|
Author
|
Topic: Judge frees Znetix pair from prison; death plot discounted
|
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 08-11-2003 11:26 PM
  
A discussion thread has begun at AntiPolygraph.org on the following case: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/133783_znetix06.html I think this may be an interesting discussion to parallel here. One particular area of interest is whether the case lends itself for use of the GKT. I think it might have been possible depending on the information given by the possible witness. What do you think?
IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 08-12-2003 10:40 AM
Maybe I am missing something obvious, but based on the link you provided, it looked to me that the informant/witness was the sole source of information used by investigators to make their conspiracy case without any type of corroberative evidence. If this is the case I don't see where one would find source GKT material that hasn't already been filtered through the person to be tested.
If I need to read more to understand where you are coming from, let me know where. I know you have something in mind and I can'r wait to hear what it is. ebv IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 08-12-2003 11:54 PM
One way a GKT could have been constructed would have been to revolve the test around the specific details that Park’s had relayed to investigators about the alleged plot. Most likely Park’s had given a more detailed account to investigators of the plot then has been prefaced in the media’s reporting. If bogus, Culp and Reimer would not know those details. The reverse would be true in the case of a true plot. Subscribing to Lykken’s school of thought, the GKT could be introduced as a non-invasive testing method. One reason it could is due to the fact that the subject is not asked whether or not they did a crime during the pretest or data collection phase. Also, the results that are reported are as to whether or not the subject has concealed knowledge of the crime. Showing concealed knowledge would only prove that one or both were present at the time of a conversation or had knowledge of the plot and not that they had devised it. Much as is the case with other forensic evidence. Fingerprints on the murder weapon means the subject touched the weapon used to kill John Doe and not that they are the one who killed John Doe. The subject is placed in or about the crime or its scene and that information/evidence is used with other circumstantial or physical evidence to prove guilt or innocence in court. If it were to be accepted as such, a GKT could be given absent Miranda and may even be able to be ordered under an investigatory subpoena. Just an idea to kick around and I know that it does not follow the typical line of thinking in regards to the use of polygraph. [This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 08-12-2003).] IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 08-13-2003 03:55 PM
That makes sense I think a GKT examination of the two guys that the witness was informimng on would make a good valid test. Providing you could get them to take it. I misunderstood your initial post by thinking that you were proposing to test the informant. Based on what I am reading in the literature I believe that the GKT or CKT are the most likely examination structures to be accepted as evidence. We are not there yet, but because they don't rely on calling someone truthful or deceptive they stand the best chance. Some of the early brain wave research focused on artifacts indicative of recognition of familiar stimuli.
------------------
but then, that's just one man's opinion
IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
