AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

On Valentine's Day 1993, 13-year-old Crystallynn Girard was found dead in her bedroom, apparently strangled. Days after the death, a suspect, Dennis Donohue, passed a polygraph "test," was granted immunity, and provided grand jury testimony that helped indict the victim's innocent mother, Lynn DeJac, of the crime. DeJac was convicted and sentenced to 25 years-to-life in prison. But after DeJac had spent 13 1/2 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d4_1196317967), DNA evidence from the crime scene (and in the victim's body) strongly implicated the polygraph-passing Dennis Donohue.

Donohue has been linked to two other murders, one of which -- that of Joan Giambra -- took place on 9 September 1993, some seven months after Donohue passed the polygraph in the killing of Crystallyn Girard. In this case, as in that of Green River Killer Gary Leon Ridgway (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1436.msg11312#msg11312), it appears that someone died in part because incompetent investigators were foolish enough to rely on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

The following are frame grabs from video of the February 1993 polygraph examination of Dennis Donohue, excerpts of which were aired by WGRZ television news of Buffalo, and which video has been posted to LiveLeak.com (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe4_1204263010):




Lighting up a cigarette after finishing the "test," Donohue asks how he did. The polygrapher says, "Your answers were good":


A recent article about the case, "N.Y. detective's dedication saves a life," (http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/264047/36/) by Associated Press reporter Carolyn Thompson, is attached in PDF format.

The polygrapher who passed Dennis Donohue would appear to be Thomas E. Armitage, who upon his retirement in 1996 was the Buffalo Police Department's only polygraph operator (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BN&p_theme=bn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF99086F7DB670&p_field_direct-0=document_id).

Update: Here is the full article on Armitage's retirement, which does not mention the Crystallynn Girard murder case:

QuoteThe Buffalo News

January 21, 1996

NO LIE: POLICE POLYGRAPH OPERATOR WILL RETIRE

Author: JANE KWIATKOWSKI - News Staff Reporter

Edition: FINAL
Section: LOCAL
Page: C4

His wife won't dare lie to him.

Such is the skill of retiring Detective Thomas Armitage, the Buffalo Police Department's only forensic psychophysiologist, that not many people get away with lying at all.

The veteran polygraph operator is ending a 28-year career in law enforcement after quizzing more than 4,000 men and woman for everything from pre-employment interviews to murder probes.

"You have to be a chameleon in there, depending on the person you are talking to," said Armitage, 55.

Make that a large chameleon. Standing more than 6 feet tall and weighing 230 pounds, Armitage presents an imposing figure -- to those not familiar with his infectious laugh.

"He's a character," said Capt. Charles T. Fieramusca, chief of the Homicide Bureau. "He's fun to be around."

Fieramusca, no doubt, never was in the polygraph hot seat, where heart rate and pulse strength -- not to mention sweat beads -- are monitored.

"Did you know you have over 2,000 sweat pores per square inch on your fingertips?" Armitage asked.

Armitage knows physiology, and he defines those he tests by theirs. Not too long ago Armitage interviewed a 73-year-old man who had been accused of taking $20,000 in a house burglary.

"The guy had great physiology -- 6 foot 4, real lean," Armitage said. "I've seen guys in their 20s who don't look this good on paper."

Another session brought what Armitage called "the classic," an arsonist wound up confessing to starting seven major fires.

"I'll never see it again. We had coffee. We had cigarettes. We had pop. And then he tells me the reason for all these arsons was sexual gratification. There are people who set fires for sexual gratification."

And he laughs.

Armitage follows a routine in his testing. The session itself is preceded by a 45-minute, pretest interview.

"You take away a lot of unknowns," Armitage explained. "It relaxes the truthful person and intensifies the anticipation of the deceptive person."

The first question is always the same, Armitage added.

"'Were you born in the United States?' Every darn time, so they get used to your voice.

"Basically I'm shooting from the hip," he said. "You must maintain total control of the situation at all times."

Armitage did not always have control of all situations, according to those who knew him years ago.

"He was a very assertive and aggressive young recruit who would not back down from anyone," recalled Fieramusca, who attended the Police Academy with Armitage.

"He's mellowed with age and experience," Fieramusca said. "He's learned from those 28 years that you don't fly off the handle immediately."

During 32 years of marriage, Rosalie Armitage said her husband rarely brought his work home with him.

"He sort of learned after this many years to let it go," Mrs. Armitage said. "In the summer, he'll cut the grass to wi! nd down. Now he'll shoot a few squirrels or walk through the woods."

Armitage admits he leaves a polygraph session "in worse shape than they are. I come out wired," he said. "I hold a person's destiny in my hands."

