In an article titled, "Salt Lake City Girl Found Alive," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16692-2003Mar12.html)
Washington Post staff writers Rene Sanchez and T.R. Reid report that Elizabeth Smart, who was abducted from her home last year, has been re-united with her family. Two suspects are in police custody.
The investigation had earlier focused on Richard Ricci, an ex-convict and handyman for the Smart family, who reportedly failed a lie detector "test." Ricci died of a brain hemorrhage while in police custody. According to a UPI report titled "Smarts hope Ricci's death brings new clues" (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20020831-024033-8656r.htm) and published in the
Washington Times on 31 August 2002:
Quote...The former handyman, 48, came to the attention of police and FBI agents because of his past and because he reportedly was not considered truthful in a polygraph test.
Ricci had denied any involvement in Elizabeth's kidnapping, reportedly by a man in a tan cap who slipped into the family's $1 million home during the pre-dawn hours of June 5 and forced the teenager to leave with him in her pajamas and tennis shoes. There has been no sign of the girl since then.
Police have conceded that Ricci's death has nearly derailed the investigation, although they vowed to continue following up on leads.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Mar 13, 2003, 04:57 AM
In an article titled, "Salt Lake City Girl Found Alive," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16692-2003Mar12.html) Washington Post staff writers Rene Sanchez and T.R. Reid report that Elizabeth Smart, who was abducted from her home last year, has been re-united with her family. Two suspects are in police custody.
The investigation had earlier focused on Richard Ricci, an ex-convict and handyman for the Smart family, who reportedly failed a lie detector "test." Ricci died of a brain hemorrhage while in police custody. According to a UPI report titled "Smarts hope Ricci's death brings new clues" (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20020831-024033-8656r.htm) and published in the Washington Times on 31 August 2002:
If memory serves the entire male portion of Miss Smart's family was polygraphed, several of whom were polygraphed multiple times. Her uncle was polygraphed no fewer than five times, and he observed on both 'On The Record' and on Sean Hannity's show that those experiences were the worst of his life. He equated them to 'a living hell'.
Utah seems to be a polygraph center. Much of the polygraph research seems to come from there though I don't think the state is that big. I wonder if they taped the tests like SD does.
I have not found other reports that Ricci "failed" but did find reference to him taking 2 polygraphs, the first considered inconclusive (perhaps this is where the phrase "failed to pass" came from) and supposidly passing the second. Apparently he also confessed, during poly interrogation, to the burglary that the Smart's had been suspicious he commited. It was also widely reported that his wife passed a polygraph - she stated they had been together that night.
It appears the investigators used the polygraph more as an interrogation tool than anything else, concluding, regardless of polygraph results, that Ricci was guilty. He was suspicious due to a long history of criminal activity. After he died of a stroke, while under extreme pressure to reveal where the girl was, the investigators slowed the investigation, suggesting the knowledge of where her body was died with him.
-Marty
Golly George, I don't know if the polygraph misdirected the Smart investigation, but I do think it was the cause behind the recent space shuttle tragedy, the rift between the US and France, the Kennedy assassinations, and the bad snow storms in the north east this winter. Makes about as much sense.
By the way, did Mr. Ricci fail or not? What does "reportedly failed a lie detector" actually mean?
Oh, I think alien abductions are a result of polygraph too.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Mar 13, 2003, 12:33 PMGolly George, I don't know if the polygraph misdirected the Smart investigation, but I do think it was the cause behind the recent space shuttle tragedy, the rift between the US and France, the Kennedy assassinations, and the bad snow storms in the north east this winter. Makes about as much sense.
Shame on you sir, for failing to publicly acknowledge that your profession misled and misdirected valuable police manpower towards a man (Ricci) police now state 'had nothing to do with it'. I won't even get into the emotional distress your buddies caused by tormenting this poor girl's uncle and father during polygraph interrogations that her father described as "four hours of hell... We've been ripped apart by our polygraph[s]," Tom Smart told CNN. "We've been ripped apart to the core." Bravo gentlemen! Nicely done!
QuoteBy the way, did Mr. Ricci fail or not? What does "reportedly failed a lie detector" actually mean?
For you of all people on this message board to demand unequivocal definitions over what words and phrases actually mean is pretty galling, in my opinion.
A handyman being questioned in the abduction of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart has failed a lie-detector test in the case (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56039,00.html)... (Fox News Service)
[Ricci]... failed lie detector tests (http://www.sltrib.com/2002/sep/09012002/utah/767291.htm) (Salt Lake Tribune)
Is that clear enough, unequivocal enough for you? I'd say it's far more clear than your tortured explanation over why you lied to the collective readership of this board with regard to your actual occupation.
QuoteOh, I think alien abductions are a result of polygraph too.
Perhaps that's a common trait you share with former American Polygraph Association President 'Dr' Edward Gelb.... oh wait, you already cut him loose after (and only after) it became apparent to anyone with more than a brain stem that Gelb is a serial liar and perjurer with regard to his CV.
Interesting the way the info comes out: Here's a timeline:
Fox News: 6/25
Failed polygraph and reportedly confessed to burglarizing Smart's home. [This report was not sourced.] One can assume "failing" resulted in that confession if true. Note: later the cops didn't comment about the polygraphs.
Salt Lake Tribune: 6/27
Chief of Police quoted as saying Ricci had been polygraphed twice. Refused comment on results.
Salt Lake Tribune: 6/27
Ricci's wifes atty, Smith, says Ricci polygraphed twice, hasn't heard results. Says Wife polygraphed and passed. (Wife provided alibi)
Salt Lake Tribune: 6/29
Ricci has taken two polygraph tests, Smith said. In the first test, the result was inconclusive, but on the second, Ricci said "he did well," Smith said.
-----------------------
Looks likely the police homed in on him largely from the burglary confession obtained in the first polygraph and ignored the second as well as his wife's polygraph. This makes some sense as the cops only believe polygraphs when it shows someone is guilty. In this case someone who admits to burglarizing their house is a very reasonable suspect regardless of any polygraph.
-Marty
How interesting that a 14-15 year old girl can go "missing" for nine months, part of that time spent in the same area from which she was "abducted", she is "reported" to have attended a party with her "abductors", yet she is never able to let anyone know she is Elizabeth Smart, the girl abducted from Utah.
And rumor has it that her "abductor" is some sort of self proclaimed "prophet", and that Elizabeth was in the vacinity of police officers on numerous occasions yet didn't make any effort to identify herself.
Also interesting comments on the part of the father upon her return. He states she has "matured" and that she is "tanned".
Guess he thought she maybe went to Disney World.
Who knows what any of this means, but just some observations from a jaded, biased, law enforcement official. I'm sure my suspicions are incorrect, and certainly misled by the polygraph.
Bottom line is, blame the polygraph first, and then the the incompitent police department for botching the investigation.
In the meantime, take a peak at those closest to the victim, listen to what they say, listen to what the victim says. Try to put aside your hatred for that evil tool, the polygraph, and just listen and observe. You might be surprised at what you hear.
I'll save some of your the post, "Shame on me for not believing this innocent young victim, and her poor tortured relatives who were put through as her uncle put it, 'living hell' by having to take a polygraph."
Batman
Batman,
You are jaded, Crusader!
Compliance psychology is a powerful thing. Surely you have noticed how quickly most examinees become dominated in an exam. I think a 14 year old girl, widely described as obedient, could be dominated by a Prophet. He may not have had a cape, but he sure did bear a strong resemblance to OBL. Probably a lot of PC folks out there that didn't want to lift the veil on his companions.
Who was that YoYo that convinced people to be get castrated so they could more easily leave their "shells" when the time came? And then there was the Grape KoolAid of which nearly a thousand people lined up and partook.
From all accounts she gave her name when asked and was quite happy to see her parents. Not like she robbed a bank but hey, that did result in conviction then partial and eventual full pardon.
UPDATES:
It is now being reported that the first cop that talked to her noticed she was nervous, she claimed eye problems that was why she didn't want to remove her sun classes. He pulled her aside and she remarked: "You think I'm that E. Smart girl that ran away, I'm not." Looks to be more like a full brainwashing than a light rinse.
"ran away" ??????
-Marty
Batman,
It is not clear what the issues you raise about Ms. Smart's behavior and any involvement/relationship to her alleged abductors has to do with the appropriateness of any polygraph examinations given in connection with this investigation and the degree to which polygraph exam results were correct. Sorry, but the temporary diversion will not lead us (or anyone else) from the caption of this thread. As Joe Lewis is reported to have said, Batman, you can run but you can't hide with this one.
Anonymous,
As for the title of the thread, it looks fairly likely the police ignored Ricci's polygraph (except for the presumed burglary) and pursued the guy with the access, and criminal background in spite of evidence to the contrary. It's interesting to note that, in addition to describing their poly sessions as being 4 hours of hell, the Smart's did not think Ricci was involved. 4 hours of hell is not a polygraph. It's an interrogation. That is SOP in these cases. The poly is just the prop.
As much as we dislike the polygraph it is very important not to jump to conclusions about things just because it supports the cause. That makes us just as subject to "bias" as the polygraphers themselves.
-Marty
The investigation had earlier focused on Richard Ricci, an ex-convict and handyman for the Smart family, who reportedly failed a lie detector "test."
Quote:...The former handyman, 48, came to the attention of police and FBI agents because of his past and because he reportedly was not considered truthful in a polygraph test.
Not considered truthful??? What does that mean?
Typical of you george to twist and contort this statement to fit into your agenda.
Let me ask you something. How many people have actually passed an exam because or your advice. I guess we will never know that. However I have tried what you have instructed on your site and its not easy.
The average person does not have the time nor the resources to practice what they read on here.
But I do have to say Your site does prove useful when applying for training in this area.
Thanks to you and this site I was able to attend training at DODPI fully paid by my department.
Thanks George,
You write:
Quote...Thanks to you and this site I was able to attend training at DODPI fully paid by my department....
.
Apparently you received your money's worth. Unfortunately your department did not. ;)
Thanks George
You must have gone to your higher-ups and said "I have read antipolygraph.org and don't believe what they are saying. I believe in the polygraph, I believe in the polygraph, I do, I do, I do, I do. And Toto too". Here I come DODPI for eight weeks and received the power to control people's lives and livelyhood. You alone. Feels good, huh? And to think - our hard earned taxes allowed you to gain that power. WHEW!!!
Quote from: Batman on Mar 13, 2003, 08:11 PM
How interesting that a 14-15 year old girl can go "missing" for nine months, part of that time spent in the same area from which she was "abducted", she is "reported" to have attended a party with her "abductors", yet she is never able to let anyone know she is Elizabeth Smart, the girl abducted from Utah.
And rumor has it that her "abductor" is some sort of self proclaimed "prophet", and that Elizabeth was in the vacinity of police officers on numerous occasions yet didn't make any effort to identify herself.
It is indeed weird, but it's hardly unknown, from a psychological standpoint. Few details of her abduction experience have been made public. For all we know, she was told they would kill her family if she escaped, or something else equally nasty.
QuoteWho knows what any of this means, but just some observations from a jaded, biased, law enforcement official. I'm sure my suspicions are incorrect, and certainly misled by the polygraph.
He can be taught!
Skeptic
Quote from: Marty on Mar 13, 2003, 10:46 PM
Anonymous,
As for the title of the thread, it looks fairly likely the police ignored Ricci's polygraph (except for the presumed burglary) and pursued the guy with the access, and criminal background in spite of evidence to the contrary. It's interesting to note that, in addition to describing their poly sessions as being 4 hours of hell, the Smart's did not think Ricci was involved. 4 hours of hell is not a polygraph. It's an interrogation. That is SOP in these cases. The poly is just the prop.
As much as we dislike the polygraph it is very important not to jump to conclusions about things just because it supports the cause. That makes us just as subject to "bias" as the polygraphers themselves.
