- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by digithead
- Aug 31, 2008, 10:21 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWHAT WAS HE DOING OUT OF PRISON?He was paroled on the belief that the containment method - which relies on the polygraph - could prevent him from reoffending. Obviously, it didn't...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhy wasn't he civilly committed under the Washington State Community Protection Act of 1990?They didn't have enough evidence at the time to civilly commit him...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhy do you want to hold Polygraph responsible when it was the Department of Corrections, The Parole Board, and his P.O. that had the authority to keep him in or send him back?There's a lot of blame to go around. This case demonstrates a systematic and systemic failure of the criminal justice system...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhat about the State Psychologist in 2000 that determined that he was not a violent sexual predator.?Actually, he was a level III offender but they didn't have enough information to civilly commit him. Remember, they did not know that he had murdered people at the time he finished his sentence...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMWhat about his P.O. who knew that he was beginning to break his conditions regardng drug use and possession of a firearm because he was arrested in possession of a gun and drugs ?(he did 30 days in jail instead of returning to prison)Because you know as well as I do that it's standard practice to do this rather than revocation as the system usually strives for the least restrictive placement. Plus shock incarceration was in vogue at the time...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMThe polygraph Examiner DID HIS JOB. He reported Duncan had failed his test. The Department of Corrections decides whether or not to act on that information.Yes, he uncovered that Duncan smoked pot and was at his girlfriend's house without his parole officer's permission. How about those two murders he committed. How'd the polygraph miss that?
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI don't know for sure, I haven't seen any proof that he had any other tests in that time frame. NEITHER HAVE YOU at this POINT YOU ARE JUST GUESSING OR LYING.How can I be lying when I asked a question? And why are you unwilling to speculate on this when you'll speculate on just about everything else? Oh yes, it's because you know the probable answer and it doesn't make the polygraph look good....
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI really can't comment on common practice in the location he took his tests. He may have failed to appear for a scheduled polygraph or his P.O. may have got busy and failed to schedule one at the appropriate time. I don't know but NEITHER DO YOU ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE JUST GUESSINGYup, I'm guessing he had more polygraphs in this time frame since the conditions of his parole mandated them every 90 days. See here:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=80802
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMI don't know whether or not he had more victims,BUT YOU DON'T EITHERI don't know for sure but sadly, I'm willing to bet that he did.
As post-conviction polygraph is touted by those that sell it, it's supposed to provide valuable feedback on compliance with supervision and treatment. It somehow missed that he murdered two children. There's no way to spin that, the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes...
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 30, 2008, 10:00 AMQuoteSo tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from re-offending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.
In 1978 when he was 15-years-old Duncan was sentenced to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma fo raping a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint, he told a therapist who was assigned to his case that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys, according to a report by the Associated Press, he also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. In 1980 Duncan was sentenced to 20 years in prison for raping a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint.
WHAT WAS HE DOING OUT OF PRISON?
Why wasn't he civilly committed under the Washington State Community Protection Act of 1990?
Why do you want to hold Polygraph responsible when it was the Department of Corrections, The Parole Board, and his P.O. that had the authority to keep him in or send him back?
What about the State Psychologist in 2000 that determined that he was not a violent sexual predator.?
What about his P.O. who knew that he was beginning to break his conditions regardng drug use and possession of a firearm because he was arrested in possession of a gun and drugs ?(he did 30 days in jail instead of returning to prison)
The polygraph Examiner DID HIS JOB. He reported Duncan had failed his test. The Department of Corrections decides whether or not to act on that information.
And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:
Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame?
I don't know for sure, I haven't seen any proof that he had any other tests in that time frame. NEITHER HAVE YOU at this POINT YOU ARE JUST GUESSING OR LYING.
Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders? I really can't comment on common practice in the location he took his tests. He may have failed to appear for a scheduled polygraph or his P.O. may have got busy and failed to schedule one at the appropriate time. I don't know but NEITHER DO YOU ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE JUST GUESSING
How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?
