- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by mylyrix
- Jan 20, 2014, 11:17 PMI just gotta say wow. does anyone remember how the mayor demanded an answer? there was more involved than a failed polygraph. this city is so full of corruption it makes me sick. coming from the cousin and best friend to the girl in question. i was 14 at the time and i was smart enough to know the difference. the lead investigator couldnt solve a crime to save his life. ask him why when my grandma died he tried to blame my cousin eddie for the murder of a woman who died naturally? or why the police beat the crap oout of me on a daily basis smashing my head off my car making me bleed for there amusement saying come on dejac when you gonna murder just like your whore of an aunt? maybe 1 day ill find what i need to write about all of this.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 13, 2008, 07:41 AMA jury last night found Dennis P. Donohue guilty of the 1993 murder of Joan Giambra--a murder that might never have happened had not Buffalo police, some seven months earlier, wrongly cleared Donohue of suspicion in the death of Crystallynn Girard after he passed a polygraph test:
Quotehttp://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/345286.html
Donohue convicted of 1993 murder
Strangled housewife 15 years ago in her home
By Matt Gryta
Updated: 05/13/08 6:51 AM
Dennis P. Donohue, a former Buffalo bartender linked to the deaths of three women since the mid-1970s, was convicted late Monday evening of strangling Joan Giambra in the South Buffalo housewife's own home 15 years ago.
After about six hours of deliberations following a two-week trial before Erie County Judge Sheila A. DiTullio, a jury of nine men and three women found Donohue, 55, guilty of one count of second-degree murder for the intentional killing of his paramour Sept. 9, 1993.
Jailed since his belated arrested last Sept. 17, Donohue, who did not testify or present any alibi witnesses, did not display any emotion as the verdict was announced at about 11:20 p. m.
Assistant District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III and prosecutor Kristen A. St. Mary said they will urge District Attorney Frank J. Clark to recommend the judge impose the maximum term of 25 years-to-life when Donohue is sentenced June 30.
As the verdict was announced, the victim's three children hugged each other and about a dozen of their relatives and supporters who remained in the courtroom all day.
Joseph A. Agro, Donohue's attorney, said the quickness of the verdict convinced him he was correct in seeking to have the trial moved out of Erie County to guaranteed Donohue a fair trial. Agro said there are "a lot of significant issues" upon which to appeal the verdict, including alleged news media coverage calling for Donohue's conviction.
Moments after the verdict, Don Cormier, Giambra's only son, and her two daughters, Jackie and Kathleen Giambra, called the guilty verdict the best Mother's Day gift they and their mother could have hoped for.
Kathleen Giambra, who as an 11-year-old was found incoherent atop her mother's naked corpse and who believes Donohue tried to strangle her as well, said she was glad "the man that did this is behind bars and he can't hurt anyone else."
The late-night verdict came after the jury had a readback of testimony about the DNA evidence linked to what forensic scientists determined was Donohue's DNA under the fingernails of the 42-year-old victim.
Before Agro left the courtroom he said he is convinced that the jury "had its mind made up" before it heard any evidence at the trial based on all the negative publicity Donohue has been receiving over the past year.
Arrested and belatedly charged last September, Donohue was convicted of manually strangling the Hillside Avenue housewife early on Sept. 9, 1993 — his 41st birthday.
Donohue was living with relatives in Kenmore last September when members of the Giambra family urged the Buffalo Cold Case Squad to check into the possibility he was the killer.
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 11:26 AMMeangino,
you wrote,
1. What is your opinion of offering a suspect immunity based on "passing" a polygraph "test," as the liveleak.com article reported happened in the case of Crystallyn Girard?
I do not know the circumstances of the offer or the need to make the offer. It makes no sense to me to offer immunity to someone who passed. It's akin to requiring miranda warnings to witnesses, it's unnecessary.
2. Does it concern you that, due to the polygraph-induced immunity granted to Donahue, there never will be justice for Crystallynn?
While I don't know all the details, it concerns me anytime justice is not served.
Sackett
you wrote,
1. What is your opinion of offering a suspect immunity based on "passing" a polygraph "test," as the liveleak.com article reported happened in the case of Crystallyn Girard?
I do not know the circumstances of the offer or the need to make the offer. It makes no sense to me to offer immunity to someone who passed. It's akin to requiring miranda warnings to witnesses, it's unnecessary.
2. Does it concern you that, due to the polygraph-induced immunity granted to Donahue, there never will be justice for Crystallynn?
