agree to a lie detector test and it is given by the state police or other court des. person then it can be admissable. Here is some info. I copied on the subject. Also if you are offered a lie detector before an indictment is handed down by a grand jury then it can be presented to the grand jury and then one may not even be indicted so any innocent person I would think would want to take a lie detector test. IF one were to pass one I doubt police would still charge them. I am from west liberty; what about it? NO I am not the mother of one of those children(robert better be glad im not) but have followed the story since I work in campton and know most of the people. He is guilty and I hope they put him under the jail.

"Each jurisdiction must be checked to determine admissibility standards; some courts allow the introduction of polygraph evidence while others have not. In most cases, polygraph evidence is used during pre-trial investigation and preparations rather than during the actual trial.

In the O. J. Simpson civil trial, the results of a polygraph were admitted into evidence. This established a precedent across the nation allowing polygraph examinations in civil trials such as divorce cases."

Here is the Daubert (not daulbert) you were talking about and it says it can be admissable and is up to the judge in most cases. Go back to lawschool.
In 1975, federal judges were given more discretion about the admissibility of evidence under new "Federal Rules of Evidence." Thus, a judge could allow a jury to consider polygraph results even if they did not pass the Frye Test. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phramaceuticals that definitively replaced the Frye standard. The court said that judges could admit certain scientific evidence as long as the theory behind it could be been tested, it had been subject to peer review and publication, the potential error was known, and the scientific community in general accepted the theory. In the 1998 case of U.S. v. Scheffer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that polygraph tests did not have to be admitted as evidence in military trials.(President George H.W. Bush had banned the admission of polygraph evidence from military trials in 1991, citing their unreliability.) But it did not ban polygraph evidence outright. Daubert grants judges the right to determine whether polygraph evidence can be used or ignored, so it is generally up to the judge.

yep yep that is true.
it can be used.
i know it can be.

true wrote:

But a innocent person would be happy to take one! If only for themselves and their family. That is if they could pass it.

.........* In a court of law it's up to the prosecutor to prove there is a crime.....one is considered innocent until proven guilty so there is no reason to take a lie detector test. Like I said the courts can not and will not use a lie test in court. No one here can show where a court used one and relied on a test. Never happened. never will happen.

Ed I can show you more than one but to get started there was a trial also of a sexual abuse nature and guess what? A lie detector test was used in the criminal case and he was found guilty! Here is the case so you can look it up. Just like I said if both parties agree (prosecution and defense and waivers are signed it is admissalbe as evidence in a criminal trial) So it has happened and alot--will again. YOur good friend was offered this many times to prove his innocense and he refused. WONDER WHY??

Look it up for yourself Curtis Hovenden vs state of indianda case number is 92A03-9903-CR-100