My statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true. The only thing they pinned on him were minor parole violations. Duncan was not revoked for failing this polygraph, he was revoked for absconding. Given how post-conviction polygraph is sold, shouldn't we expect more from it? If it worked as sold, Joseph Duncan would have been caught for the Seattle murders. It didn't. You can try to spin it but reliance on the polygraph failed society in this case. 

By the way, here is a link from the Spokesman Review that details Duncan's travels in this time frame:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=83414

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 11:54am:


Let's see, Duncan wasn't a suspect in the Seattle murders until after he was caught for the Groene case in 2005 and admitted that he did it. The sources are his polygraph tests in that time frame (1996-97) that did not uncover the fact that he murdered two little girls. It seems a clear case of polygraph failure to me, what other proof would you like? Do you really think the polygraph "worked" in this case?

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 8:54pm:


What exactly did this failed polygraph uncover? That he smoked pot and didn't tell his parole officer that he was spending time with his girlfriend and her two children. He was not revoked for these violations; he was revoked after he absconded. Post-conviction polygraph is sold that it can uncover serious trangressions yet it failed to do that in this case, why? Because Duncan was able to fool the polygrapher into thinking he had uncovered all there was to uncover. If I were a polygrapher, I wouldn't chalk this one up in my win category.

By the way, the two girls that Duncan admitted murdering were abducted July 6, 1996. His failed polygraph didn't come until March 26, 1997, more than 7 months later. There is a gap of more than 8 months between between his passed June 1996 test and his failed March 1997 test of the available polygraph tests on the web.  These are dated January, May, and September of 1995 and then it skips to June of 1996 and then March of 1997. Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? I'll remind you that he was a paroled Level III offender, is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders? 

Additionally, Duncan is no longer a suspect in the March 26, 1997 murder of Deborah Palmer so it's not relevant to the case anymore.

Anyone out there want to bet me that he didn't have more victims in this time frame? I'm guessing that he did. Heck, I'll even give you 100-1 odds...

Go ahead, spin away....

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 29^th, 2008 at 10:31pm:


So tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from reoffending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.

And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:

Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? 

Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?

How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

He was paroled on the belief that the containment method - which relies on the polygraph - could prevent him from reoffending. Obviously, it didn't... 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

They didn't have enough evidence at the time to civilly commit him... 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

There's a lot of blame to go around. This case demonstrates a systematic and systemic failure of the criminal justice system...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Actually, he was a level III offender but they didn't have enough information to civilly commit him. Remember, they did not know that he had murdered people at the time he finished his sentence...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Because you know as well as I do that it's standard practice to do this rather than revocation as the system usually strives for the least restrictive placement. Plus shock incarceration was in vogue at the time...

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Yes, he uncovered that Duncan smoked pot and was at his girlfriend's house without his parole officer's permission. How about those two murders he committed. How'd the polygraph miss that?

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

How can I be lying when I asked a question? And why are you unwilling to speculate on this when you'll speculate on just about everything else? Oh yes, it's because you know the probable answer and it doesn't make the polygraph look good....

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

Yup, I'm guessing he had more polygraphs in this time frame since the conditions of his parole mandated them every 90 days. See here:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=80802

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 30^th, 2008 at 2:00pm:

I don't know for sure but sadly, I'm willing to bet that he did. 

As post-conviction polygraph is touted by those that sell it, it's supposed to provide valuable feedback on compliance with supervision and treatment. It somehow missed that he murdered two children. There's no way to spin that, the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes...