1089 users online (191 members and 898 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    i cannot tell a lie...

    since some folks around here love to waive the Colorado Children's Code around here as implicitly suggesting a grand jury conclusion of burke's guilt, i'd like to introduce some more legal background on the state of colorado with regards to polygraph tests.

    here is the colorado case which sets the precedent for the admissibility of polygraphs in a criminal trial:

    People v. Anderson, Colorado Supreme Court (1981)
    "Due to the unreliability of the polygraph technique and the lack of qualification standards for examiners, there is a serious risk that the admission of polygraph evidence at trial would unfairly prejudice and mislead the jury. Apart from the doubts raised about reliability and competence, however, there is an inherent danger that a jury will rely too heavily on the results of a polygraph test. Because of its aura of scientific infallibility, we believe that jurors are likely to give significant, if not conclusive, weight to a polygrapher's opinion as to whether the accused was truthful in his response to a question regarding a dispositive issue in a criminal case. The polygraph examination should not be used to usurp the jury's function in determining truth by observing the demeanor of a witness in the course of trial. In our view, despite any cautionary instruction or admonition from the court, the jurors' traditional responsibility . . . to collectively ascertain the facts to determine whether guilt has been proven would be prejudiced by the admission of polygraph evidence."

    why did the ramseys refuse to take a polygraph test? wouldn't they want to clear their name? the media had already essentially convicted the ramseys. it couldn't get any worse...what did they have to lose?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    312
    I believed that it is because their lawyers advised them strongly not to (and they were following their lawyer's orders strictly even though they didn't admit it in DOI), because they were so upset that it could have triggered the wrong polygraph answers. And also, a failure might have led to their immediate arrest, because their lawyers knew the cops' aggressive desire to prosecute the Ramseys.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    IMO the Ramseys refused to take an FBI polygraph examination because they knew they would have flunked it hands down and exposed the reason they were lying their heads off -- which was Burke.

    The carefully crafted Ed Gelb polygraph questions were designed to clear themselves and still keep their secret hidden, but the "for sure" questions told a story all by themselves.

    The two "for sure" questions told me there were two people involved, but the Ramseys didn't know "for sure" which one of them did the dastardly deed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    accuracy of a polygraph...

    the ramseys defense of "we were so upset that we might fail the polygraph" holds no water. most people do not understand how polygraphs work. they ask you all sorts of question so that your nerves will not affect the results. for more on the accuracy of a polygraph test, check out this site which has a great FAQ on polygraphs. in sum, the accuracy of a polygraph is not really in debate...it's the accuracy of the person administering the test.

    another question in their FAQ asks about how to "beat" a polygraph. it's not possible unless you are one of the rare few who believes his/her own lies.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    A parent or granparent as caretaker feels responsible for the safety of their children. Recently ,in the Lundsford case, a grandmother "failed" her lie detector test, in effect it shifted a bit of police attention her way,attention that would have better been focused to identify the murderer. Thank heavens he didn't murder again, due to a brief delay in action.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    .

    another question in their FAQ asks about how to "beat" a polygraph. it's not possible unless you are one of the rare few who believes his/her own lies.
    This is interesting, in that many murderers are sociopathic, and sociopaths can pass lie detector tests easily. Not so rare?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    A parent or granparent as caretaker feels responsible for the safety of their children. Recently ,in the Lundsford case, a grandmother "failed" her lie detector test, in effect it shifted a bit of police attention her way,attention that would have better been focused to identify the murderer. Thank heavens he didn't murder again, due to a brief delay in action.
    i'm not saying they're fool-proof, but it's worth noting that the lundsford family had no problem submitting to these tests. also, i'm not sure you have the whole story. here's what i've read...

    A statement issued earlier Tuesday by Dawsy said that "red flags" were raised in an FBI polygraph test given March 4 to Ruth Lunsford regarding two of her responses. But investigators were unable to determine what, if anything, she might know about Jessica's disappearance, the sheriff said.

    "I'm not sure it wasn't stress-induced," Dawsy said. "We have totally not been able to rectify one of the answers she gave or why we got this type of response."

    in other words...she gave two "suspect" answers, and one was completely rectified. it didn't seem to raise too many red flags amongst LE, just the national media...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    This is interesting, in that many murderers are sociopathic, and sociopaths can pass lie detector tests easily. Not so rare?
    absolutely. this is why polygraphs aren't the crucial piece of evidence in any cases. in fact, in most cases, they're not even admissible as evidence. but i'd still like to know why the ramseys would refuse? polygraphs are used more commonly as a tool by LE as opposed to the courts. if the ramseys are/were telling the truth, submitting to a test could have solved a lot of their problems...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    the ramseys defense of "we were so upset that we might fail the polygraph" holds no water. most people do not understand how polygraphs work. they ask you all sorts of question so that your nerves will not affect the results. for more on the accuracy of a polygraph test, check out this site which has a great FAQ on polygraphs. in sum, the accuracy of a polygraph is not really in debate...it's the accuracy of the person administering the test.

    another question in their FAQ asks about how to "beat" a polygraph. it's not possible unless you are one of the rare few who believes his/her own lies.
    Gary Ridgeway aka the Green River Killer beat 2 (TWO) polygraphs. He's not crazy eithor or at all smart, just evil.