Thank you for the charts.  What an EFU!  Even with data collection problems clearly DI.   

Question Number 5, which is being used as a CQ:

Before you were 30 years old, did you ever physically injure anyone without provocation? NO

Problem is, he stabbed a six year old child when he was 16. Ridgway had led the boy into the woods and then stabbed him through the ribs into his liver. 

He predictably reacted to this question. However, since it was used as a CQ, it helped helped him to pass.

Ridgway is dyslexic which is often coupled with Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Auditory Processing Disorder. Perhaps this could explain the suppressed EDA.

On this day in 1984, polygraph operator Norm Matzke of the King County, Washington Sheriff's Office polygraphed Gary Leon Ridgway, a suspect in the Green River serial killings investigation. Today, AntiPolygraph.org has published Ridgway's polygraph charts, which had not previously been publicly available. Comments welcome:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/05/07/green-river-killer-gary-leon-ridgways-...

You are all idiots, plants are the only lie detectors, as they can read human thoughts

LBCB, if there is even a chance that the polygraph could falsely brand a truthful person deceptive, why should we agree that it have any place at all in a criminal investigation?  You said it yourself.  There should never be that much faith placed in it.  If you have any doubt in this machine, you have no business spreading your propeganda about it's greatness!  I can telling you from personal experience that the machine is a fraud!  PERIOD!

ecchasta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 10:15pm:


You may not get many pro-polygraphites to admit that a psychopathic killer can "beat the polygraph," but in the Ridgway case I believe that may well be what happened. To say that might be at best pure speculation and at worst jumping to a conclusion, which I did not want to do. However, I believe that, like severely retarded people, a psychopathic killer who no longer feels any guilt or remorse or shame, or maybe anything at all with regard to his actions could indeed beat the polygraph. 

I don't have personal knowledge of the Ridgway and Foster polygraphs. I've seen no transcripts. I have given you my speculation on Ridgway. As far as Foster, I don't know whether or not he ever committed a murder or why he may have had information about the killings that led police to suspect him. I just don't have enough inside information.

Throughout my polygraph experience, many times I have seen investigators who want the polygraph to "prove" the case for them. Some people DO in fact believe so strongly in the polygraph's infallibility that, if a person passes the polygraph they are judged without question to be truthful, and when a person fails a polygraph they are judged without question to be deceptive. And when those people of unshakeable faith in the polygraph's power are involved in an investigation such as the Ridgway case, they may in fact cease to objectively view the evidence, and instead head down the wrong path based on the "easy" method of letting the machine take the place of good detective work.

So let me get this straight... polygraphers and police know that psychopathic people can "beat" the polygraph.  So why bother using a polygraph test to find a psychopathic killer.

It follows that those who "fail" the test in cases involving psychopaths should be let go and those who "pass" it should be arrested.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

LBCB, I have read all of the data in the links Mr.  Maschke provided in this thread.  In addition, I have seen at least 2 detailed television documentaries on the Ridgway case.  While there is no doubt Ridgway is a psychopath, where is the scientific documentation that says it takes one "to beat the polygraph" (your words in quotations, not mine).  On the contrary, scientific evidence elsewhere on this website overwhelmingly proves one does not need to be a psychopath "to beat the polygraph."

The evidence is plain and simple--King county authorities released Ridgway because he "passed" a polygraph "test." Moreover, based on the pseudo-science of polygraphy the same authorities wasted countless resources investigating an innocent person, Melvin Foster.  

The fact that Sheriff Reichert and other King county authorities won't even offer the simplest apology to Mr. Foster speaks volumes to their shame for having allowed Ridgway to kill again, all because polygraphy.

I say again, regrettably this is a predictable result of reliance on the pseudo-science of polygraphy.

meangino wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 12:59am:


Meangino,

Sometimes I wonder whether your responses are even directed at me, or if they are just one more opportunity to play the tired anti-polygraphite recording once more for the average reader. Your words are nothing different from the tired rhetoric I can find thousands of times on this website from people more knowledgable than you, although they, like you, have no actual experience conducting polygraph exams.

Have you read the prosecutor's summary of the evidence found in one of George's links above? If you read it with an open mind you might begin to understand how even IF the polygraph is as valid and reliable as we pro-polygraphites claim, Ridgway is the kind of totally callous psychopath who I believe can beat the polygraph. Right now I'd rather not go into great detail about why this is so, since I think it will become clear as you read the summary.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 11:13pm:

However, we do know the consensus view of scientists is that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis.  https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml ; Dr. Furedy eloquently compares reading polygraph charts to entrails reading. Based on this irrefutable knowledge, anybody who would make decide that anyone is or is not a suspect in a criminal case based on a polygraph session is irresponsible.  I wonder if Sheriff Reichert ever apologized to Mr. Foster, or to the families of Gary Ridgeway's victims who were killed after Ridgeway "passed" a polygraph "test" and was released?