-Marty
Marty,
I agree that it's important not to jump to conclusions, and it is for this reason that I chose to make the title of this message thread a question ("Did Polygraph Misdirect the Elizabeth Smart Case?") rather than a statement of fact or opinion.
I also agree that there was reason apart from polygraph results for reasonable suspicions about Richard Ricci, and based on reporting about the case, I don't think we can conclude that but for the polygraph, investigators would not have focused their efforts on a man who turnded out to be innocent. However, it appears that reliance on the polygraph may well have contributed to investigators' conviction that Ricci was their man.
It appears that Salt Lake City police do place some faith in polygraph chart readings, and do not merely use the polygraph as an interrogatory prop: it was reported that the FBI reviewed Ed Smart's polygraph results (see Fox News report, "Elizabeth Smart's Father Given Polygraph Test" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54880,00.html)). If the SLC police did not put some stock in polygraphy beyond its value as an aid to interrogation, then there would have been no point in having the FBI review Ed Smart's polygraph charts.
We're pushing day three of "The Return"; I've spoken with 12 other jaded law enforcement officers and so far all have the same opinion, there's something rotten in Utah and it ain't polygraph.
What's it mean when dad says, "I'm so thankful that Elizabeth has returned to us."?
Any guesses?
Batman
Batman,
The case that you are laying out for us MIGHT well indicate that there is some rotten in Utah IN ADDITION to polygraphy.
Very possible, very possible.
Let's all play detective. Seeing that there appears to be a sentiment that polygraph misdirected this investigatgion, lets take it from the top and see how this might have been investigated.
Ok, we've just been notified by the Smart family that their 14/15 year old daughter has been abducted from her bedroom in the middle of the night. What's step number one?
Humor me, play along and lets see where we end up. What the heck, it's better than calling each other names, for now.
Batman
I'll play along and take a stab at this.
Step one would be the interviews. Talk to everyone that was in the house at the time. Talk to the neighbors to find out if any strange people or vehicles were seen. The interviews would then branch out to other people, based on information gathered in the other interviews.
While the interviews were being conducted, the public information process would also occur. The "Have you seen this girl?" posters and TV ads.
:-/ IS GEORGE MASCHE BEING PAID TO LEAD THE FIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE POLYGRAPH? (MAYBE BY THE BRAIN WAVE GUY)
I Also believe "THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" that is why this is a question rather than a statement! However if some malcontent or rumor monger wants to jump on the bandwgon or soapbox and spread a story about George accepting money from D.R. for his "free" services, that is not my fault or my intent I am merely posing a question.
By the way, I do not recall reading or hearing anything that Ricci "turned out to be innocent". I thought that the entire matter was still under investigation. Could George be jumping the gun? Just another question!
Orolan,
Thanks for replying.
Remember we have a potential crime scene. Before we conduct any indepth interviews shouldn't we get out to the house to have a look around? We may want to get out there quick to insure potential evidence isn't destroyed or tampered with. What do you think?
Batman
George,
As a collective body, I find most of the listings on your site to be critical of your view on polygraph generally, and your obsession with it specificaly. In the Smart case You / We are working with what little information has been released thus far, and not the complete information in what took place and the findings of all of the tests done. Further, Although the public has a right to know such things, it is only after a case has gone to trial or a claim that it has been solved that such information is released.
At some point you really have to take a step back, look at yourself and ask why, as an academic, you have become so obsessed with this polygraph thing. One has to wonder in your specific case where you claimed they told you that you failed such a test; whether you would have met the security clearance criteria under the Psyche exam given your level of obsessive behavior. Could your foreign travels also have played a part in your being assessed as not the most desireable candidate ? There are only so many openings in such agencies which you applied for, so why should we assume that you were otherwise the best qualified despite your polygraph result ? Did you get a private sector retest prior to your commitment to countermeasures ? It is a shame to see such an academic mind concentrate on the negative, rather than use your mind to improve such a system or replace it with something better. You have only criticisms and no solutions; the lowest form of academic participation.
