Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color are school buses in the United States?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by orolan
 - Aug 25, 2003, 11:23 AM
Curiousjoe,
I don't have what you are seeking, but I will supply a slight clarification.
The first polygraph was given by Earl Rawlins, a NY polygrapher. Charles Honts subsequently lambasted that examination, stating that it "has no probative value". Honts then was requested to give a polygraph, which he did in Oakland, CA. Honts' polygraph was not much better, as Honts scored most of hte responses as "inconclusive".
Copies of their written reports are on the Net, but I doubt you'll ever see the charts.
Try refuseandresist.org/mumia
Posted by curiousjoe
 - Aug 24, 2003, 02:10 PM
I've grown curious regarding the use of the polygraph in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. He has been the subject of a tremendous amount of misleading propaganda, including an incident in which a self-described professional hit man came forward, many years after the conviction, with an obviously fabricated confession claiming he did the crime, not the convicted who was seen by many highly credible witnesses and who was arrested at the scene with the murder weapon registered to him.

Various news reports claim that the person making the confession "passed a lie detector test." Supporters of the convicted killer now claim that test exonerates their man.  The "confession" was rejected out of hand, even by the original defense lawyers and eventually by the courts.  Yet there is this claim, that I can't substantiate or refute, that a polygraph test supports the confession.

Can anyone either provide me with detailed factual evidence of that such a  test event actually did take place (a transcript, a polygraph operator's report of the event, etc.)?   I've written to the man (Charles Hont) who suposedly administered the test but I have not yet had a reply.

I'd also welcome guidance on the subject of admissability of polygraphs in capital cases in the State of Pennsylvania where the murder took place.

Thanks, curiousjoe