I don't know whether or not he had more victims,BUT YOU DON'T EITHER
Sancho Panza
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2008, 06:44 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 06:31 PMAt this point can you cite a SINGLE POLYGRAPH that he PASSED after murdering those two girls? Can you cite a single polygraph he passed after murdering anyone?
I don't think you can.
Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza
So tell me what good was the failed polygraph? What did it achieve? Did it prevent him from reoffending? Did it deter him in any way, shape or form? No, it merely demonstrates the futility of its use when we really need it to work.
And you answered none of my questions, so I'll restate them:
Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame?
Is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?
How about my bet that he had more victims, do you really think he didn't have more victims in this time frame?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 29, 2008, 06:31 PMAt this point can you cite a SINGLE POLYGRAPH that he PASSED after murdering those two girls? Can you cite a single polygraph he passed after murdering anyone?
I don't think you can.
Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza
I don't think you can.
Guesses DONT COUNT
Spin this ... YOU'RE just making stuff up.
Sancho Panza
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2008, 06:01 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 04:54 PMOK Digithead Let me see if I have your positon correct. DUNCAN passed all of his polygraphs until the one he took on the day the 2 little girls disappeared, 3/26/97,WHICH HE FAILED and because he didn't confess to murdering 2 little girls that no-one knew were missing yet, after FAILING this polygraph, your contention is the polygraph didn't work even though he FAILED THE POLYGRAPH.
With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.
Sancho Panza
What exactly did this failed polygraph uncover? That he smoked pot and didn't tell his parole officer that he was spending time with his girlfriend and her two children. He was not revoked for these violations; he was revoked after he absconded. Post-conviction polygraph is sold that it can uncover serious trangressions yet it failed to do that in this case, why? Because Duncan was able to fool the polygrapher into thinking he had uncovered all there was to uncover. If I were a polygrapher, I wouldn't chalk this one up in my win category.
By the way, the two girls that Duncan admitted murdering were abducted July 6, 1996. His failed polygraph didn't come until March 26, 1997, more than 7 months later. There is a gap of more than 8 months between between his passed June 1996 test and his failed March 1997 test of the available polygraph tests on the web. These are dated January, May, and September of 1995 and then it skips to June of 1996 and then March of 1997. Do you really think that he had no other polygraphs in this time frame? I'll remind you that he was a paroled Level III offender, is it common practice to let more than 9 months and then 8 months go by between tests for Level III offenders?
Additionally, Duncan is no longer a suspect in the March 26, 1997 murder of Deborah Palmer so it's not relevant to the case anymore.
Anyone out there want to bet me that he didn't have more victims in this time frame? I'm guessing that he did. Heck, I'll even give you 100-1 odds...
Go ahead, spin away....
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 29, 2008, 04:54 PMOK Digithead Let me see if I have your positon correct. DUNCAN passed all of his polygraphs until the one he took on the day the 2 little girls disappeared, 3/26/97,WHICH HE FAILED and because he didn't confess to murdering 2 little girls that no-one knew were missing yet, after FAILING this polygraph, your contention is the polygraph didn't work even though he FAILED THE POLYGRAPH.
With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.
Sancho Panza
With logic like that I predict a bright future for you in politics.
Sancho Panza
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2008, 03:12 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 07:54 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 10:49 PMMy statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true.
OK so Digithead says they are true but I guess he doesn't have a source to back up his assertion. The link he provided certainly doesn't. I guest he must have had a vision or a dream or perhaps found it in a fortune cookie.
Could you at least scan the fortune cookie and post it so it doesn't look like you just made it all up?
Sancho Panza
Let's see, Duncan wasn't a suspect in the Seattle murders until after he was caught for the Groene case in 2005 and admitted that he did it. The sources are his polygraph tests in that time frame (1996-97) that did not uncover the fact that he murdered two little girls. It seems a clear case of polygraph failure to me, what other proof would you like? Do you really think the polygraph "worked" in this case?
