Post Reply

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: May 8th, 2020 at 3:09am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Thank you for the charts.  What an EFU!  Even with data collection problems clearly DI. 
Posted by: Voice of Reason
Posted on: May 8th, 2020 at 2:07am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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.
Posted by: Voice of Reason
Posted on: May 7th, 2020 at 6:43pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ridgway is dyslexic which is often coupled with Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Auditory Processing Disorder. Perhaps this could explain the suppressed EDA.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 7th, 2020 at 7:37am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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-...
Posted by: NoSeriouslyYouAllSuck
Posted on: Jan 6th, 2012 at 9:29pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
You are all idiots, plants are the only lie detectors, as they can read human thoughts
Posted by: gr8dad
Posted on: Jan 24th, 2007 at 10:58am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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!
Posted by: LieBabyCryBaby
Posted on: Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:32pm
  Mark & Quote
ecchasta wrote on Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:15pm:
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.


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.

Posted by: ecchasta
Posted on: Jan 10th, 2007 at 10:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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.
Posted by: Meangino - Ex Member
Posted on: Jan 10th, 2007 at 9:10pm
  Mark & Quote
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 10th, 2007 at 8:57pm:
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.

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.
Posted by: LieBabyCryBaby
Posted on: Jan 10th, 2007 at 8:57pm
  Mark & Quote
meangino wrote on Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:59am:
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.




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.
Posted by: Meangino - Ex Member
Posted on: Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:59am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 9th, 2007 at 11:13pm:
There are some thing we really don't know that make jumping to conclusions absurd.

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.


Posted by: LieBabyCryBaby
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2007 at 11:13pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
ecchasta wrote on Jan 9th, 2007 at 11:10pm:
Perhaps there should be follow-up polygraph tests done on all policemen, polygraphers and testifiers in criminal cases!


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

Ecchasta, see my remarks in that other thread. There are some thing we really don't know that make jumping to conclusions absurd.
Posted by: ecchasta
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2007 at 11:10pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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!
Posted by: meangino
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2007 at 10:53pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Jan 9th, 2007 at 9:03pm:
 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."
Nice cop out, LBCB. 

Bottom line: Any conclusion made utilizing the pseudo-scientific polygraph has as much validity as a conclusion achieved from astrology.
Posted by: LieBabyCryBaby
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2007 at 9:03pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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."
Posted by: Meangino - Ex Member
Posted on: Jan 9th, 2007 at 1:46am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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.
Posted by: suethem
Posted on: Jan 16th, 2004 at 5:14am
  Mark & QuoteQuote


Any explanation from the pro-polygraph crowd on this one?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Dec 10th, 2003 at 1:55pm
  Mark & Quote
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:
Gary Ridgway surfaced again and again during the Green River investigation. Hoping to solve the question of whether Ridgway was the killer, Detective Randy Mullinax decided it was time to give him a lie-detector test.

Unbelievably, in the most pivotal event of the early investigation, Ridgway passed.

Ridgway had been cooperative in an earlier interview on April 12, 1984, and agreed to cooperate once again. On May 7 he came in alone for the polygraph test without an attorney, which had the effect of diminishing suspicions. A transcript of the test, administered by Norm Matzke of the King County Police Department, hasn't been made public. But prosecutors acknowledge that Ridgway was asked if he killed any of the victims, and that he said no.

When the results of the test conformed with the results of a follow-up investigation, ``Ridgway was considered to be cleared as a possible Green River suspect,'' according to court documents. In fact, at that time Ridgway had already killed more than 40 women, including one, Cindy Anne Smith, just a few weeks before the test.
Posted by: Skeptic
Posted on: Nov 21st, 2003 at 6:29am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Ironically, Gary L. Ridgway's plea agreement includes the stipulation:


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


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
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 7th, 2003 at 6:57am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Ironically, Gary L. Ridgway's plea agreement includes the stipulation:

Quote:
The Defendant shall submit to polygraph testing, which Law Enforcement or the Prosecuting Attorney may employ to determine his credibility.


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
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 6th, 2003 at 3:57pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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:
``I just, uh, relaxed and took the polygraph. I mean, I didn't practice or anything ... just relaxed and answered the questions and whatever it came out. I mean, they weren't precise or, I don't know what the deal was. Uh, maybe I was too relaxed.''


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

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Ridg_Summary.pdf
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 6th, 2003 at 2:54pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 5th, 2003 at 4:38pm
  Mark & Quote
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:
When Gary Leon Ridgway stands up in a Seattle court on Wednesday and admits 48 counts of aggravated first degree murder he will officially become America's most prolific serial killer.

It is not a very good advertisement for the polygraph, or lie detector test.

In 1987 the man suspected of being the Green River Killer took such a test and passed with flying colours.

Just hours before he appears in court his attorney, Eric Lindell, gave an exclusive interview to BBC News Online, in which he explained why his client had admitted to murdering 48 women and what it might mean for others on Death Row.

...

The Green River Killer is remarkable in the annals of serial killers in many ways, but none more so than Ridgway's ability to pass a polygraph in which he denied responsibility.

Mr Lindell said: "I have asked him about it. The Green River Killer Taskforce asked several suspects to take a polygraph test and he passed it.

"He said he didn't do anything special to pass it. He just relaxed. But then he is a unique individual."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Nov 5th, 2003 at 9:59am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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."
Posted by: J.B. McCloughan
Posted on: Nov 5th, 2003 at 6:23am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The article states;

Quote:
…..Ridgway contacted the King County Sheriff's Green River task force -- ostensibly to offer information about the case -- and passed a polygraph test.


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.
 
  Top