I was also wondering, why would such a prestigious organization as the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory put their efforts and software scoring program in this field if they could not validate it and/or make it reliable ?
Doesn't the forward movement of technology, as added to the polygraph hardware and software, make your arguments weaker with each passing addition. Surely there are too many confirmed D.I. and N.D.I. charts, vs. False Positives or False Negatives, not to give this profession merit to the realm of statistical significance. Doesn't guilty knowledge / peak of tension type testing on elements of the crime, unknown to all but the perpetrator and police, act as a clear indicated to the point of lottery odds in it being any other person in such a case ?
In short, give credit where credit is due, weed out any unprofessional types as with any other profession, and let's get on with solving cases with this and other valuable investigative tools !!!!!!!!
TheNoLieGuy
Batman,
How stupid of me. Of course securing the crime scene would be of paramount importance, in order to gather what physical evidence may be avilable and untainted. THEN the interviews would begin.
TheNoLieGuy,
Because you mentioned the polygraph-related efforts of the APL of JHU, perhaps you might be interested in the following linked article authored by three very senior scientists and members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR). The article can be found at http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygraph/peerreviewb.htm.
Contained within the summary are the following two statements:
Quote...Based on scientific peer-review criteria, the evaluation team viewed the JHU/APL effort inadequate in the application of scientific technology. The committee was perplexed by the theoretical and descriptive approach conducted by the research team, as well as their lack of understanding of physiology, psychophysiology, signal processing strategies, physiological monitoring hardware, and statistical theory....
TheNoLieGuy,
Were it not for the obsessions of academics, we would all still believe the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the moon was made of green cheese, ad infinitum. And GKT testing is not in widespread use at this time. Nor does it have sufficient historical scientific data to develop an opinion as to its effectiveness or lack thereof. At this point it remains an unproven technology.
TheNoLieGuy,
The following is being re-posted in order to correct the number of scientists contributing to the report. The correct number of committee members is five, not three, as stated in my previous post. The corrected post:
TheNoLieGuy,
Because you mentioned the polygraph-related efforts of the APL of JHU, perhaps you might be interested in the following linked article authored by five very senior scientists (including two past Presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR)). The article can be found at http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygraph/peerreviewb.htm.
Contained within the summary are the following two statements:
Quote...Based on scientific peer-review criteria, the evaluation team viewed the JHU/APL effort inadequate in the application of scientific technology. The committee was perplexed by the theoretical and descriptive approach conducted by the research team, as well as their lack of understanding of physiology, psychophysiology, signal processing strategies, physiological monitoring hardware, and statistical theory....
Orolan,
OK, we've secured the scene. Maybe we've been able to obtain some initial "evidence" but we're not exactly sure what we have. We probably seize more than we need, just to be safe, even though we know it will most likely lead to criticism by the family or those close to the family.
Now we do our initial interviews. Who do we talk to first? What are we asking? What are we trying to find out? What's the overall game plan/goal for our interviews?
Gotta go but will read and reply to yours ASAP.
Batman
TheNoLieGuy
If you want to debate the validity/NOvilidity of the polygraph or attack someone, start a new thread. Batman has started us on an investigation of the Smart case and posts between his scenarios distracts from following.
Batman
I am interested in your investigation theory of this case because I think there was a number of mistakes made in the original investigation as was in the Ramsey case. However, little has been published of the beginning details and I doubt that they will make those public. You know, as a LEO, investigator "down and dirty" details are seldom made public. Even at trials, investigator mistakes are hard to gather.
Batman,
OK. Apparently somebody has told us that Elizabeth was taken by a person or persons unknown, otherwise we wouldn't know it was an abduction. That would be the little sister. At this point, she is our only witness and our primary source of information. Somebody starts on her, preferably a child psychologist and not a police detective with a cigar and a beer gut.
Somebody talks to the parents, asking the basics. Did you hear anything odd, what time did you go to bed, did you get up at all during the night, did you look in on the girls, what time did you wake up. The primary answer we're looking for is a timeframe for when the abduction could have occurred. Our questioning of the parents ends here, UNLESS we have seen or perceived a nervousness or evasiveness in one of the parents in answering our questions. Assuming for now that the parents appeared sincere and truthful, we would move on to the neighbors.
