Saturday, September 22, 2012

The Failed Polygraph and Missing Children

The polygraph is a tool used in searching for the truth.

The polygraph is not admissible in courts in most states in the union.  The polygraph, in the hands of a skilled polygrapher, is a most useful tool in guiding an investigation; especially in the case of a missing child.

John Walsh, America's Most Wanted, urges parents of missing children to demand a polygraph on hour one of day one.  He knows that once cleared, police can move on past the innocent parent and not waste precious time.

Let's say that your child was reported missing.

You, the parent, are called in (or request) for the polygraph on Day 1.  Here is how it would work:

You would be  a bundle of nerves because your child is missing.

1.  Pre screening interview.  

"I know this is difficult for you, but the sooner you are cleared, the sooner focus gets to the real perpetrator.  I am going to ask you the following 5 questions and the machine will measure your responses.  I know you are nervous and emotional but there are no surprises here for you and if you are telling the truth, your nervousness will be consistent throughout:

1.  Is your name Mary?
2.  Do you know what happened to your daughter?
3.  Did you cause your daughter's disappearance?
4.  Do you live on Smith Street?
5.  Have you told me the truth?

These are the only questions you will be asked.  Do you understand?  Do you have any questions for me?  Yes, I understand you are on medication but the medication will impact questions 1 and 4, just as they would with questions 2,3, and 5, so don't worry.  Tell the truth and let us do our job. We are here to find your child and need your help!"

2.  You are hooked up and your vitals are monitored.  You are nervous out of your mind, scared and anxious about your daughter.  You can feel your heart racing as the anxiety is tearing through you and the needle shows it.

3.  The questions are then posed and if there is a significant change in your vitals, particularly on question number three, there is a problem.

Some tests will be longer, perhaps 10 questions and some, if there is only a slight reaction, may be inconclusive, but during the prescreening interview, the wise polygrapher will do an interview.

"What names do you call your daughter?" and such, so that he can enter into YOUR internal, personal, subjective dictionary.  Some child molesters think they only "tickled" or "played" with the child, and will pass a polygraph if they are asked, "did you molest?" the child.  Others, as we saw with Bill Clinton, have internal personal subjective dictionaries different than most, and during the pre screening interview, if sexuality is in play, you will be asked to give specific definitions of sex acts, so that only YOUR language is used.

When someone fails a polygraph, there is a reason for them to fail.

Objection:  If polygraphs were so sharp, they would be admissible in court.

Answer:   The same attorneys who make this claim, administer the polygraphs to their own clients before allowing the police to polygraph them.

In our nation where no money is spared in national defense and national security, the highest officials in our land rely upon the polygraph to protect them, including the President of the United States.

 Justin DiPietro failed a polygraph for a reason.  He "smoked it" instead of passing it.  Not a top shelf criminal genius mind, he knew enough to be "emotionally incapable" of "negotiating" with the "kidnapper."

                                       Billie Jean Dunn failed a polygraph for a reason.

Terri Horman failed for a reason.  When her husband and sister in law found out, the family unity immediately disintegrated, Terri stopped cooperating and got herself an attorney.  Silence has kept her out of prison and has left little Kyron without the dignity of a burial.

Deborah Bradley failed for a reason...and on and on the list goes.   Patsy and John Ramsey gave new meaning to the term, "polygraph shopping" in the case of their murdered daughter.

The faces of those who hindered the search for truth. 

refused to help police

refused polygraph


John Mc Gowan said...

This makes for interesting reading..

Did you know:
The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?
The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?
The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?
The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?
A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem?
The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
The National Center for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?
The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?"
The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?"
Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph?
One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again?
Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus?
You don't have to be a psychopath, go to spy school, or somehow believe your own lies to fool the polygraph? (We'll reveal how it's done.)
Educate yourself. Before playing Russian roulette with your reputation, learn how to protect yourself against this invalid test. Download's free book (1 mb PDF):

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

Jazzie said...

I didn't realize Anthony Bennett refused to be polygraphed.

