George,

you are really reaching for a connection and connecting dots which do not exist.  

While I believe anything is possible; so to with pigs, if only they had wings...

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 10:13pm:


If Donohue had failed his polygraph you believe he would have had exactly the same opportunity and would have been exactly as likely to commit further murders?  Really?

You don’t think that failing his polygraph would have had some effect on his status as a suspect in the investigation?  It wouldn’t have made investigators consider him a more likely suspect, and perhaps have caused them to watch him, monitor his movements, or even arrest him?

I think it is only common sense to believe that had Donohue failed his polygraph it would be less likely to have committed subsequent murders.  How much less likely may be debatable, but I don’t think anyone can logically argue that he would have been exactly as likely, or even more likely, to have committed that murder had he not passed the polygraph.

Sackett,

You seem to be saying that a polygraph given to a criminal suspect has absolutely no impact on the investigation regardless of the result.  Passing or failing means absolutely nothing and will have no effect on the direction of the investigation or the conclusions reached by the investigators.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me.  If they are going to bother to give a polygraph exam why would they completely ignore the results?

Everyday, suspects pass polygraphs and are eliminated from suspicion because of that.  Once in a while these suspects actually committed the crime, and go on to commit others.  (Gary Ridgway comes to mind).  While it doesn't happen all the time, when it does, it is tragic.  

Is there any information to believe that the police DIDN'T remove him from consideration because of the failure of polygraph?  Unless there is such information, I believe it is likely to assume they did, because that is the exact purpose of a polygraph in criminal investigations, to eliminate potential suspects so they can concentrate other, more likely suspects.

This theory is borne out by Sackett, who says in the post regarding countermeasures:

"Opposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process.  Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest?  So, they will be deemed guilty or deceptive (you choose) and subsequently pursued more vigorously. "

In other words, if a suspect passes a polygraph, they are pursued less vigorously than the suspect who failed a polygraph, regardless of whether or not the results of the polygraph are credible.

Meangino,

that is exactly what twisted logic will get you.  You are now assuming, wrongly (I am sure), that just because Donohue took a polygraph and passed, that detectives in the case simply stopped looking for any evidence?  Failed to cross check DNA? Closed their files and put it in the unsolvable case file, all because he passed a polygraph... Not a very high opinion of police detective's, huh? Don't you think they would have kept looking until all leads were exhausted? That is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the police had absolutely nothing on Donohue when they gave him his test and even if he had failed and not admitted or confessed would be where they were at the end of his examination; with nothing.  Once again, polygraph is an investigative tool, not the end all to be all in any investigation.  

The propaganda on this board is such that even the most decent and normal thinking person can start to see goblins where they don't exist.
But you see, it is this zealous and twisted thinking that feeds into the desire of those on this board to somehow PROVE polygraph doesn't work.  I guess we could say that a full moon occured on the date of Donohue's test and that was the reason he falsely passed, too.  Based on your logic, if we go back and look, and a full moon existed, I would be right.

On a side note, DNA became an issue in cases back in the early 90's.  One of the reasons OJ was acquitted was the relatively new science being successfully attacked and the argument that cross contamination played a part.  

Evidence is kept in murders (usually forever) because of the unknown future ability of science to probe and assist in the investigation.  But, once again, I will say that DNA only proves donorship, not guilt or innocence.

Sackett 

sackett wrote on May 3^rd, 2008 at 6:15pm:


The Buffalo Police Department polygraphed Dennis Donohue only three days after Crystallynn Girard was found dead. It would appear investigators resorted to the polygraph early -- not late -- in their investigation. The same seems to be true in the investigation into the killing of Nona Dirksmeyer. Investigators focused on her boyfriend, Kevin Jones, early in the investigation and polygraphed him a mere six days after her death. They clearly had not exhausted all leads, as documented in NBC Dateline's recent report.

Thomas Armitage, who is very likely the polygrapher who conducted the polygraph examination, has recently co-authored an article that purports to show that the polygraph technique he uses -- and may very well have used with Donohue (the article mentions that Armitage has 27 years of experience with the technique) -- is virtually 100% accurate and impervious to countermeasures. This study is highly flawed in that it relies on confessions to establish ground truth, a selection criterion that as Iacono and Lykken have pointed out, will tend to systematically exclude false negatives and false positives. Nonetheless, a polygrapher who erroneously believes that the technique he uses is virtually 100% accurate is likely to promote undue confidence in the results of his examinations amongst his colleagues.

Meangino,

then feel free to cut away at yourself next full moon...look down and slice...

If you want to discuss the truth of issues then feel free.  If you want to argue minor points that might only support your position, then find a stronger argument...

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 6:53am:


Sackett, you're the one who brought up the full moon analogy and pigs in this thread, not me.

Since you desire to discuss the issue at hand I have 2 questons.

• What is your opinion of offering a suspect immunity based on "passing" a polygraph "test," as the liveleak.com article reported happened in the case of Crystallyn Girard?
• Does it concern you that, due to the polygraph-induced immunity granted to Donahue, there never will be justice for Crystallynn?