Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Polygraph

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Cool Polygraph

    Puma from CS transcribed this incredible Boyles show. Thanks to Puma for the hard work she/he put into this

    Jameson posted this transcript on hir forum. This makes for very interesting reading to say the least.

    Peter Boyles interviewing Gene Parker a polygraph examiner. Sometime in the year 2000 I believe.



    PB: This man's name came up in a couple of news articles and news stories when John and Patsy Ramsey first announced to the entire world that they had passed the polygraph test. Please say "Good Morning" to Gene Parker. Mr. Parker has himself a former Police Chief . He also has been well involved
    in the polygraph business. Mr. Parker, Good
    Morning.
    GP: Why Good Morning, from Meeker, Colorado.

    PB: Thanks for coming on the show. There seems to be a number of things. I spoke with Mr. Parker yesterday in a private conversation. There's been an awful lot of talk about your involvement or
    on-involvement in this case. So let me bring up a couple of the questions that seem to be out there quite a bit. Did you ever do any work for John Ramsey or for his company prior to this?

    GP: No, I never did.

    PB: OK. Had you ever met the Ramseys?

    GP: No, I never had.

    PB: Who approached you to do this exam initially?

    GP: Back on 11 December, '97 I was requested by a national newspaper to confirm the authenticity of a Diane Hollis, who is a former executive secretary of John Ramsey, as to her statement as to, ahh, what had
    occurred in, ahh, conversation in the Ramsey office.

    PB: For the folks in our audience, what did Ms. Hollis say had occurred in terms of a conversation?

    GP: She stated that, ahh, there was conversation going on with, umm, some remorse as to, ahh, what had taken place at the murder scene.

    PB: Could you go further, elaborate further from that, Gene, if you would?

    GP: Ohhhh, let me see. I'm looking at a deposition that I wrote at the time and, uhhh, regarding, uhh, the accuracy of the examination. But, the gist of it was that, uhhh, "Were you told that John Ramsey was
    molesting JonBenet? That Patsy saw it, swung at John but hit JonBenet instead?" And there was a 88% probability that Miss Hollis was truthful with her "Yes" response utilizing an instrument of the United States Government polygraph for that purpose.

    PB: That's why this is significant. That, there's another very significant part of this as well. Again, if you would, Gene, the best of your knowledge who was Miss Hollis and what was her job working for John Ramsey?

    GH: She was an executive secretary.

    PB: And how did she come across this information?

    GH: That, at this point, with due respect to your very fine radio station, I would be unable to provide for you, other than the fact that records show that Miss Hollis was an executive secretary for John Ramsey.

    PB: And you tested Miss Hollis?

    GH: Yes.

    PB: And when Miss Hollis told you what you've just told us that she said, she tested out which way, true or false?

    GH: Way to the absolute probability of truthfulness. That same, the same question was formulated three different ways and to each of those three different ways, uhhh, she, uhhh, the results of the examination
    shows that she was, the probability of truthfulness was very accurate, in the high 90's. The examination took approximately three hours and the actual exam itself about, uhh, 5 minutes times 3 times that was given to her.

    PB: Now what's important about this is the Ramseys now tell us that they have total faith and trust in all polygraphs. And yet here comes this. And I don't know how much of this has ever gotten attention before so I wonder what their reaction will be, and I'm
    not asking for a comment from you. If we could then move on. Were you ever requested or did anyone ever come to you about doing the Ramsey polygraph on John and Patsy?

    GH: Yes.

    PB: Yep.

    GH Some short period of time ago I received a
    telephone call from some people that identified themselves as attorneys for John Ramsey.

    PB: Did they mention names or could you mention their names?

    GH: Yes, they mentioned names but I'm not at liberty to give those out, with due respect.

    PB: All right. Fair enough.

    GH: At which time I said "yes" since I had done the first one that...

    PB: By the way Gene, did they know you had done the Hollis exam?

    GH: Yes. Yes. In so much that I utilized an instrument perfected by the United States government and I had done the first Hollis polygraph which kind of started the whole thing that, "Yes, I would be more than happy to examine John and Patsy." And I quoted my
    fee. At which time I stated that because of the high profile of the case that it would require that a urine examination be done with a medical doctor and a registered nurse, for obvious reasons, presence. Uhhhm, the attorney said, who stated that he was an
    attorney, I had reason to believe that he was, stated, "Fine, they would get back to me." Some three hours later I received a telephone call from that same telephone number on my Caller-ID that I originally
    had got stating that they had declined my offer, they had found someone that would not require a urine examination, thank you very much.