In the recent prison scuffle, Bennett who has been "charged federally with assaulting Carnel Chamberlain" "is now facing felony charges in Bay County for reportedly attacking corrections officers"... "Officers noted in their reports that they heard Bennett state, “I don’t care. I have a lot on my mind. I’m looking at life and I will take you both on. Let me out of this cell.”

If he was only up on charges for assaulting Carnel, why did he mention "facing life"? Was this an admission to his involvement for Carnel's murder? Or does the expression "facing life" mean something else?

John Mc Gowan said...

Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge Clock
On 28 January 2002, retired FBI polygraph expert Dr. Drew C. Richardson reiterated his challenge to the polygraph community to prove their claimed ability to detect countermeasures (techniques for passing -- or beating -- the polygraph). This clock figure shows how long Dr. Richardson's challenge has gone without takers. What are the polygraph operators afraid of? (Listen to a personal message from Dr. Richardson.) 10

Jazzie said...

"Police said that Jaimee Chamberlain was given a polygraph on June 22, but did not release the results.
She said on Wednesday that she had passed the test and a second one that was given. Bennett denied requests to take a polygraph test, police said."

If police don't release the results, are we to take Jaimee's word that she passed both polys?

Anonymous said...

I am not a fan of polygraphs. A good interviewer can get much more information than a polygraph can. For me, the polygraph is a good intimidation device to further interrogations.

MissUnderstood said...

I think that would depend on her words. Is there a quote from her regarding her polygraph's? And, why did she take 2? Is that common?

MissUnderstood said...

I'm not a big fan of them either. At the same time, I think it looks suspicious if the parent of a missing child refuses one though. I would rather have the person come out and say "I failed this and this question", rather than pretend to have passed.

Tania Cadogan said...

What i found interesting is kate mccann said she would take a polygraph.
When the media took her up on her offer she rapidly backtracked claiming it wouldn't be admissible in court, wasn't 100% fail safe and sundry other excuses.

Now, if she was innocent then taking the polygraph would not be a problem since she would pass.
Even if it were not admissible in court it would at least allow the PJ and media to start looking elewhere.
Ie, if she knew she would pass there would be no excuse for her not to take it.
The only guilt would be hers from leaving her kids alone every night that week.
A good polygrapher would know this and would also ask the right questions.

Logically the reason she refused to take it and thus the excuses were because she knew she could not pass it and at best it would show inconclusive.
Failing or inconclusive would result in the PJ and media looking far too closely at the tapas 7 and the parents which could not be allowed to happen as that meant no more donations.

Innocent people do not fear a polygraph because they know they are innocent and have nothing to hide.

Guilty people fear a polygraph because they know they are guilty and have plenty to hide.

Anonymous said...

The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?

Bet he also thinks the government is concealing aliens and are keeping us from obtaining free power and life on earth without disease, war and famon.

The only evidence they had on any of the cases listed above was that on Bennet as he his the carcass under the police officers feet as they tried to wait for the media and all others to practice their pschobabble crap for the hungry masses.

Maybe they have it in Reynold's case, but why not push it?
Dunn's case-perhaps hoping to recruit others into their fairy tale world of crime solving and charity work is more important than arresting them.
Horman: Who knows?
Ramsey:dog and pony show that will last until the end of time.
Celis:The police have already claimed it to be an abduction.There is no evidence they did not and still aren't co-operating with police.There is, however,evidence they are not co-operating with media who would like to promote their books, "experts," blast from the past analogies, and super secret charity workers from tearing the town up in order to guareetee truth and freedom for all.

John Mc Gowan said...


Detective to Zinah Jennings: ‘You’re not answering. Is he OK?’

The mother of a missing Columbia toddler repeatedly refused to tell police detectives where her son was during an interview with police roughly one month after he was reported missing.
Details of that 21/2-hour taped interview Dec. 30 came out during testimony Tuesday in the trial of 23-year-old Zinah Jennings. Her son, Amir, has not been seen since just after Thanksgiving, when he was 18 months old. She is charged with unlawful conduct toward a child.
“Is the baby OK? Is he OK? ...You are not answering. Is he OK?” city police Sgt. Arthur Thomas is heard asking Jennings during the interrogation.

Read more here:

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

Jerry Sandusky's plan to take the witness stand at his trial was foiled after his adopted son came forward and told prosecutors the former Penn State assistant football coach had abused him, it has emerged.

