I find it funny that you would say that. Disgraced people come up with the funniest shit............Traitor! I so glad you got booted from our government.

In view of recent developments strongly indicating that John Mark Karr did not kill JonBenet Ramsey, it now seems clear that Karr's "confession" sheds no light on the accuracy of the results of Ed Gelb's polygraph examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey.

See "No DNA match, no JonBenet charges" on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/28/ramsey.arrest/index.html

The Boulder, Colorado district attorney's motion to quash Karr's arrest warrant may be downloaded from CNN.com here:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/28/karr.mot.to.quash.pdf

There is a feeling among local LE agencies (and not without merit) that the Feebs will come in, let you do all the work, take all the risk and then, they, will take all or most of the credit.  I know I know, it shouldn't matter who gets the credit, but we being humans, it does.

Story:  there was a police dog competition held...one dog from a city PD, one from the Sheriff's Office, and one from the FBI.  city dog went into the building, grabbed his suspect, drug him out and set up on him until his partner arrived.  County dog went in, did the same thing in the same time.  FBI dog saw what went on, snuck around behind both of the other dogs, buggered them both, stole their prisoners and issued a press release.

Stay safe!

retcopper wrote on Aug 17^th, 2006 at 9:55pm:


And that stinks.  You would think all cops would want to be on the same side, not fighting each other in some territorial size contest.

Quote:


It probably did for a while, until the sense of safety that we were lulled to sleep by returned.  I bet turf wars go on now as we speak, and not infrequently.

Quote:


Well, retcop, that's about what it is.  A tool, used to play upon someone's psyche, that is necessarily bolstered by interrogation.  When questioning gets nowhere, and the subject agrees to a poly and fails, subsequently confessing, that's as close to a decent use of the poly as you can get.

Consider a sphygmomanometer: a blood pressure cuff with a squeeze bulb.  It doesn't work by itself, because you can't read the systolic and diastolic from the needle on the gauge.  You need a stethoscope, too.  Conversely, you can't hear someone's BP.  If you carry a stethoscope, you need a sphyg. to get the whole picture.

So it is with the poly.  By itself, it's traces on paper or a screen- a fancy BFB readout.  With interrogation, it's worth about half a buttock against the ignorant person (assuming they are lying and the readouts aren't from something else, which they well could be), and useless against the informed.  And to be honest, people have a right to be informed, and to be dealt with honestly.

Quote:


Turf war alert!  If polyboys are "qualified", then why should the LAPD care if the FBI conducts it?  Not a good reflection on those meant to protect and serve.

Good to hear, also, that someone who is pro-poly cares about honesty and straight dealing in terms of qualifications.  I have no right to call myself an MD, so let Gelb show his doctorate, or let him quit talking about it... 

Quote:


All PDs want their own 'graph jockey at the controls for a two simple reasons:

1) If a private polygraph is conducted and the examinee "fails," no one will ever hear a word of it. Such private polygraphs are protected by attorney-client privilege. 

The OJ Simpson case appears to be a perfect example of this. OJ apparently "failed" the polygraph set up for him by Robert Shapiro. The public face of this was that OJ "was only hooked to the polygraph to see how it works" and that no test was ever conducted.

2) The primary purpose of law enforcement polygraphs is to attempt to elicit confessions in cases where there is little hard evidence against a suspect. This benefit is nullified in a private setting.

Eos/underlyingtruth:

I can't speak to what the Feds would have done but I will say that there is a lot of jealousy between the FBI and PDs when it comes to sharing  info. etc. etc.   This of course hinders investigations.  I think both parties are guilty of this to some extent. I hope it has improved since 911.

I agree that the use of a polygrpah is a good pyschological tool in conjunction with "good" interrogation techniques.  I dont think I use "brutal"
techniques but then again what do you mean by brutal. The most I will do is raise my voice or emphasis certain words but I dont do anything that I think is brutal.

I dont know all of  the facts to make a judgement on the Gelb exam. All PDs want their own man to give the polygraph. BTW if it is true that Gelb does not posess a phd then I would  be speptical of his work.

Regarding underlying's fourth question.   I am rushed writing this post and cant think of any off the top of my head but there is plentry on both sides.

Retcopper,

The Interesting take on all of this,  as Gelbs and later Backsters decision to say they are honest and telling the truth,  were 100% accurate (giving credit when I see it), if the arrest of this scumbag in Thailand is correct. The FBI in my honest opinion would have most likely concluded deception and whole heartedly launched into a marathon interrogation session.  The Ramseys use of a neutral place and examination speaks volumes on the distrust of FBI polygraph tactics, this was good advice by wise defense council.  But this case more than proves that the polygraph is nothing more than an intimidation and interrogation device. Its only practicality is to elicit a confession, if used in conjuction with brutal interrogation techniques. Thanks retcopper, this is a good post.

Regards ...

Well, the Ramsey's were cleared by the polygraph given by Gelb, but the police did not accept that conclusion because an FBI examiner did not administer the exam.  The police claim that Gelb did not have enough privileged information to be able to conduct an adequate exam, but the questions seemed straightforward to me.

So, there are several questions here:

1.Do examiners agree with the police that the Gelb exam was not good enough?

2. Were the Ramsey’s educated about the working of the polygraph?  If so, did they use CMs to protect their innocence?

3. What if the results of the exam did NOT clear them; what would that mean to the polygraph community given current findings?

4. Does anyone know of a widely public case where the accused failed a polygraph and were later cleared by additional evidence or a court of law? Or vice-a-versa?

Thanx onesimus.

Here is a link:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/time_11.html

I don't remember the details.   
Please summarize or provide a link to the story.

Any comments on the polygraph tests that  Ed Gelb gave to John and Patsy Ramsey re: the murder of John Benet Ramsey?