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.

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.

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.

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

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

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