Trial transcripts posted online on Friday reveal that Sandusky was forced to remain silent during his child sex-abuse trial because of concerns over his son's allegations.
'Mr. Sandusky had always wanted to testify on his own behalf.
He always wanted to tell people his side to the allegations in this case,' said defense lawyer Joe Amendola.

'That potential evidence, whether true or not, was so devastating' that Sandusky felt he could not run the risk of testifying and subjecting himself to questions about Matt, he continued.
Matt Sandusky, whom the defense had originally planned to call as a witness, abruptly switched sides late in the trial, approaching prosecutors and offering to testify that he too had suffered abuse at the hands of his father, the transcript shows.
Prosecutors planned to call Matt as a rebuttal witness if Sandusky testified in his own defense, the transcript shows.

They later backed off, but wouldn't agree to a defense request to refrain from asking Sandusky about his son's claims on cross examination.
Amendola argued for a mistrial, saying 'it was such an integral part of our case that Mr. Sandusky testify that we feel we have really put ourselves in a tough situation with the jury.'
Prosecutors objected and Judge John Cleland agreed, telling Amendola that trials have a way of throwing legal strategies into disarray.
Matt Sandusky went to live with Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, as a foster child and was adopted by them as an adult.
Shortly after the former coach's arrest in November, Matt Sandusky's ex-wife went to court to keep her former father-in-law away from their three young children.
Jill Jones successfully obtained a restraining order forbidding the children from sleeping over at their grandparents' home.

Sandusky was convicted in June of 45 counts of sex abuse involving 10 boys.
Prosecutors said some of the assaults took place on the Penn State campus.

The 68-year-old Sandusky, given his age and the serious nature of the crimes, is likely to receive a sentence that will keep him in prison for life.
He is jailed pending sentencing and maintains his innocence.
Judge John Cleland has scheduled a morning hearing at the courthouse in Bellefonte to determine if Sandusky should be classified as a sexually violent predator, a designation that subjects a convict to intense reporting requirements upon release.
An assessment board has recommended Sandusky for the designation, though it's expected to have little practical effect since he stands to die in prison.
Sandusky will be sentenced immediately after the hearing.
The judge ordered defence attorneys and prosecutors to submit written statements 'intended to aid the court in the imposition of sentence' by October 5.

Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola said his client might make a statement at the hearing.
'Jerry remains in relatively good spirits and has spent most of his time in custody preparing for his sentencing and his appeal,' Amendola said via email.
Attorney Tom Kline, representing a young man who testified during Sandusky's trial that he was fondled in a school shower in 2001, said Monday he expects his client either to testify at sentencing or to supply a statement to the court.
'We expect to provide what is requested by the attorney general's office to assure justice is achieved in Mr. Sandusky's sentencing,' Kline said in an email.
Attorney general's office spokesman Nils Frederiksen said prosecutors will make a sentencing recommendation to the judge.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

sidewalk super said...

Please tell me jaimie chamberlain is being prosecuted?

Jazzie said...

I haven't found direct quote. I don't know why she took two. I don't know how common it is. Perhaps the first was inconclusive. I'm not sure what the standard procedure for administering polys.

Anonymous said...

"Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus"


When did you speak to al-qaeda or Iraqi insurgents.. just one?

Anonymous said...

The way I see polygraphs-they are just one of many investigative tools to see where the answers may lay in any given investigation. They are not the end all be all, but just a tool to send the pd, sp, whomever, in the correct direction.

Anonymous said...

tkv [url=]Celine Bags[/url] baf jne [url=]Celine Bag[/url] mmi pgz [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] kce whf [url=]Celine Bags[/url] ibl naj [url=]Cheap Beats By Dre[/url] fmz lrm

Anonymous said...

My gut tells me that Matthew Sandusky is a liar. I think that he heard the "victim" number 4 tell his story, and used that as a basis for his lies.
I hope that a private investigator can help discover the truth. It just seems that
having heard the Victim # 4 testimony at the trial, he took advantage of all this. He got money from the settlement.

I love Oprah, but once again, she's been duped.