While I don't know all the details, it concerns me anytime justice is not served.
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 11:20 AMQuote from: sackett on May 04, 2008, 03:12 AMQuote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PMThat is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted.
To the best of my knowledge, that is simply not true. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that you think it is true.
Do you have some source you could cite or link to provide that would back up your assertion that polygraphs are usually only used in criminal investigations after most leads have been exhausted?
No, I have no source, no research, no paper to fall back on to "prove it" to you. I do have almost 30 years in/around law enforcement at every level of government and my experience is such that cases are not generally investigated through the polygraph.
Polygraph is used when needed. This (usually) means when other leads have exhausted themselves. Now, do EACH and EVERY law enforcement agency in the US do it that way each and every time? Probably not, but it is generally understood and applied that way.
Sackett
Posted by meangino
- May 04, 2008, 08:30 AMQuote from: sackett on May 04, 2008, 02:53 AMMeangino,
then feel free to cut away at yourself next full moon...look down and slice...
If you want to discuss the truth of issues then feel free. If you want to argue minor points that might only support your position, then find a stronger argument...
Sackett
Sackett, you're the one who brought up the full moon analogy and pigs in this thread, not me.
Since you desire to discuss the issue at hand I have 2 questons.
- What is your opinion of offering a suspect immunity based on "passing" a polygraph "test," as the liveleak.com article reported happened in the case of Crystallyn Girard?
- Does it concern you that, due to the polygraph-induced immunity granted to Donahue, there never will be justice for Crystallynn?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 04, 2008, 03:12 AMQuote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PMThat is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted.
To the best of my knowledge, that is simply not true. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that you think it is true.
Do you have some source you could cite or link to provide that would back up your assertion that polygraphs are usually only used in criminal investigations after most leads have been exhausted?
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 02:53 AMMeangino,
then feel free to cut away at yourself next full moon...look down and slice...
If you want to discuss the truth of issues then feel free. If you want to argue minor points that might only support your position, then find a stronger argument...
Sackett
then feel free to cut away at yourself next full moon...look down and slice...
If you want to discuss the truth of issues then feel free. If you want to argue minor points that might only support your position, then find a stronger argument...
Sackett
Posted by meangino
- May 03, 2008, 07:24 PMQuote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PMMy father knew a farmer who made his decision when to castrate hogs based on lunar phases. He alleged the hogs would bleed less if castrated in the correct phase. My father's take was the hog would bleed when the scrotum was cut with a knife, regardless of the moon's phase.
I guess we could say that a full moon occured on the date of Donohue's test and that was the reason he falsely passed, too. Based on your logic, if we go back and look, and a full moon existed, I would be right.
Sackett
On the other hand, your comparison of polygraphy to making decisions based on lunar phases is appropriate. Neither is a valid decision making tool.
All of that being said, I suppose comparing polygraphy to hog castration is valid.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 03, 2008, 05:11 PMQuote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PMDon't you think they would have kept looking until all leads were exhausted? That is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the police had absolutely nothing on Donohue when they gave him his test and even if he had failed and not admitted or confessed would be where they were at the end of his examination; with nothing. Once again, polygraph is an investigative tool, not the end all to be all in any investigation.
The Buffalo Police Department polygraphed Dennis Donohue only three days after Crystallynn Girard was found dead. It would appear investigators resorted to the polygraph early -- not late -- in their investigation. The same seems to be true in the investigation into the killing of Nona Dirksmeyer. Investigators focused on her boyfriend, Kevin Jones, early in the investigation and polygraphed him a mere six days after her death. They clearly had not exhausted all leads, as documented in NBC Dateline's recent report.
Thomas Armitage, who is very likely the polygrapher who conducted the polygraph examination, has recently co-authored an article that purports to show that the polygraph technique he uses -- and may very well have used with Donohue (the article mentions that Armitage has 27 years of experience with the technique) -- is virtually 100% accurate and impervious to countermeasures. This study is highly flawed in that it relies on confessions to establish ground truth, a selection criterion that as Iacono and Lykken have pointed out, will tend to systematically exclude false negatives and false positives. Nonetheless, a polygrapher who erroneously believes that the technique he uses is virtually 100% accurate is likely to promote undue confidence in the results of his examinations amongst his colleagues.
Posted by meangino
- May 03, 2008, 04:27 PMQuote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PM
You are now assuming, wrongly (I am sure), that just because Donohue took a polygraph and passed, that detectives in the case simply stopped looking for any evidence? Failed to cross check DNA? Closed their files and put it in the unsolvable case file, all because he passed a polygraph... Not a very high opinion of police detective's, huh?