Regrettably, this is a predictable result of reliance on the pseudo-science of polygraphy.

ecchasta wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 11:10pm:


Yeah, why not? Let's just test 'em all.  

Ecchasta, see my remarks in that other thread. There are some thing we really don't know that make jumping to conclusions absurd.

There is nothing "blind" about judging polygraphy results on this case.  The polygrapher said he was inocent but he wasn't.  That much is fact.

The other case you referenced in no way supports polygraphy.  Either the polygraph was wrong or the police (or polygrapher) lied.

Perhaps there should be follow-up polygraph tests done on all policemen, polygraphers and testifiers in criminal cases!

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 9:03pm:
Nice cop out, LBCB.   

Bottom line: Any conclusion made utilizing the pseudo-scientific polygraph has as much validity as a conclusion achieved from astrology.

Without knowing all the facts surrounding the polygraphs, I would simply be jumping to unfounded conclusions, as most of you are doing. From the limited information presented, it doesn't show polygraph in a favorable light, that's for sure. However, I didn't conduct these polygraphs, nor did any of you, so do we really have enough information? Obviously, I could speculate just as well as you do, in an effort to blindly support the polygraph in this case, just as you are speculating in an effort to blindly oppose the polygraph not just in this case, but in general.  However, for an example of how some people might jump to ignorant conclusions regarding cases involving polygraphs, see the thread on page 2 in the POLYGRAPH POLICY section entitled "DNA Frees Polygraph Victim Jeffrey Mark Deskovic."

LBCB, before you go on your sabbatical from this board please explain this case.  Stubborn reliance on the pseudo-scientific polygraph allowed Gary Ridgeway to kill again.  Morever. the same stubborness caused an innocent man to be falsely accused, thereby tying up investigative resources that should have been directed at Ridgeway.   

It's a shame the victims' families can't sue the polygraphers in this case.

Since there is no way to explain this polygraph debacle I don't expect LBCB to reply in this thread, though.

Any explanation from the pro-polygraph crowd on this one?

For a fuller account of the use of the polygraph in the Green River investigation, see Chapter 10 (The Polygraph: Ridgway took pride in fooling police) of "Gary Ridgway: The Green River Killer," by the staff of the King County Journal:

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/149126

Excerpt:

Quote:

Quote:


If decisions regarding the accuracy and efficacy of the polygraph were rationally grounded in the first place, it wouldn't be used.

Unfortunately, the article implies that Ridgeway's ability to lie without detection on a polygraph stems from some sort of "unique" ability of his.  The evidence, of course, indicates that this is not a singular instance of a person able to pass an otherwise legitimate "test". Instead, it's a rather spectacular demonstration of the polygraph's flaws, and the dangers of relying upon it.  As George noted, the polygraph led investigators astray in this case not once, but twice, with two different people.

Perhaps two unique individuals were involved (one innocent, the other guilty)?

Skeptic

Ironically, Gary L. Ridgway's plea agreement includes the stipulation:

Quote:


Since Ridgway fooled the polygraph after committing multiple pre-meditated murders, it is not clear why law enforcement or the prosecuting attorney would rely on it yet again in an attempt to determine his credibility.

The plea agreement may be downloaded here:

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/plea_agreement.pdf

The King County Prosecutor's summary of the evidence against Gary Ridgway, cited in an article titled, "In his own words" in today's (6 Nov. 2003) King County Journal, includes the following on how Ridgway passed the polygraph:

Quote:


The cited document, "Prosecutor's Summary of the Evidence," may be downloaded here:

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Ridg_Summary.pdf

An article by Kenneth P. Vogel in today's (6 Nov. 2003) Tacoma News Tribune indicates that Ridgway was indeed asked whether he had killed any women during at least one polygraph examination. Vogel writes, "He...passed a polygraph test in the 1980s in which he denied killing any of the women." See, "'Proud of not being caught'":

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/4346501p-4355663c.html

See Chris Summers' report, "Confessions of a serial killer," on the BBC News Online website. Here's an excerpt of the polygraph-related portions:

Quote:

J.B.,

It seems highly unlikely that Gary Ridgway approached the Green River task force to provide accurate information that would help identify himself as the killer. In addition, it is hard to imagine that Ridgway truthfully answered all relevant questions that would have been asked of him in any such polygraph examination.

Note that Melvin Foster, the innocent suspect who failed the polygraph, became a suspect when he, like Ridgway, approached detectives to offer his help. Instead, Foster only raised their suspicions. Ridgway's offer of help may well have similarly raised suspicions -- suspicions that were at least to some extent allayed by his having passed a polygraph "test."

The article states;

Quote:


My opinion of the aforementioned statement is that Ridgway offered information as to the killings and was tested on the truthfulness of that information.  I would say, if that is the issue, polygraph did not “fail” in this instance.

If there is further information that you are privy to, please enlighten me on the inconsistencies of the article.