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 29, 2008, 07:54 AMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 10:49 PMMy statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true.
OK so Digithead says they are true but I guess he doesn't have a source to back up his assertion. The link he provided certainly doesn't. I guest he must have had a vision or a dream or perhaps found it in a fortune cookie.
Could you at least scan the fortune cookie and post it so it doesn't look like you just made it all up?
Sancho Panza
Posted by digithead
- Aug 28, 2008, 10:49 PMMy statements that the polygraph failed to detect his most serious crimes are true. The only thing they pinned on him were minor parole violations. Duncan was not revoked for failing this polygraph, he was revoked for absconding. Given how post-conviction polygraph is sold, shouldn't we expect more from it? If it worked as sold, Joseph Duncan would have been caught for the Seattle murders. It didn't. You can try to spin it but reliance on the polygraph failed society in this case.
By the way, here is a link from the Spokesman Review that details Duncan's travels in this time frame:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=83414
By the way, here is a link from the Spokesman Review that details Duncan's travels in this time frame:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/duncan/?ID=83414
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 28, 2008, 09:03 PMDigithead, Would you care to post the source of your information as I requested.
I have seen what purports to be a copy of the examiners report on his Polygraph from 3/26/97 and it contains NO information regarding any admissions he may have made.
Based on question 4. I would have to conclude that he admitted to illegal drug use before the exam not after.
Here is a link to the report.
http://img58.imageshack.us/my.php?image=326975yv.jpg
Sancho Panza
I have seen what purports to be a copy of the examiners report on his Polygraph from 3/26/97 and it contains NO information regarding any admissions he may have made.
Based on question 4. I would have to conclude that he admitted to illegal drug use before the exam not after.
Here is a link to the report.
http://img58.imageshack.us/my.php?image=326975yv.jpg
Sancho Panza
Posted by digithead
- Aug 28, 2008, 07:41 PMThe failed polygraph after the murders got Duncan to admit that he smoked pot which would've been detected with a UA. Seems that he was able to manipulate the polygrapher in his favor away from his real crimes. Hence, the polygrapher failed to detect Duncan's more serious crimes which allowed him to commit further murders. Face it, Duncan was a false negative no matter how you spin it. He suckered the system and tricked the polygrapher into thinking he had done nothing more serious than smoke pot which created a false sense of security.
As for something more substantial, how about a quote from the monster himself which he said in his closing arguments earlier this week, "You people really don't have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I've done."
By the way, Duncan created an encrypted diary that contains all of his criminal acts. The FBI hasn't cracked it yet but it's just a matter of time before all of his crimes come to light. Do you really want to bet that Duncan didn't do other things while on parole that the polygraph/polygrapher also missed?
Lastly, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that I have to come up with something "better" than the polygraph. To me, expunging this pseudoscience from law enforcement is better as we will no longer be relying on wishful thinking and make-believe security.
The polygraph is great example of routine activities theory: suitable targets, motivated offenders, and lack of capable guardians. With countermeasures employed by motivated offenders to easily manipulate the test (i.e.., lack of capable guardian), it's no wonder people like Duncan can rape and murder until they get caught the old-fashioned way.
As for something more substantial, how about a quote from the monster himself which he said in his closing arguments earlier this week, "You people really don't have any clue yet of the true heinousness of what I've done."
By the way, Duncan created an encrypted diary that contains all of his criminal acts. The FBI hasn't cracked it yet but it's just a matter of time before all of his crimes come to light. Do you really want to bet that Duncan didn't do other things while on parole that the polygraph/polygrapher also missed?
Lastly, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that I have to come up with something "better" than the polygraph. To me, expunging this pseudoscience from law enforcement is better as we will no longer be relying on wishful thinking and make-believe security.
The polygraph is great example of routine activities theory: suitable targets, motivated offenders, and lack of capable guardians. With countermeasures employed by motivated offenders to easily manipulate the test (i.e.., lack of capable guardian), it's no wonder people like Duncan can rape and murder until they get caught the old-fashioned way.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Aug 28, 2008, 06:24 PMDigithead:
Duncan Timeline
Convicted 1980 for raping a 14 year old boy and paroled in 1994
Polygraph on 1/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 5/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 9/14/95 Passed
He violated his parole in 1996 by using marijuana and getting caught, and for possession of a firearm.
Polygraph on 6/11/96 Passed
July 1996 first murders Sammiejo White, 11, and Carmen Cubias, 9 Bodies found 2 years later
Deborah Palmer, 7-years-old March 26,1997 disappears Her body was found 5 days later
Polygraph on 3/26/97 Failed
Then he is on the run
Next possible murder Anthony Martinez disappeared on April 4, 1997.
Although Information on the internet is sketchy I have not found any information alleging that this monster passed a single polygraph after committing a murder.
If you have something substantive in this regard please post your source.
Sancho Panza
Duncan Timeline
Convicted 1980 for raping a 14 year old boy and paroled in 1994
Polygraph on 1/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 5/17/95 Passed
Polygraph on 9/14/95 Passed
He violated his parole in 1996 by using marijuana and getting caught, and for possession of a firearm.
Polygraph on 6/11/96 Passed
July 1996 first murders Sammiejo White, 11, and Carmen Cubias, 9 Bodies found 2 years later
Deborah Palmer, 7-years-old March 26,1997 disappears Her body was found 5 days later
Polygraph on 3/26/97 Failed
Then he is on the run
Next possible murder Anthony Martinez disappeared on April 4, 1997.
Although Information on the internet is sketchy I have not found any information alleging that this monster passed a single polygraph after committing a murder.
If you have something substantive in this regard please post your source.
Sancho Panza
Posted by pailryder
- Aug 28, 2008, 05:03 PMdigithead
How would you catch them?
How would you catch them?
Posted by digithead
- Aug 28, 2008, 03:08 PMUpdate on the Joseph Duncan case - he was sentenced to death in federal court yesterday for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of 9-year-old Dylan Groene. He had already pled guilty in Idaho for the murder of Dylan's family and the rape and kidnapping of his sister Shasta. CNN has a good summary of the case:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/27/duncan.death.ap/index.html
Duncan's case demonstrates the futility of post-conviction polygraph as it failed to detect his most serious offense(s). Duncan admitted that he murdered two sisters from Seattle during while he was on parole in the mid-90s. He took multiple polygraph tests as a condition of his parole and because these so-called tests failed to detect his crimes, five more people lost their lives and a little girl's life has been shattered. There may be additional victims of this monster that have yet to be uncovered.
Most of the anti- people here complain about false positives, I worry about the false negatives. So I ask the question again, how many more Joseph Duncans are out there getting away with rape and murder because we rely on this pseudoscience to catch them?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/27/duncan.death.ap/index.html
Duncan's case demonstrates the futility of post-conviction polygraph as it failed to detect his most serious offense(s). Duncan admitted that he murdered two sisters from Seattle during while he was on parole in the mid-90s. He took multiple polygraph tests as a condition of his parole and because these so-called tests failed to detect his crimes, five more people lost their lives and a little girl's life has been shattered. There may be additional victims of this monster that have yet to be uncovered.
Most of the anti- people here complain about false positives, I worry about the false negatives. So I ask the question again, how many more Joseph Duncans are out there getting away with rape and murder because we rely on this pseudoscience to catch them?
Posted by CasualBystander
- Jul 10, 2007, 01:22 PMAgreed...we may never know if my position is correct. The human psyche can be a dark and disturbing place. I find it interesting that our most violent and twisted criminals, even mass murderers have the moral high ground on those that they perceive to be child molesters.
It is such a touchy subject...as stated above I would lose all rationale if I found that someone was harming my children.
It is such a touchy subject...as stated above I would lose all rationale if I found that someone was harming my children.