    (Ed -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Team Ramsey had contacted other polygraphers and turned down Gene Parker BECAUSE OF THE UA. More lies out of the Ram spin team, in this case Lin Wood. No wonder Ellis Armistead et al quit. Hope the tabs are reading here and shout this to the hills!)

    PB: But that, that other person would be the legendary now Mr. T, the guy in NJ, who finds, after testing Patsy a number of times, he can't get an accurate read which I am told, and I certainly don't have any
    expertise, that when you keep getting inconclusive results, you've got a liar.

    GP: Yes and no. Uhhh, there are---the human mind is a very strange thing, a very complex thing in so much as that a lot of things can cause an inconclusive.

    PB: But how many inconclusives can you keep
    getting?

    GP: With this instrument I rarely get one.

    PB: Hang on, Gene. Let me bring you back and get a wrap-up.

    Break

    PB: ...He had an opportunity to do a lie, ahh, polygraph, I say lie detectors and I've been told time again and again and again Don't say that, but polygraph examination on a woman who also plays out in this as well, her name is Hollis, and ahh, Miss Hollis, Diane Hollis was the former executive
    secretary to John Ramsey. And he did a polygraph on her. You were, I believe it was, if I know anything about this, this took place in Arvada? Or would you rather not say?

    GP: In that area.

    PB: Fair enough. And what she told you is that she was told, and again this is a former executive secretary, she was told by someone in the organization, or someone, I shouldn't even set it up that way but

    GP: I think maybe I can help you. She had a
    conversation several times with a personal secretary of John Ramsey.

    PB: And she also was the executive secretary.

    GP: Right, the executive had discussion with the personal secretary of John Ramsey which stated incidents of remorse and of some discussion as to what really took place.

    PB: And what she was told, the fact that you say that 88% probability that this woman is telling the truth.

    GP: That's correct. I'm looking at my notes here to the second relevant question, uhhhm, "Did you give, did you have the discussion with the personal secretary which lasted over an hour and a half period of time regarding what took place with JonBenet Ramsey?" and there was a 97% probability she was truthful, that she gained the information from the personal secretary.

    PB: Wow! And then they, when initially they came to you to do some polygraphing and then you wanted them to take a UA and they would not do it. Why would that be important or significant, Gene, to the uninitiated?

    GP: This was again the follow-up, where the media and, uhhh, events of the time had brought it to the head that it has now that I received a phone call to take in, OK, a polygraph examines John and Patsy. And because of the high profile of the case, because of their great monetary abilities and ability of certain drugs that are available that could affect the human body system that is examined by polygraph why I insisted that there be a registered nurse and a MD there to take a urine examination prior to the
    examination. So there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that anything might have caused reaction to change to whatever from what it really is. At which time, some three hours later, the law office called back
    and stated "Thanks but no thanks."

    PB: So if you wanted to do a UA on whether or not they were doing...

    GP: Whether they had used a drug. Which could, which very well could cause for an inconclusive, let alone could even take and show a truthful being deceptive.

    PB: What's interesting about this is, even if, because clearly if they were, if they could pass a UA, they'd have come to you. And I'm guessing that.

    GP: Sure.

    PB: But they couldn't pass the UA so they go to another guy who doesn't require a UA and they still, Patsy still comes out on two occasions inconclusive, apparently--Carol McKinley from Fox News in an interview with the Ramseys, they did tell her they're
    both taking Prozac and if you watch Patsy Ramsey on TV you know there's more than just Prozac going on there. I don't know if you know that but you can certainly believe it.

    GP: Yes, my Masters being in Psychology I have studied the effects of drugs probably as reasons that I polygraph for the Department of Defense. And I have found that there are certain drugs, let alone in that financial-ability category of the Ramseys to take certain drugs that could very easily cause it, which was the reason why I required a medical doctor and an RN which is I think only about the fifth or sixth time in my 20 some odd years of polygraphing that I've
    needed it.

    PB: Gene, if they'd 've given you a hot UA

    GP: Umhmm.

    PB: That, that kills the whole thing?

    GP: That's correct.