No, I didn't assume the detectives stopped looking at any evidence. Sackett, did you read the background articles George linked in the first post on the thread? The victim's mother was wrongly convicted. Hence, we know the detectives focused their efforts on an innocent person.
Regarding the failure to cross-check DNA files, clearly they didn't use the available DNA information correctly since DNA found in the victim implicates Donahue. In 1993 was science able to identify DNA found inside of a victim? Perhaps not (I'm not a scientist), but I tend to believe it was feasible in 1993.
You are correct regarding my opinions of the feckless detectives who focused on the victim's mother after Donahue's polygraph. When an innocent person is convicted, as clearly has happened here, the detectives who worked the case deserve criticism. The article George linked states Donahue was given immunity regarding Crystallin's murder after he "passed" a polygraph "test." What else do you need to know about the detectives? Do you instead praise them?
Because of the ridiculous decision to grant Donahue immunity based on "passing" a polygraph "test" there never will be justice for Crystallin's murder. Sackett, what do you think of that?
Sackett, maybe you should read all of the available background before saying other posters are making assumptions.
Posted by sackett
- May 03, 2008, 02:15 PMMeangino,
that is exactly what twisted logic will get you. You are now assuming, wrongly (I am sure), that just because Donohue took a polygraph and passed, that detectives in the case simply stopped looking for any evidence? Failed to cross check DNA? Closed their files and put it in the unsolvable case file, all because he passed a polygraph... Not a very high opinion of police detective's, huh? Don't you think they would have kept looking until all leads were exhausted? That is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the police had absolutely nothing on Donohue when they gave him his test and even if he had failed and not admitted or confessed would be where they were at the end of his examination; with nothing. Once again, polygraph is an investigative tool, not the end all to be all in any investigation.
The propaganda on this board is such that even the most decent and normal thinking person can start to see goblins where they don't exist.
But you see, it is this zealous and twisted thinking that feeds into the desire of those on this board to somehow PROVE polygraph doesn't work. I guess we could say that a full moon occured on the date of Donohue's test and that was the reason he falsely passed, too. Based on your logic, if we go back and look, and a full moon existed, I would be right.
On a side note, DNA became an issue in cases back in the early 90's. One of the reasons OJ was acquitted was the relatively new science being successfully attacked and the argument that cross contamination played a part.
Evidence is kept in murders (usually forever) because of the unknown future ability of science to probe and assist in the investigation. But, once again, I will say that DNA only proves donorship, not guilt or innocence.
Sackett
that is exactly what twisted logic will get you. You are now assuming, wrongly (I am sure), that just because Donohue took a polygraph and passed, that detectives in the case simply stopped looking for any evidence? Failed to cross check DNA? Closed their files and put it in the unsolvable case file, all because he passed a polygraph... Not a very high opinion of police detective's, huh? Don't you think they would have kept looking until all leads were exhausted? That is usually when polygraph in criminal cases are administered; when most leads are exhausted. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe the police had absolutely nothing on Donohue when they gave him his test and even if he had failed and not admitted or confessed would be where they were at the end of his examination; with nothing. Once again, polygraph is an investigative tool, not the end all to be all in any investigation.
The propaganda on this board is such that even the most decent and normal thinking person can start to see goblins where they don't exist.
But you see, it is this zealous and twisted thinking that feeds into the desire of those on this board to somehow PROVE polygraph doesn't work. I guess we could say that a full moon occured on the date of Donohue's test and that was the reason he falsely passed, too. Based on your logic, if we go back and look, and a full moon existed, I would be right.
On a side note, DNA became an issue in cases back in the early 90's. One of the reasons OJ was acquitted was the relatively new science being successfully attacked and the argument that cross contamination played a part.
Evidence is kept in murders (usually forever) because of the unknown future ability of science to probe and assist in the investigation. But, once again, I will say that DNA only proves donorship, not guilt or innocence.
Sackett
Posted by meangino
- May 03, 2008, 01:22 PMQuote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 09:42 PMQuote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 07:28 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 02, 2008, 01:19 PMJim,
It's no great stretch to suggest that had Donohue known that he continued to be a suspect in an active murder investigation, he might not have taken the risk of killing Giambra.
It's no great stretch to suggest that had the authorities not given such weight to unscientific testing, such as the polygraph, Donohue might have been incarcerated and therefore unable to murder Giambra.
