- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bambleneck
- Dec 22, 2002, 09:30 PMJust thought I would post this observation, based on the "Dowd Report;" the legendary report in the Pete-Rose-bet-on-baseball scandal which has barred him from being inducted into the baseball hall of fame. Seems results depends on the bias of polygraph examiner, not the exam. I wonder who the "foremost polygrapher in the United States" issuing the exam was?
Polygraph, as American as baseball. What a thought.
"Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum voluntarily submitted to polygraph examinations on the question of whether they placed bets on the Cincinnati Reds and baseball for Pete Rose. Danita Marcum passed the examination. In the opinion of the examiner, Paul Janszen failed the examination.
However, we have been advised that Janszen showed deception in response to a question irrelevant to his betting for Pete Rose on baseball. In the opinion of the examiner conducting that examination, deception as to one question in a polygraph examination leads to only one conclusion, i.e., the witness has been deceptive.
We subsequently learned that disagreements had occurred between Janszen and the examiner during the examination which upset Janszen. In addition, in view of the fact that Marcum had passed the examination and that the investigation had had developed other significant corroboration of Janszen's testimony; and because Janszen volunteered to undergo another examination, we employed one of the foremost polygraphers in the United States to conduct an examination of Janszen. Janszen submitted to polygraph examinations on two consecutive days and was asked the following questions:
1. In '87, did Pete Rose use you as a middleman to place major league baseball bets?
2. In '87, did you place major league baseball bets for Pete Rose with Ron Peters?
3. In '87, did Pete Rose place bets with you as the middleman on the Cincinnati Reds to win?
4. Besides on the 1987 All-Star game, was Pete Rose wagering $2,000 per game with you?
On both days, Paul Janszen passed the examination and showed no deception."
http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/dowd/dowd_iiic2.html
Polygraph, as American as baseball. What a thought.
"Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum voluntarily submitted to polygraph examinations on the question of whether they placed bets on the Cincinnati Reds and baseball for Pete Rose. Danita Marcum passed the examination. In the opinion of the examiner, Paul Janszen failed the examination.
However, we have been advised that Janszen showed deception in response to a question irrelevant to his betting for Pete Rose on baseball. In the opinion of the examiner conducting that examination, deception as to one question in a polygraph examination leads to only one conclusion, i.e., the witness has been deceptive.
We subsequently learned that disagreements had occurred between Janszen and the examiner during the examination which upset Janszen. In addition, in view of the fact that Marcum had passed the examination and that the investigation had had developed other significant corroboration of Janszen's testimony; and because Janszen volunteered to undergo another examination, we employed one of the foremost polygraphers in the United States to conduct an examination of Janszen. Janszen submitted to polygraph examinations on two consecutive days and was asked the following questions:
1. In '87, did Pete Rose use you as a middleman to place major league baseball bets?
2. In '87, did you place major league baseball bets for Pete Rose with Ron Peters?
3. In '87, did Pete Rose place bets with you as the middleman on the Cincinnati Reds to win?
4. Besides on the 1987 All-Star game, was Pete Rose wagering $2,000 per game with you?
On both days, Paul Janszen passed the examination and showed no deception."
http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/dowd/dowd_iiic2.html