Hudson Suspect Refuses to Get Hooked Up

1. Sure..he's innocent, but why take a lie detectors test to prove it? Didn't you know that they're set up to convict innocent people and only pass you if your guilty? He's a career criminal, he knows that if he takes that test that it's going to show deceit and that he played a part in the murders of those people.

It's actually a smart move on his part, not giving the police anything else to help them in their investigation, but a career criminal already knows that.

Posted at 8:31AM on Oct 30th 2008 by commonsense

2. but him in a zoo.

Posted at 8:35AM on Oct 30th 2008 by big joe

3. #1 polygraphs aren't 100% reliable. But refusing to take one is an admission of guilt. Just being put on the spot he'll get nervous.

Posted at 8:51AM on Oct 30th 2008 by ckitty

4. I agree, good move on his part, those tests are unreliable. Just the pressure from being "hooked up" can cause a skew in the results. Of course I still think he played a part in this some how.

Posted at 8:51AM on Oct 30th 2008 by JEH

5. O agree totally with #1. Any good lawyer will not advise his/her client to take a lie detector regardless if they believe them to be guilty or innocent. Since they are not reliable, if the test shows deceit, the police department will have that in the back of their mind while trying to solve the case and find evidence. I don't know....I have a feeling the results of this investigation will have a shocking ending that could probably have nothing to do with William and a lot to do with Julia. Mother or not, I would put nothing past her. Guess there is nothing to do but wait.

Posted at 9:00AM on Oct 30th 2008 by tmonique

6. I know that polygraphs are not 100% reliable it shows involuntary reactions your body has. Usually if someone is LYING their heart races, blood pressure goes up & they start sweating. Unless you're a sociopath you're body is going to react if your not telling the truth.

I know it's not admissable...the police know it's not admissiable. It's a tool to help aid the police to see if their suspect is being deceitful.

And yes, if he has an attorney he has probably advised him to cooperate but not to do anything that would indicate him. A polygraph would be stupid for him to do UNLESS he knew that he didn't commit these crimes. OTHERWISE...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck....GUESS WHAT? It's probably a DUCK!

Posted at 9:12AM on Oct 30th 2008 by commonsense

7. Hudson Suspect Refuses to Get Hooked Up

that article writer has mush for brain

paragraph two

"William Balfour told cops he had a "good relationship" with the Hudson family, reports the AP, but when they asked him to take a polygraph, refused and "stopped cooperating" with detectives"

note the word "but":it's function is to act as an opposite; however here it's being used by mush brain for lose thinking, and in a feeble attempt to generate sensationalism; THERE IS NO CONFLICT; HAVING A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYONE OR GROUP IS NOT PER SE ANTITHETICAL TO NOT GOING ALONG WITH A LIE DETECTOR TEST; first even if lie detector test were accurate, there the constitutional right to refuse to coopperate with the coercive power of the state, which is not antithetical to having had or maybe still having a "good relationship" etc

presumably that's part of the reason mush for brains hides his identity

even though mush for brain is ignorant readers are aware that the police, aka cops and fuzz, lie to get a conviction, the us has an excellent record of such, fitting up a victim is the name of the game

mush for brains added in his another piece of fascist brilliance with fuzz assertion that he refused to cooperate

obviously mush for brains is a supporter of the white house fascist and some torturing, used in a similar way , when unable to do good police work; of course readers know cops lie, frame suspect, etc in place of competent police work

that's enough for this issue; whether william balfour did it or not, is another matter; but it won't be assited by msuh for brains railroading inclinations

Posted at 9:17AM on Oct 30th 2008 by matropver

8. He may have something to do with this but then again he may not. Just because he went to jail for the things he did does not make him guilty. Believe me the cops know a whole lot more than they are telling and if he is a career criminal there is no way he would be dumb enough to leave the murder weapon near where they would find little Julian dead in that truck. The police could want him to take the lie detector test to show others that he didn't have anything to do with this so the real killers will slip up. If this was a slam dunk case and they knew for a fact he did it then why has he not officially been charged with the murders. I sure hope the gun they found has many clues. None of us really know the time line and the key factor is was Julian killed on Friday with the others or after Friday and if it was after Friday was the same weapon used to kill everyone. If Julian was killed after Friday and the murder weapon is the same used in all crimes then there is no way Flex could have done this because he was in jail every since Friday. With that said they would need to focus on other suspects which should be Julia and the baby daddy. They were so fake standing up there giving that interview and neither of them shed a tear. Besides I just can't get over the fact of a mother who claims to have such a close family losing a mother, brother and her only son taking the time to be on my space updating her page. Something is fishy here and this case is going to take an unexpected turn. My sympathy goes out to Jennifer because no matter how this case turns out she lost all her loved ones because her sister made dumb choices in life.

Posted at 9:24AM on Oct 30th 2008 by Rhonda

9. Of course he's involved. And he probably pulled the trigger. Either way, Julia, Jason and the little boy's father are ALL responsible for that child's death. I think Julia should have her tubes tied so she can never again expose an innocent child to the kind of violence that ended poor Julian's life. She's as responsible as whoever pulled the trigger for bringing that evil into his life.

Posted at 9:30AM on Oct 30th 2008 by Sandbox

10. Not taking a lie detector test is NOT admission to guilt!

I believe he had something to do with it but he might be just waiting for more crap to come out. Somewhere I read that someone "snitch" and told where to find the gun. There is way more that the cops know that they are not telling. Did anyone watch Nancy Grace last night? The whole hour was practically this case.

Posted at 9:30AM on Oct 30th 2008 by WTF!!

11. Well ... he won't be voting! Best of luck to ya, thug!

Posted at 9:31AM on Oct 30th 2008 by IfItLooksLikeADuck ...

12. God knows the truth, and what you think you have done in the dark and no one will find out, it will surely come to the light, so polygraph test or not, who ever did this horrible unhuman crime will be exposed. Don't be surprised if this case has a twisted ending.

Posted at 9:40AM on Oct 30th 2008 by twofaces

13. ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT THIS TRASHY FAMILY...SURE THERE IS 1 SUCCESSFUL PERSON.....YOU ALL ARE JUST GIVING THAT WRETCHED SISTER (JULIA )SOMETHING ELSE TO PLAY ON MY SPACE ABOUT...IF IT WERE ANOTHER FAMILY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LONG DONE IN A COLD CASE FILE!

Posted at 9:46AM on Oct 30th 2008 by kennedy

14. I would not take a lie detector test either. Innocent people fail it more than liars. I'm not so sure about Jennifer's sister. Something is not right. He might know what happened but that doesn't mean he did it.

Posted at 10:25AM on Oct 30th 2008 by Ana

15. Response to Rhonda: i believe i read somewhere (can't remember where though, if someone knows post it ) that there is a witness that claims to have seen the white suv on that friday in the street it was left in ( where they found Julian days later ), (can't remember if she said morning or afternoon) she claims to have been sitting in her parked car when she noticed the suv had gone around the block twice and then finally parking behind another car, she says she saw 2 men leave the suv and head towards another street on foot (that definately puts 2 people on the suspect list already) she said she couldn't see the faces clearly so she cannot say who it was or what they looked like. There was another witness, one of Balfours girlfriends neibours, that said they saw Balfour come to the girlfriends house in a white suv on friday afternoon and exit with what appeared to be a bottle of alcohol. If someone else knows the time differnece between these two accounts it could clear things up. Who knows really who killed who, but he is involved somehow or he wouldn't have been seen in that car at all, otherwise somebody's done a good job in framing him, it would be horrible though to believe he could kill the child in cold blood. It's tragic either way.

Posted at 10:39AM on Oct 30th 2008 by justme