There are several things you are clearly unfamiliar with regarding law enforcement. First, if they had anything other than the polygraph to lock Donohue up for, they would have. Secondly, and more subtle as Lethe would say, the second murder occurred 7 months after the first, then another. They were never connected (at the time), therefore these would have been looked at separately as individual, non-related deaths and not the work of a serial killer. Manpower and resources are scarce in most dept's and if the leads run cold, they usually move on to more "fresh" issues.
Unlike as suggested by George, there is no reason to believe that if Donohue had failed his examination on the first murder and provided no subsequent information that the second and third murders would never have occured. And certainly nothing is present to suggest his killing activity would have abated if he had been identified through the polygraph, but remained unproven and unarrested. Finally, serial killers generally get more brazen as they get away and over with their last murder. So perhaps, we could argue that because he was deemed truthful in the first murder examination less people were actually killed as time went on. I'm not suggesting that is factual, but it is a concept worth considering.
Finally, making assumptions about influences on the actions of a killer is dangerous. George is attempting to make a connection where none exists. Just because Donohue (wrongly) passed an examination on an initial murder in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY contributes to his actions months or years later. To make that argument is dishonest and dissengenuous at best for the readers.
Enough said. If you can't grasp what I am saying by now, it is a lost effort by me.
Sackett
Sackett, if Donahue had not been administered the polygraph in 1993 authorities would likely have looked harder for real evidence, such as the conclusive DNA evidence that was recently used. BTW, I don't know when DNA testing began to be used. However, this took place in 1993. I know DNA testing was famously used in the 1994 OJ Simpson case. I must conclude such testing was available in 1993 and investigators neglected to do so based on an invalid polygraph session.
Posted by nopolycop
- May 03, 2008, 09:02 AMEveryday, suspects pass polygraphs and are eliminated from suspicion because of that. Once in a while these suspects actually committed the crime, and go on to commit others. (Gary Ridgway comes to mind). While it doesn't happen all the time, when it does, it is tragic.
Is there any information to believe that the police DIDN'T remove him from consideration because of the failure of polygraph? Unless there is such information, I believe it is likely to assume they did, because that is the exact purpose of a polygraph in criminal investigations, to eliminate potential suspects so they can concentrate other, more likely suspects.
This theory is borne out by Sackett, who says in the post regarding countermeasures:
"Opposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest? So, they will be deemed guilty or deceptive (you choose) and subsequently pursued more vigorously. "
In other words, if a suspect passes a polygraph, they are pursued less vigorously than the suspect who failed a polygraph, regardless of whether or not the results of the polygraph are credible.
Is there any information to believe that the police DIDN'T remove him from consideration because of the failure of polygraph? Unless there is such information, I believe it is likely to assume they did, because that is the exact purpose of a polygraph in criminal investigations, to eliminate potential suspects so they can concentrate other, more likely suspects.
This theory is borne out by Sackett, who says in the post regarding countermeasures:
"Opposingly, the suspect who tries to enhance their reactions because they "should pass" and are convinced they need to help themselves because they "should pass" will get caught and appear to be attempting to thwart the process. Why would anyone want to do that, if they're honest? So, they will be deemed guilty or deceptive (you choose) and subsequently pursued more vigorously. "
In other words, if a suspect passes a polygraph, they are pursued less vigorously than the suspect who failed a polygraph, regardless of whether or not the results of the polygraph are credible.
Posted by sackett
- May 02, 2008, 11:13 PMQuote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 09:53 PMSackett,
You seem to be saying that a polygraph given to a criminal suspect has absolutely no impact on the investigation regardless of the result. Passing or failing means absolutely nothing and will have no effect on the direction of the investigation or the conclusions reached by the investigators.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me. If they are going to bother to give a polygraph exam why would they completely ignore the results?
Sarge,
that is not what I said and certainly did not apply my point to all criminal investigations. I was only addressing the one in the discussion.
Sackett
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 02, 2008, 09:53 PMSackett,
You seem to be saying that a polygraph given to a criminal suspect has absolutely no impact on the investigation regardless of the result. Passing or failing means absolutely nothing and will have no effect on the direction of the investigation or the conclusions reached by the investigators.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me. If they are going to bother to give a polygraph exam why would they completely ignore the results?
You seem to be saying that a polygraph given to a criminal suspect has absolutely no impact on the investigation regardless of the result. Passing or failing means absolutely nothing and will have no effect on the direction of the investigation or the conclusions reached by the investigators.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me. If they are going to bother to give a polygraph exam why would they completely ignore the results?