    PB: Would you like to, I mean, I don't know what further comments...By the way, do you mind if I give your web site a plug or?

    GP: Yeah, go ahead. At 64 years of age, anything.

    PB: Yeah (chuckling) what are they gonna do to you, right? Actually, I've got a couple of web sites and phone numbers. What would you like to give out to the public?

    GP: Oh, I don't know, the one that's www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph is one.

    PB: Do it again and do it slow.

    GP: http://www.PolygraphPlace.com/ColoradoPolygraph

    PB: Fair enough.

    GP: And then there is the expert pages for the world in different categories. www.ExpertPages.com
    And when you get to that click into experts in polygraphs and you'll see a map, click into experts of the world, in this case, click on Colorado.

    PB: We will say goodbye off air and I know we'll be in touch and I know we'll speak again, Gene. Thank you for being on KHOW this morning. hang on. OK?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the show Peter quoted a couple of the actual questions that were administered to Diane Hollis. One of them ... was "Were you told John Ramsey was molesting JonBenet AND PATSY SAW IT?"


    Keep in mind Diane Hollis was read as "being truthful" about what she was told from John's personal secretary. Hollis did not hear the story directly from John Ramsey.

    I think the urine test and the refusal to take one by the Ramseys is the most telling thing in this whole interview.

    It's hard for hir to spin hir way out of this one. Hir can't deny it now because the transcript is available. I guess that's why hir posted it . It's spin time again!
    Last edited by Tricia; November 20, 2001, 5:15 am at Tue Nov 20 5:15:06 UTC 2001.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,107

    Default well

    I guess in the Hollis case it would be that in truth, she heard John molested JonBenet. That doesn't mean it is true he did it.

    There was nothing more stupid than the Ramsey's polygraph, only an idiot would think it was a neutral and unbiased test. Patsy had plenty of time to convince herself an intruder killed JB, for her that is now the truth, etched in stone, handed down by God himself. If you can kill your kid, pretend someone came in and kidnapped her, and continue the charade - well, that kind of person could probably beat a lie detector, too.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default Yes

    Yes Vic. I wanted to make sure eveyone understood that Hollis was telling the truth that she HEARD John's secretary tell her that story. Much different than hearing John say it himself. That's why it really wouldn't make any difference if a trial was held. Total hearsay.

    I think it's very telling that the Ramseys would not use any tester that required a urine sample.

    Tricia

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,897

    Default It would be interesting...

    to know where John's executive assistant is these days....is she the one who John promoted, sent to Atlanta and then eliminated her position? Or am I thinking of someone else?

    What is the name of the executive assistant/secretary whom Hollis is quoted as saying told her the story about John abusing and Patsy swinging at John and hitting JonBenet? Can't believe this hasn't been further investigated or received more media play over the years than just the Peter Boyles show....

    Has anyone from any of our forums talk to Peter about his interview and maybe any further conversation he had with the polygraph operator? His interview doesn't seem that complete or clear...wonder if he told Peter anything further in private.....

    Anyone in current contact with Peter Boyles? Is he still with the radio station and does he still have his show? Has he maybe retired since his heart surgery?

    Tricia do you know anything further on this? Maybe Steve Thomas has kept in touch with Peter...didn't he do several interviews with Peter during the height of the controversy before he resigned from the Boulder Police fource of slightly before that?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Talking Good Morning

    Angel found Cutter's wonderful work concerning the Ramsey's polygraph tap dance (hmm to I feel a wonderful Dunvegan graphic coming on)

    Here is the link to Cutters page:

    http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/polygraph/

    I hope Cutter participates in this forum as well. Cutter is a great addition to any forum.

    Angel you have been a busy bee (haha). Where did you find the Beckner letter? I would like to give credit to the person who posted the letter on the net. Keep on rounding up the info Angel. It's a great way to jog our memories. Let's us know if you find any other gems and where they came from ok?

    Thanks
    Tricia



Similar Threads

  1. Help Me. Polygraph info
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: July 9, 2006, 12:58 pm, Sun Jul 9 12:58:10 UTC 2006
  2. Did John or Patsy fail a polygraph?
    By DocG in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 14, 2005, 5:39 pm, Thu Apr 14 17:39:44 UTC 2005
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20, 2001, 5:33 am, Tue Nov 20 5:33:28 UTC 2001

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •