G Scalabr wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 4:58am:


Gino,  Were you even born when this case occurred?    January 1969 wasn't it?  Didn't Nicole John, who didn't even take a polygraph, sign an 11 page detailed hand written, sworn statement that she saw Milgaard stab the victim repeatedly? Didn't other witnesses testify that Milgaard bragged that he did the stabbing and even reinacted it for entertainment at a party? Didn't Albert Cadrain another witness who has never recanted and also didn't take a polygraph testify that Milgaard showed up at his house within an hour of the discovery of the body wearing blood stained clothing?

You really shouldn't rely on the press for your research. 
I don't think you can pin his wrongful conviction on polygraph either.    
Well, not if you rely on facts.


Sancho Panza

The fact that you didn't live through it is not what calls your credibility into question in your analysis in this case. I just pointed it out because you and others here often engage in documentary archeology digging through tomes rather than tombs seeking scraps that support your preconceived notions about polygraph. This one goes back to interviews and a single polygraph test run almost 40 years ago. 

If you were in fact drawing your information from Commission of Inquiry Into the Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard why did your first reference link to a news account?  Were you afraid someone might read the report?

G Scalabr wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 2:49am:

Their statements, which were later proven to be at least partially false were not in any way "confessions" as the term is used in the vernacular of criminal investigation.

What you conveniently fail to note from the commission report in your misguided quest to discredit polygraph is that in this case the fact that Art Roberts was a polygrapher is more incidental than instrumental.

Roberts interviewed only 2 of the many witnesses against Milgaard. BOTH of which gave statements during various interviews implicating Milgaard in the murder prior to ever meeting Roberts. These statements followed a line of progression from complete denial to implication indicating to experienced investigators that more and more information was forthcoming at subsequent telling of their stories. In fact both continued to provide additional information (later proved to be false) further implicating Milgaard in the days following their interviews with Roberts when Roberts was no longer present.

One of these witnesses, Nicole John, never took a polygraph test. Nicole John never claimed that she was coerced or intimidated. While Ron Wilson did eventually make such a claim when he recanted some 20 years later, he then conceded in court that he never felt coerced or intimidated by police. 

Since each subsequent interview continued to produce more detail from Wilson concerning Milgaard's involvement in the crime it is likely that his questioning would have continued and the intensity of the interviews would have increased regardless of whether or not anyone was given polygraphs. 

According to Art Roberts, the results of Wilson’s polygraph indicated that he was not telling the truth in his account of the crime. It is reasonable to presume that Art Robert’s assessment of the polygraph results was correct. It now appears from everything that happened since that Ron Wilson and the truth were virtual strangers. The only real issue that reflects poorly on polygraph in this case does not reside in the test that was run; it resides in the tests that were not run. After the final statements were received from Wilson and John, investigators should have requested that polygraphs be conducted to verify the content of their statements. Since Art Roberts had conducted intense interviews/ interrogations with both subjects, another examiner should have run these final polygraphs.

If you want to lay part of the blame in this case on overzealous interrogation by Art Roberts, I would have to concede that, since his report has not been found, there exists sufficient reason to believe that he participated in that process but there is still no justification to blame polygraph for this miscarriage of justice. All we really know is that the final statements sworn to by both Wilson and John while outside the influence of Art Roberts were later found to be untruthful. There is even some evidence that Wilson and John colluded with each other to give false testimony implicating Milgaard in the murder. 

I refer you to Volume I Chapter 3 , of the report you finally referenced. 

Sancho Panza

Quote:


You did the same exact thing recently with (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001) in the following thread, trying to make the above cite "support your preconceived notion" that using CMs as prescribed in GM's book, has been show to hurt the polygraph results of innocent people:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1224971431


SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 27th, 2008, 7:25pm:
Quote:


GM replied:
Quote:


At least when we data mine, we come up with factual material.  We don't twist, distort, or lie about what is contained in our citations.

TC

You accuse people of doing the same thing you do. 

In this case, you tried to confuse conquistador about the employment of CMs by citing a reference, and claiming it contained evidence which it didn't.  Luckily, conquistador didn't fall for it.

After getting your pee-pee whacked, you go away for a day.

Now you're back a couple days later accusing people of doing the very same thing you had just done!   You'd make a fine politician!

TC

SanchoPanza wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 9:12pm:


Unfortunately for many telling the truth does not affect poligraphy or polygraph operators in an advantageous way because......... It doesn't detect lies!!
Now, find a test that does and we can can this site and all go have a beer.