Armitage has not spent his entire police career in the polygraph room. He started out in the Motorcycle Division and was a member of the Special Weapons and Tactics team for 13 years.

Armitage figures that half the tests he conducted were related to criminal cases.

"Ninety percent of them are truthful people; 10 percent are DI (deception indicated) and 85 percent of those wind up confessing. Everyone has got their button," he said.

Armitage said he is leaving his beloved job with "great apprehension. Psychologically, it's very difficult because I really like this job."

The department, meanwhile, plans to offer polygraph training to three senior detectives, according to Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, who said! , "Tommy has an excellent reputation."

The Armitages have two sons -- Thomas, 29, and John, 27. Mrs. Armitage said the entire family has walked the straight and narrow, thanks to her husband's keen sense of truth. "Would I lie to him?" she said. "No. He's too good at his job."

Caption:
DENNIS C. ENSER/Buffalo News Detective Thomas Armitage conducts one of his last polygraph tests for the Buffalo Police Department before retiring after a 28-year career in law enforcement.

Copyright (C) 1996, The Buffalo News
Record Number: BFNW60210212

Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 30, 2008, 05:04 AMThe polygrapher who passed Dennis Donahue would appear to be Thomas E. Armitage, who upon his retirement in 1996 was the Buffalo Police Department's only polygraph operator (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BN&p_theme=bn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF99086F7DB670&p_field_direct-0=document_id).

Yet, Sackett and his possy would have us all believe that this too was some RARE event.
Tell that to the woman who spent 13 yrs in jail!!!
Thanks George! ;)

George,

you report he was granted immunity from prosecution after "passing" a polygraph test.  Why would anyone NEED immunity if they passed a polygraph.  I have never seen anyone who passed a police polygraph "needing" immunity.  

Seems to me there are other factors involved which are not being reported (purposefully or not) which implicated Armitage and since there was no other evidence, prosecution was not possible.  Therefore, polygraph obviously played NO substantial part in this investigation.  

It seems you're attempting to make hay where there is no straw!

So what's your point on polygraph, anyway?  He reportedly "passed" his examination.  In 1993!  A Buffalo PD guy, probably an Arthur graduate, meaning he (probably) relied more on non-verbal behavior and physical cues than polygraph (a known Arthur trait who also uses "global" evaluation and not numerical scoring). A LOT has changed since then!  

Furthermore, and for the not-so-criminologically inclined readers; DNA does NOT prove guilt or innocence! It simply establishes presence!

Sackett

Sackett

I just read on the net where another Texas prosiner, the 17th. in Texas alone I believe, has been judged innocent by DNA. Have you not read where many have been judged guilty by DNA alone?

Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 30, 2008, 11:39 AMGeorge,

you report he was granted immunity from prosecution after "passing" a polygraph test.  Why would anyone NEED immunity if they passed a polygraph.  I have never seen anyone who passed a police polygraph "needing" immunity.

I don't know why Dennis Donohue was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, but the fact that he passed a supposedly scientific polygraph "test" no doubt influenced prosecutors' poor decision to grant such.

QuoteSeems to me there are other factors involved which are not being reported (purposefully or not) which implicated Armitage and since there was no other evidence, prosecution was not possible.  Therefore, polygraph obviously played NO substantial part in this investigation.  

It seems you're attempting to make hay where there is no straw!

In your haste to rationalize away this catastrophic failure of polygraphy -- a failure that it seems ended up costing Joan Giambra her life -- you have conflated polygrapher and perpetrator. It's Dennis Donohue who is implicated by DNA evidence in the murder of Crystallynn Girard. Tom Armitage is my best guess as to the identity of the polygrapher who passed Donohue.

QuoteSo what's your point on polygraph, anyway?  He reportedly "passed" his examination.  In 1993!  A Buffalo PD guy, probably an Arthur graduate, meaning he (probably) relied more on non-verbal behavior and physical cues than polygraph (a known Arthur trait who also uses "global" evaluation and not numerical scoring). A LOT has changed since then!  

Speculation for the purpose of rationalization. The questions asked, listed in the frame grabs, clearly suggest that this was a probable-lie control question test, the technique most widely used by polygraphers across the USA. Specifically, the technique appears to be along the lines of the Backster S-K-Y technique: "Do you suspect anyone of ____? Do you know who ___? Did you ___?"

QuoteFurthermore, and for the not-so-criminologically inclined readers; DNA does NOT prove guilt or innocence! It simply establishes presence!

But DNA evidence in the victim's body, and in a spot of blood on the wall, is pretty damning, don't you think?