We now question the neighbors, in the typical "widening circle" fashion common in neighborhood canvassing. Questioning would be similar to the parents. Did you see any strange vehicles, any people you didn't know, anybody else from the neighborhood out walking or driving, when did you go to bed, when did you get up. Again, we are looking for information on timeframe, but now we are also looking for possible anomalies. For example, if neighbor A saw neighbor B out walking at midnight but neighbor B fails to mention his or her midnight stroll. Additionally, we have continued to keep our eyes and ears sharp on the lookout for nervousness or evasiveness.
By now, the psychologist has probably given up on the sister. She is having a hard time focusing, because she is emotionally traumatized by the entire event. She can't recall a thing, and the psychologist is probably advocating hypnosis.
Orolan & 2Block:
OK, we tell our best interviewer to tuck in his shirt, suck in his gut, and put out the stogie.
Not bad, we need to determine when was Elizabeth last seen. Initial interviews of the parents go easy, however we have to ensure they are thorough. Remember, as in the Ramsey case, and what appears to be a growing trend, we may not have the full cooperation of the parents and extended family for very long. We need to get the most while we can. This family appears to be fairly cooperative though.
One of the key elements of our interviews has to be what type of girl is Elizabeth? We can not forget that she is a 14 year old and may have simply run off on her own. So the dynamics of the family is almost equally as improtant as other elements. We need to look at the extended family.
Side note: We also have a few murders, rapes, child abuse investigations, and general mayham still going on so a major consideration has to be allocation of manpower. Just how many folks do we put on this invstigation, at the expense of other ongoing investigations?
Given what we know about child abductions, if this girl was abducted and we don't locate her within the first 24-72 hours she may be killed, we push hard early. We need to really narrow the focus and we need to do it quickly. We have limited resources. The sister has indicated that someone has entered the room late at night and Elizabeth was taken out of the room by this person. We can't discount the fact this sister is only 10 years old so the accuracy of her information is suspect. Also, she did not tell her parents that her sister was taken out of the room for at least two hours after the fact so we are wondering if maybe Elizabeth enlisted the aid of her sister to cover her running away. Still a possibility, after all she is a 14 year old, the prime age for taking off. All of this really widens the possibilities. The press is on to this now, and the pressure ratchets up. Just got a call of a pretty serious domestic abuse, shit, one or two more guys gone. What's next?
Batman
NoLieGuy,
Before addressing your post, I'd like to welcome you to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. You might wish to consider becoming a registered user. This will allow you to go back and edit your posts after posting them, to optionally receive e-mail notification when replies are posted to message threads in which you have posted, and to exchange private messages with other registered users.
You write in part:
QuoteIn the Smart case You / We are working with what little information has been released thus far, and not the complete information in what took place and the findings of all of the tests done. Further, Although the public has a right to know such things, it is only after a case has gone to trial or a claim that it has been solved that such information is released.
You make a very good point. We are indeed working with limited, and sometimes contradictory, information. However, I think it is still possible to make some logical inferences, for example, that the Salt Lake City police relied on the polygraph as more than simply an interrogatory prop.
QuoteAt some point you really have to take a step back, look at yourself and ask why, as an academic, you have become so obsessed with this polygraph thing. One has to wonder in your specific case where you claimed they told you that you failed such a test; whether you would have met the security clearance criteria under the Psyche exam given your level of obsessive behavior. Could your foreign travels also have played a part in your being assessed as not the most desireable candidate ? There are only so many openings in such agencies which you applied for, so why should we assume that you were otherwise the best qualified despite your polygraph result ? Did you get a private sector retest prior to your commitment to countermeasures ?
I don't believe my personal experience is relevant to the issue(s) at hand. If you believe that anything I've said or written is untrue or misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out.
You also write:
QuoteIt is a shame to see such an academic mind concentrate on the negative, rather than use your mind to improve such a system or replace it with something better. You have only criticisms and no solutions; the lowest form of academic participation.
