- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by pailryder
- May 07, 2020, 11:09 PMThank you for the charts. What an EFU! Even with data collection problems clearly DI.
Posted by Voice of Reason
- May 07, 2020, 10:07 PMQuestion Number 5, which is being used as a CQ:
Before you were 30 years old, did you ever physically injure anyone without provocation? NO
Problem is, he stabbed a six year old child when he was 16. Ridgway had led the boy into the woods and then stabbed him through the ribs into his liver.
He predictably reacted to this question. However, since it was used as a CQ, it helped helped him to pass.
Before you were 30 years old, did you ever physically injure anyone without provocation? NO
Problem is, he stabbed a six year old child when he was 16. Ridgway had led the boy into the woods and then stabbed him through the ribs into his liver.
He predictably reacted to this question. However, since it was used as a CQ, it helped helped him to pass.
Posted by Voice of Reason
- May 07, 2020, 02:43 PMRidgway is dyslexic which is often coupled with Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Auditory Processing Disorder. Perhaps this could explain the suppressed EDA.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 07, 2020, 03:37 AMOn this day in 1984, polygraph operator Norm Matzke of the King County, Washington Sheriff's Office polygraphed Gary Leon Ridgway, a suspect in the Green River serial killings investigation. Today, AntiPolygraph.org has published Ridgway's polygraph charts, which had not previously been publicly available. Comments welcome:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/05/07/green-river-killer-gary-leon-ridgways-polygraph-charts/
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/05/07/green-river-killer-gary-leon-ridgways-polygraph-charts/
Posted by NoSeriouslyYouAllSuck
- Jan 06, 2012, 04:29 PMYou are all idiots, plants are the only lie detectors, as they can read human thoughts
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 24, 2007, 05:58 AMLBCB, if there is even a chance that the polygraph could falsely brand a truthful person deceptive, why should we agree that it have any place at all in a criminal investigation? You said it yourself. There should never be that much faith placed in it. If you have any doubt in this machine, you have no business spreading your propeganda about it's greatness! I can telling you from personal experience that the machine is a fraud! PERIOD!
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Jan 10, 2007, 05:32 PMQuote from: ecchasta on Jan 10, 2007, 05:15 PMSo let me get this straight... polygraphers and police know that psychopathic people can "beat" the polygraph. So why bother using a polygraph test to find a psychopathic killer.
It follows that those who "fail" the test in cases involving psychopaths should be let go and those who "pass" it should be arrested.
You may not get many pro-polygraphites to admit that a psychopathic killer can "beat the polygraph," but in the Ridgway case I believe that may well be what happened. To say that might be at best pure speculation and at worst jumping to a conclusion, which I did not want to do. However, I believe that, like severely retarded people, a psychopathic killer who no longer feels any guilt or remorse or shame, or maybe anything at all with regard to his actions could indeed beat the polygraph.
I don't have personal knowledge of the Ridgway and Foster polygraphs. I've seen no transcripts. I have given you my speculation on Ridgway. As far as Foster, I don't know whether or not he ever committed a murder or why he may have had information about the killings that led police to suspect him. I just don't have enough inside information.
Throughout my polygraph experience, many times I have seen investigators who want the polygraph to "prove" the case for them. Some people DO in fact believe so strongly in the polygraph's infallibility that, if a person passes the polygraph they are judged without question to be truthful, and when a person fails a polygraph they are judged without question to be deceptive. And when those people of unshakeable faith in the polygraph's power are involved in an investigation such as the Ridgway case, they may in fact cease to objectively view the evidence, and instead head down the wrong path based on the "easy" method of letting the machine take the place of good detective work.
Posted by ecchasta
- Jan 10, 2007, 05:15 PMSo let me get this straight... polygraphers and police know that psychopathic people can "beat" the polygraph. So why bother using a polygraph test to find a psychopathic killer.
It follows that those who "fail" the test in cases involving psychopaths should be let go and those who "pass" it should be arrested.
It follows that those who "fail" the test in cases involving psychopaths should be let go and those who "pass" it should be arrested.
Posted by meangino
- Jan 10, 2007, 04:10 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 10, 2007, 03:57 PMLBCB, I have read all of the data in the links Mr. Maschke provided in this thread. In addition, I have seen at least 2 detailed television documentaries on the Ridgway case. While there is no doubt Ridgway is a psychopath, where is the scientific documentation that says it takes one "to beat the polygraph" (your words in quotations, not mine). On the contrary, scientific evidence elsewhere on this website overwhelmingly proves one does not need to be a psychopath "to beat the polygraph."
Have you read the prosecutor's summary of the evidence found in one of George's links above? If you read it with an open mind you might begin to understand how even IF the polygraph is as valid and reliable as we pro-polygraphites claim, Ridgway is the kind of totally callous psychopath who I believe can beat the polygraph. Right now I'd rather not go into great detail about why this is so, since I think it will become clear as you read the summary.
The evidence is plain and simple--King county authorities released Ridgway because he "passed" a polygraph "test." Moreover, based on the pseudo-science of polygraphy the same authorities wasted countless resources investigating an innocent person, Melvin Foster.
The fact that Sheriff Reichert and other King county authorities won't even offer the simplest apology to Mr. Foster speaks volumes to their shame for having allowed Ridgway to kill again, all because polygraphy.
I say again, regrettably this is a predictable result of reliance on the pseudo-science of polygraphy.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Jan 10, 2007, 03:57 PMQuote from: Meangino on Jan 09, 2007, 07:59 PM
However, we do know the consensus view of scientists is that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis. https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml Dr. Furedy eloquently compares reading polygraph charts to entrails reading. Based on this irrefutable knowledge, anybody who would make decide that anyone is or is not a suspect in a criminal case based on a polygraph session is irresponsible. I wonder if Sheriff Reichert ever apologized to Mr. Foster, or to the families of Gary Ridgeway's victims who were killed after Ridgeway "passed" a polygraph "test" and was released?
Regrettably, this is a predictable result of reliance on the pseudo-science of polygraphy.
Meangino,
Sometimes I wonder whether your responses are even directed at me, or if they are just one more opportunity to play the tired anti-polygraphite recording once more for the average reader. Your words are nothing different from the tired rhetoric I can find thousands of times on this website from people more knowledgable than you, although they, like you, have no actual experience conducting polygraph exams.
Have you read the prosecutor's summary of the evidence found in one of George's links above? If you read it with an open mind you might begin to understand how even IF the polygraph is as valid and reliable as we pro-polygraphites claim, Ridgway is the kind of totally callous psychopath who I believe can beat the polygraph. Right now I'd rather not go into great detail about why this is so, since I think it will become clear as you read the summary.
Posted by meangino
- Jan 09, 2007, 07:59 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 09, 2007, 06:13 PMThere are some thing we really don't know that make jumping to conclusions absurd.However, we do know the consensus view of scientists is that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis. https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml Dr. Furedy eloquently compares reading polygraph charts to entrails reading. Based on this irrefutable knowledge, anybody who would make decide that anyone is or is not a suspect in a criminal case based on a polygraph session is irresponsible. I wonder if Sheriff Reichert ever apologized to Mr. Foster, or to the families of Gary Ridgeway's victims who were killed after Ridgeway "passed" a polygraph "test" and was released?
Regrettably, this is a predictable result of reliance on the pseudo-science of polygraphy.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Jan 09, 2007, 06:13 PMQuote from: ecchasta on Jan 09, 2007, 06:10 PM
Perhaps there should be follow-up polygraph tests done on all policemen, polygraphers and testifiers in criminal cases!
Yeah, why not? Let's just test 'em all.
Ecchasta, see my remarks in that other thread. There are some thing we really don't know that make jumping to conclusions absurd.
Posted by ecchasta
- Jan 09, 2007, 06:10 PMThere is nothing "blind" about judging polygraphy results on this case. The polygrapher said he was inocent but he wasn't. That much is fact.
The other case you referenced in no way supports polygraphy. Either the polygraph was wrong or the police (or polygrapher) lied.
Perhaps there should be follow-up polygraph tests done on all policemen, polygraphers and testifiers in criminal cases!
The other case you referenced in no way supports polygraphy. Either the polygraph was wrong or the police (or polygrapher) lied.
Perhaps there should be follow-up polygraph tests done on all policemen, polygraphers and testifiers in criminal cases!
Posted by meangino
- Jan 09, 2007, 05:53 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 09, 2007, 04:03 PM However, for an example of how some people might jump to ignorant conclusions regarding cases involving polygraphs, see the thread on page 2 in the POLYGRAPH POLICY section entitled "DNA Frees Polygraph Victim Jeffrey Mark Deskovic."Nice cop out, LBCB.
Bottom line: Any conclusion made utilizing the pseudo-scientific polygraph has as much validity as a conclusion achieved from astrology.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Jan 09, 2007, 04:03 PMWithout knowing all the facts surrounding the polygraphs, I would simply be jumping to unfounded conclusions, as most of you are doing. From the limited information presented, it doesn't show polygraph in a favorable light, that's for sure. However, I didn't conduct these polygraphs, nor did any of you, so do we really have enough information? Obviously, I could speculate just as well as you do, in an effort to blindly support the polygraph in this case, just as you are speculating in an effort to blindly oppose the polygraph not just in this case, but in general. However, for an example of how some people might jump to ignorant conclusions regarding cases involving polygraphs, see the thread on page 2 in the POLYGRAPH POLICY section entitled "DNA Frees Polygraph Victim Jeffrey Mark Deskovic."