::)

0#3 date=1209569998]George,

you reported, " I don't know why Dennis Donahue was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, but the fact that he passed a supposedly scientific polygraph "test" no doubt influenced prosecutors' poor decision to grant such."

To use your own words; "Speculation for the purpose of rationalization."

Also, "In your haste to rationalize away this catastrophic failure of polygraphy -- a failure that it seems ended up costing Joan Giambra her life -- you have conflated polygrapher and perpetrator. It's Dennis Donahue who is implicated by DNA evidence in the murder of Crystallynn Girard. Tom Armitage is my best guess as to the identity of the polygrapher who passed Donahue."

What is there to rationalize.  At the time of the examination/investigation they obviously had nothing to charge or proceed with against Donohue.  For that reason there is no presumption that a passed polygraph examination would have any impact on what occurred; other than your own presumptive rationalization.  It was not until DNA evaluation was made possible that this case would have gone forward.  THANK GOD! Your book was not on line at the time, else we could have blamed you for helping a reported murderer "beat" the examiner...

Speculation for the purpose of rationalization. The questions asked, listed in the frame grabs, clearly suggest that this was a probable-lie control question test, the technique most widely used by polygraphers across the USA. Specifically, the technique appears to be along the lines of the Backster S-K-Y technique: "Do you suspect anyone of ____? Do you know who ___? Did you ___?"

Possibly, but I don't see where I can watch the whole test, so there is really no way to truly know...

But DNA evidence in the victim's body, and in a spot of blood on the wall, is pretty damning, don't you think?

Yes, I do.  But it doesn't disprove Giambra's knowledge or involvement.  It simply establishes Donohue's presence, crime or not; I do not know.

Sackett

Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 30, 2008, 01:54 PMSackett

I just read on the net where another Texas prosiner, the 17th. in Texas alone I believe, has been judged innocent by DNA. Have you not read where many have been judged guilty by DNA alone?

OK, once again and I'll type slowly.  DNA does not prove a crime, it establishes (proves) presence or donorship!  One can not be proven innocent by DNA; however, they can be cleared as not the donor through that evaluative process. If only one criminal is reportedly involved, and DNA establishes the suspect did not donate the source DNA, then he is cleared.

But, what happens when they commit the crime but do not donate DNA and someone after (co-conspirator) does...?  Again, good reason to be cautious of declaring innocent anyone solely from the DNA results, unless the case facts establish only one suspect.

Sackett

Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 30, 2008, 04:33 PMGeorge,

you reported, " I don't know why Dennis Donahue was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, but the fact that he passed a supposedly scientific polygraph "test" no doubt influenced prosecutors' poor decision to grant such."

To use your own words; "Speculation for the purpose of rationalization."

Jim,

It's hardly speculation and in no way rationalization to infer that Donohue's passing a polygraph test influenced prosecutors' decision to eliminate him as a suspect. It's a rational inference entirely consistent with the reported history of the case.

QuoteAlso, "In your haste to rationalize away this catastrophic failure of polygraphy -- a failure that it seems ended up costing Joan Giambra her life -- you have conflated polygrapher and perpetrator. It's Dennis Donahue who is implicated by DNA evidence in the murder of Crystallynn Girard. Tom Armitage is my best guess as to the identity of the polygrapher who passed Donahue."

What is there to rationalize.  At the time of the examination/investigation they obviously had nothing to charge or proceed with against Donohue.  For that reason there is no presumption that a passed polygraph examination would have any impact on what occurred; other than your own presumptive rationalization.  It was not until DNA evaluation was made possible that this case would have gone forward.  THANK GOD you didn't have your book on line at the time, we could have all pointed to you and hypothesized your book helped him "beat" the examiner...

What you're rationalizing away is the fact that the polygraph failed to detect deception on Donohue's part, even though DNA evidence puts him at the crime scene. You seemingly cannot accept the fact that the polygraph failed utterly in this case. You want to explain it away. To blame the examiner, the technique used, anything but the inherent unreliability of the test that you have made it your career to administer.

QuoteSpeculation for the purpose of rationalization. The questions asked, listed in the frame grabs, clearly suggest that this was a probable-lie control question test, the technique most widely used by polygraphers across the USA. Specifically, the technique appears to be along the lines of the Backster S-K-Y technique: "Do you suspect anyone of ____? Do you know who ___? Did you ___?"

Possibly, but I don't see where I can watch the whole test, so there is really no way to truly know...

I haven't been able to see the whole video either. But the influence of Cleve Backster (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg2012#msg2012)'s S-K-Y technique is clear.

QuoteBut DNA evidence in the victim's body, and in a spot of blood on the wall, is pretty damning, don't you think?