I disagree.
CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. Misplaced reliance on it has caused and continues to cause serious harm to individuals, national security, and public safety. Exposing this fraud, and ending it, is a worthy goal in and of itself.
QuoteI was also wondering, why would such a prestigious organization as the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory put their efforts and software scoring program in this field if they could not validate it and/or make it reliable ?
I believe that Anonymous has adequately addressed this point above.
QuoteDoesn't the forward movement of technology, as added to the polygraph hardware and software, make your arguments weaker with each passing addition. Surely there are too many confirmed D.I. and N.D.I. charts, vs. False Positives or False Negatives, not to give this profession merit to the realm of statistical significance.
No. Polygraph results have no statistical significance, because CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method: it is completely lacking in both standardization and meaningful control. It is not a valid diagnostic test. (See Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) and the sources cited there.)
QuoteDoesn't guilty knowledge / peak of tension type testing on elements of the crime, unknown to all but the perpetrator and police, act as a clear indicated [sic] to the point of lottery odds in it being any other person in such a case ?
The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) and the Peak of Tension Test (POT) are qualitatively different from the "Control" Question "Test," and I believe that in some cases, it may be possible to draw logical inferences from GKT and POT results. These techniques are, however, vulnerable to countermeasures.
QuoteIn short, give credit where credit is due, weed out any unprofessional types as with any other profession, and let's get on with solving cases with this and other valuable investigative tools !!!!!!!!
The problem of CQT polygraphy is not so much "unprofessional types" as the fact that the entire methodology is without validity.
Quote from: Boston Blackie on Mar 14, 2003, 05:33 PM
:-/ IS GEORGE MASCHE BEING PAID TO LEAD THE FIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE POLYGRAPH? (MAYBE BY THE BRAIN WAVE GUY)
I Also believe "THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" that is why this is a question rather than a statement! However if some malcontent or rumor monger wants to jump on the bandwgon or soapbox and spread a story about George accepting money from D.R. for his "free" services, that is not my fault or my intent I am merely posing a question....
For the record, neither I nor anyone else associated with AntiPolygraph.org are being paid in cash or in kind for our efforts to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.
Batman,
Since we aren't actually conducting a real investigation, we will now need to make some assumptions. Possibly the abductor warned the sister not to tell and she was afraid. Doubtful though that he said anything to her. More than likely, the poor girl was just terrified. But we can't discount the possibility that she is lying to protect her sister.
We find no evidence in the house that indicated Elizabeth had some problems. No notes in her diary about possible sexual abuse, no references to "my life sucks". No e-mails that indicate a possible plan to run away with some guy she met in a chat room. Her parents say she didn't have a boyfriend. Or maybe she did. If so, we go talk to him. We also talk to her girlfriends. Girls tell each other everything (I know, I have 3 teenage daughters myself). Has she met any strangers, did she meet a cute guy at the skating rink Friday night, etc.
We're now running a two-pronged investigation, resources are being pulled from the case, the media is all over it, and my Captain says to get my ..s down to headquarters because he wants answers NOW. I have to make a decision, and it better be the right one.
At this point, I feel an abduction is the most plausible situation. The sister's two hours of silence is the only thread connected to a runaway at this time. Mr. Smart is a millionaire, so ransom is a viable motive. I have a team bring out the bloodhounds to try and track the route taken away from the house. I have the parents interviewed again, seeking information on anybody that would be familiar with the layout of the house, the Smart's habits, etc. Concentrate on handymen, the lawn guy, the pool guy, the appliance repair man that fixed the Viking range last week, etc. We need to know who these people are, and we need to know where they are. Limit the questioning to the last six months for now.
Orolan,
Lots of interviews to do, not much time to do them. Have to go on the worse case scenario theory. Have to assume Elizabeth has been abducted. But you also have to rely on statistical information. Statistically, when a child is either missing, injured, assaulted, or killed the subject is most likely either a family member, or known to the Victim. We can probably rule out the younger sister, and any other younger siblings, however we have to look at the parents and any close relatives or family friends, primarily males. The best thing to do is attempt to eliminate as many people from suspicion as quickly as we can while at the same time running other logical leads. Bringing in dogs may help, but I'm not real familiar with how successful that particular technique has been of late in finding abducted children. Reason being, most likely if Elizabeth was abducted she was taken to a vehicle not far from the house, so the dogs will only lead us to the curb. Still worth a try, you don't want to pass up any opportunity.
Lets jump ahead just a bit. We've done all the interviews, nothing really relevant has turned up except that we've identifed people who have worked around the house, etc... Unfortunately we have not had any luck actually turning up hard information as to where Elizabeth is. We're facing the real possibility that she may be dying or dead. We need to start getting information, any way we can, and fast. One particular interview, the handyman (Ricci) shows promise because he is evasive in a lot of his answers. We're also getting bad vibes from the uncle. He's reluctant to be forth coming with his assistance, and is making noises that the family may stop cooperating. He's going to the press, making our job a lot more difficult.
Do we turn to polygraph? If so who do we polygraph and why? What do we ask? Or do we not utilize polygraph? If not, then what's next? We may be looking down a dead end street right now, and we're no closer to finding Elizabeth. Now the heat is really on, we're in day three!
Batman
Batman,
I would have been happy (following your fictional account) if law enforcement had used polygraph on day one let alone day three as long as the examination(s) was restricted to concealed information testing. Although Ricci (and other family members, workers, staff, etc) would have been familiar with the victim's home he should not have known (had appropriate investigation been conducted and information properly protected by law enforcement) from which room she was abducted, what she was wearing, etc unless he was involved in the abduction. Ricci and others could have been eliminated (as much as is possible with any polygraph exam) as suspects rather quickly and not have endured the hell described by various family members who must have been subjected to lie tests of one sort or another. Because he (Ricci) was the subject of national attention and was de facto already convicted of kidnapping/abduction in the eyes of the national media via an admission of burglary, there was no way he could have been given a control question test absent his fear of the consequences associated with his having been found deceptive on a lie test. Again, no problem with polygraph, and, in fact, sooner is better than later, just do it right!
Batman,
OK. It is true that family members are first on the list of suspects, followed by those that know the layout and routines of the household. Suspecting the parents is a very long shot in this case. The odds of the sister not recognizing her father are slim, and the timeline is entirely too short. If the father did it, and he put her in the car and took her somewhere, then somebody in the house would have heard the car either leaving or coming back. Either the sister or the mother. If he didn't take her in the car, then the dogs have already found her.
So I've eliminated the parents, at least temporarily. So we turn our attention to the uncle. Does he have an alibi? Any reasonable suspicions about him? We can't just make him a suspect because he thinks we're botching the investigation. Assuming no verifiable alibi, we can question him further. We need something a lot stronger than lack of cooperation to justify making him a suspect. What do we have?
We also have this handyman, Ricci. He's a real piece of work. Evasive, nervous, no verifiable alibi, knowledge of the house and people in it. And he has priors along with an outstanding warrant. Assume that we searched his house and truck, and we found nothing related to Elizabeth. We quickly realize that he may have been responsible for the burglary a few months ago, so we zero in on that. He says he didn't do it, so we ask him to submit to a polygraph. An incident-specific poly, about the burglary only, for now. We could do a GKT, if we have a qualified operator, about Elizabeth. Are we on the right track?
Wow Batman I'm soooooo impressed. Did you get all this info from just reading the paper? You should be a detective. Or maybe you got all this info from the news. Either way we all know that both are usually 100% accurate.
Very good
DetJIM,
This is an exercise, not a recounting of the actual events. At this point nobody really knows what happened. If you can't supply any constructive ideas or opinions, kindly take your remarks elsewhere.
For more background on the Smart kidnapping investigation, see Salt Lake Tribune staff writers Kevin Cantera and Michael Vigh's 12 March 2003 article, "Smarts Frustrated with Police Progress." (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/mar/03122003/utah/37506.asp) It was published just before Elizabeth Smart was found.