Yes, I do.  But it doesn't disprove Giambra's knowledge or involvement.  It simply establishes Donohue's presence, crime or not; I do not know.

Giambra was a victim, not a perpetrator -- a victim who might still be alive had not Buffalo police relied on polygraph results to exculpate Dennis Donohue, who is currently standing trial for her murder, to which he is also strongly tied by DNA evidence. I hope you read the case files of any criminal suspects you polygraph more carefully than you read the posts in this thread before setting fingers to keyboard.

::)

Sackett

You don't have to waste you time by typing slowly. I can detail read much faster than you can type.

Your quote "one cannot be proven innocent by DNA" doesn't jibe with the DA. He specifically said the man was deemed innocent of murdering his girlfriend by DNA. He was released from prison after 27 years, I believe. I would copy and paste the article, but it has gone away from the net.

What is your picky difference between cleared and innocent?

I typed this as fast as I could. Good luck reading it.

George,

Nice try!  It is exactly specualtion and rationalization on your part (without knowledge of all the case facts) to insist Donahue's passing a polygraph regarding the Girard case prevented his continuation as a suspect in the any other case.  I am not sure I must have missed where Donohue took a polygraph in the Giambra case.  

Remember, polygraph is an investigative tool, NOT the end all to be all in investigations.  Does what you suggest occur?  Sure.  But if the DA or police had anything (at the time) concerning either case, they certainly would have considered it and probably discounted the polygraph results.  That happens all the time.  The police had nothing, so to suggest the polygraph results in one case presented itself as a wall for further consideration of involvement in that or any other case is rediculous.

At the time, there was no DNA.  So let's look at it from that time frame.  No evidence to suggest his involvement, no ability to pursue him.

OK george I get it.  False negatives occur.  If your purpose is to attack every infrequent case a polygraph is less than viable, then so be it.  But to attack the overall utility and accuracy because of a few select cases out of hundreds of thousands is a weak strategy.

Regarding Backer's SKY, point accepted.  My observation was that most NY examiners are Arthur trained and that his technique is vastly differing from that of other more mainstream schools.

George, first off I have little time to argue over mistaken names or misspellings.  I make my point and you are clearly smart enough to figure out what I am talking about.  Twoblock, on the other hand, is obviously having trouble though...  

Furthermore, there is no way to know if the victim Giambra would still be alive if the polygraph results pertaining to Girard were any different and to suggest so is disinformative and borderline insanity.  What you're suggesting is that had the results in the Girard case been different, Donohue would definitely not have committed any further murders?  You do not know that, neither does anyone else.  But, I guess it serves your purpose to connect dots that don't exist..

Finally, sometimes I am in a hurry to address issues here and get back to work so, head's up!  I will make mistakes. I leave myself, in those times, to the capable hands of the anti-vultures to attack me out of a lack of substanative issues.

Oh, and don't worry, I read my polygraph files very closely.  They are of absolute importance to me, unlike other readings I undertake for entertainment...

Sackett

Sackett

"Twoblock, on the other hand, is obviously having trouble though".

Damn. I figured that I was typing the last post too fast for you to comprehend. Especially when I quoted facts from the DA that debunked your opinion. I hate it when I wish someone good luck and they don't receive it.

BTW - I'm now setting on ready to leave for AK. Just waiting for the weather to warm up. I'm sure gonna miss your specious while Im up there.

Quote from: George_Maschke on Apr 30, 2008, 07:00 PMNice try!  It is exactly specualtion and rationalization on your part (without knowledge of all the case facts) to insist Donahue's passing a polygraph regarding the Girard case prevented his continuation as a suspect in the any other case.  I am not sure I must have missed where Donohue took a polygraph in the Giambra case.

Jim, I have not claimed that Donohue's passed polygraph regarding the death of Crystallynn Girard "prevented his continuation as a suspect in any other case." Nor have I stated that Donohue was polygraphed in connection with the death of Joan Giambra.

What I'm suggesting is that had not investigators relied on Donohue's passed polygraph, and had they not wrongly excluded him as a suspect in the death of Crystallynn Girard, then Donohue might not have been at liberty to kill Joan Giambra some seven moths later.

QuoteRemember, polygraph is an investigative tool, NOT the end all to be all in investigations.  Does what you suggest occur?  Sure.  But if the DA or police had anything (at the time) concerning either case, they certainly would have considered it and probably discounted the polygraph results.  That happens all the time.  The police had nothing, so to suggest the polygraph results in one case presented itself as a wall for further consideration of involvement in that or any other case is rediculous.

Investigators either believe the polygraph community's claims that their "test" has an accuracy rate in the 90% percentile or they don't. If do believe such claims (which are unsupported by the scientific evidence (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml)), then investigatorial misdirection is inevitably going to result, as it appears to have in the Crystallynn Girard murder investigation.

QuoteAt the time, there was no DNA.  So let's look at it from that time frame.  No evidence to suggest his involvement, no ability to pursue him.

Donohue had both motive and opportunity. And he had been questioned in connection with the 1975 strangulation of Carol Reed, who lived in the same building and with whom he had had a relationship.

QuoteOK george I get it.  False negatives occur.  If your purpose is to attack every infrequent case a polygraph is less than viable, then so be it.  But to attack the overall utility and accuracy because of a few select cases out of hundreds of thousands is a weak strategy.

Polygraph errors are not  so uncommon, and AntiPolygraph.org is not prepared to allow them to be swept under the rug or flushed down the memory hole. High-profile cases where killers passed the polygraph include the aforementioned case of Green River Killer Leon Gary Ridgeway (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1436.msg11312#msg11312), "Angel of Death" Charles Cullen (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2931.msg20450#msg20450), and "Woodchipper Killer" Richard Crafts (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3407.msg23681#msg23681). And these fooled the lie detector at a time when information on polygraph countermeasures was not readily available on-line (https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).

QuoteFurthermore, there is no way to know if the victim Giambra would still be alive if the polygraph results pertaining to Girard were any different and to suggest so is disinformative and borderline insanity.  What you're suggesting is that had the results in the Girard case been different, Donohue would definitely not have committed any further murders?  You do not know that, neither does anyone else.  But, I guess it serves your purpose to connect dots that don't exist..

It's true that we cannot know that Joan Giambra would not have been killed had not Dennis Donohue (apparently erroneously) passed his polygraph regarding the death of Crystallynn Girard. But it's a distinct possibility.

George,

I don't not care how you spin your answer.  You directly inferred and suggested that because Donohue (falsely) passed his examination concerning the first murder, that he was able to murder another several months later; thereby directly linking the false test results as a contributing cause to the additional murders.

Sad as the whole topic of loss of life, you are being dishonest in trying make that connection!  All for the purpose of bad mouthing polygraph.

Sackett

Jim,

Yes, I'm unapologetically suggesting that it's entirely possible that but for Donohue's likely false negative polygraph result, and the consequent misdirection of the investigation toward the victim's innocent mother, Joan Giambra might be alive today.

Cold case detective Dennis Delano, whose efforts led to Lynn DeJac's exoneration, told WGRZ television reporter Scott Brown (http://www.wgrz.com/video/vplayer.aspx?aid=43648&bw=), "If it had been my investigation today, [Dennis Donohue] would have been my main suspect, and I wouldn't have got off him." But other Buffalo P.D. detectives did get off him...after he passed the polygraph.

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.

George,

you are really reaching for a connection and connecting dots which do not exist.  

While I believe anything is possible; so to with pigs, if only they had wings...

Sackett

Quote 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.

Quote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 06:13 PMGeorge,

you are really reaching for a connection and connecting dots which do not exist.  

While I believe anything is possible; so to with pigs, if only they had wings...

Sackett

If Donohue had failed his polygraph you believe he would have had exactly the same opportunity and would have been exactly as likely to commit further murders?  Really?

You don't think that failing his polygraph would have had some effect on his status as a suspect in the investigation?  It wouldn't have made investigators consider him a more likely suspect, and perhaps have caused them to watch him, monitor his movements, or even arrest him?

I think it is only common sense to believe that had Donohue failed his polygraph it would be less likely to have committed subsequent murders.  How much less likely may be debatable, but I don't think anyone can logically argue that he would have been exactly as likely, or even more likely, to have committed that murder had he not passed the polygraph.

Quote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 07:28 PM

Quote 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,

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?

Quote 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

Everyday, 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.

Quote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 09:42 PM

Quote from: sackett on May 02, 2008, 07:28 PM

Quote 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.

Meangino,

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

Quote 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.

Quote 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 (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3943.msg29586#msg29586). 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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24433365/).

Thomas Armitage, who is very likely the polygrapher who conducted the polygraph examination, has recently co-authored an article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4S1C2PB-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1b7968f4022b6b54028f0490b4d4d2f7) 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.

Quote from: sackett on May 03, 2008, 02:15 PM

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

My 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.

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.   ;D

Meangino,

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

Quote 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?

Quote 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?

Quote from: sackett on May 04, 2008, 03:12 AM

Quote 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

Meangino,

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

A 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.

I 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.