Help Me. Polygraph info

LKL transcript

Since last with us, the Ramseys took a lie detector test, not under FBI order.

And your lawyer said that you didn't want the FBI to do it. Why?

JR: We didn't necessarily not want the FBI to do it. We wanted someone that was fair and independent.

KING: Do you think the FBI would have been partial, Patsy? I mean, do you think the FBI cares?

PR: I'm not saying that, I'm not accusing that at all, just that was not the definition of independent.

KING: Do you think they come with a degree of opinion?

JR: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality control by the person who invented the polygraph system.

KING: And he was going to release the results no matter what, right?

PR: Absolutely.

KING: There was a given understanding that it would be made public, no matter what they found.

JR: That was the condition we agreed to.

KING: Steve, did that appeal to you?

THOMAS: Well, it certainly didn't satisfy the Boulder Police Department. They are putting little stock in this polygraph. And quite frankly, it took Patsy, if I'm not mistaken and I don't think I am three tries to pass a polygraph:
(1) We had an inconclusive test;
(2) a second test that showed distortion,
(3) and finally, a third test with another examiner. She passed truthfully.

KING: Was that examiner respected?

THOMAS: Certainly nobody is testing or challenging the credentials of the examiner, but again, it's not the government authorities who want to conduct that polygraph.

http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/24/se.02.html

Lin Wood: Consistent with their honesty and their candor, I will tell you that John and Patsy Ramsey, when tested by Jerry Toriello, ran what is referred to in the field as inconclusive charts, inconclusive examinations. Jerry Toriello recommended that John and Patsy be retested. But in making his recommendation, he made it clear to me that the appropriate protocol to be followed would be for someone else to perform the retest. He told me, if you want to go to the best in the country for a retest, you go to Dr. Edward I. Gelb in Los Angeles."

 

Gelb Report.....

This is a report that was directed to L. Lin Wood, the attorney in this matter. "Psychophysiological detection of deception examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey. This is summary report covering a series of examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted between May 6 and May 17 of the year 2000. The examinations were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia and Los Angeles, California. The issues under consideration dealt with the allegation that the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, who was found dead in the Ramsey home in Boulder, Colorado, December 26, 1996. Case information was provided by attorney L. Lin Wood and, through numerous reports of the murder in print.

"During extensive pre-test interviews, both John and Patsy Ramsey denied involvement in JonBenet's murder. These examinations were requested by the Ramseys who agreed that the results of the examinations could be given to the authorities prior to their knowing the outcome themselves.

"The equipment utilized, an axiton (ph) computerized polygraph calibrated to factory specifications were used for the five series of examinations.

"Technique, a zone comparison technique was utilized for all of the examinations with three polygrams being collected for each of the five series conducted. The zone comparison technique has been validated in numerous studies conducted for United States governmental agencies. The resultant polygrams were numerically scored on a 7- position scale by the primary examiner Edward I. Gelb, Ph.D, and then subjected to quality control and blind scoring by Cleve Baxter, the originator of the numerical scoring system.

"John Ramseys examinations: Two series of single-issue examinations were conducted with John Ramsey. In a single issue examination all of the relevant questions are necessarily included in one and are designed to mean the same thing; hence, it is a single- issue examinations.

"The first examination was conducted to determine if he had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether John inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet.

"The second examination was conducted to determine whether John knew who killed JonBenet.

"The questions asked during the two single-issue examinations follow with John Ramsey's answers.

"Series one, John Ramsey. Question 1: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. Answer: no.

"2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet. "Series 2, John Ramsey, Question 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Patsy Ramsey's examinations. The first polygraph examination was unusable due to distortions. Appropriate cautions were suggested to eliminate the artifacts so that conclusive results could be obtained. Three series of single-issue examinations were conducted with Patsy Ramsey. The first examination was conducted to determine if Patsy Ramsey had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether Patsy inflected the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. The second examination was conducted to determine whether Patsy knew who killed JonBenet. The third examination was conducted to determine if Patsy wrote the ransom note that was found at the scene.

"The questions asked during the three single-issue examinations follow with Patsy Ramsey's answer.

"Series one, Patsy Ramsey: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No."

"Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet.

"Series two, Patsy Ramsey. Do you know for who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Series 3, Patsy Ramsey: Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? Answer: No.

"Question 2: Regarding the ransom note, did you write it? Answer: No."

"Question 3: Is that your hand-writing on the ransom note found in your house? Answer: No."

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied writing the JonBenet ransom note.

"Quality control: A separate report covering the quality control of these examinations has been written by Cleve Baxter, who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of detection of deception and the person who originated numerical scoring. Baxter's independent analysis corroborated the findings of the undersigned primary examiner.

"Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions."

 

Drugs are bad.....

:idea:

QUESTION: Did you conduct a drug test, a urinalysis test on John and Patsy Ramsey, prior to these examinations?

GELB: No, I did not, because, one, the drugs that you might be thinking of do not effect the type of examination that was herein conducted. We did what's called a zone comparison examination, this requires reactivity to certain questions and those questions are compared to other questions where you might have less reactivity. No drug that you can name or that I know of can selectively effect that type of examination.

In other words, if this was a guilty knowledge test, that would be a different issue. This is a zone comparison test. I don't know of a drug, and neither do you, that will selectively cause a suppression on certain questions and an elevation on other questions. And the FBI does not do drug screening before they run their polygraph examinations.

 

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) was asked by the Ramsey team to do this polygraph. He insisted on a drug test. Lin Wood said, no.

WOOD: Please, tell me who this individual is.

QUESTION: I don't have his name.

WOOD: Well, let's get our facts right. Let's have the name of the person because I will tell you that I have asked two polygraph examiners to conduct tests on John and Patsy Ramsey: Jerry Toriella, who accepted, Ed Gelb, who accepted. I have never discussed, never discussed anyone else conducting this examination. I have never had anyone asked -- be asked and refused. I've never had anyone discuss with me that they wouldn't do it because of a drug test. That's an absolute, unadulterated falsehood. Let's put it to rest right now.

There was a requirement in Chief Beckner's letter to me to send to John and Patsy where he asked for a urine test to be performed with respect to the FBI polygraph. When I spoke with the FBI agents, I asked them specifically about that. They told me that was a requirement of the Boulder Police Department. They wanted it in the letter, that the FBI didn't want it, didn't need it. They didn't need any type of drug screening test because the exam itself, as Dr. Gelb has said, cannot be skewed by drugs. And if it is, the examiner would know it.

 

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05302000petrocelliongeraldo.htm

 

and just for giggles..

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1147180134

Had the results of Gelb's polygraph been different, not only would we not have heard about it, but the RST would be screaming that once a liar and discredited, always a liar and discredited no?

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml

 

And then there is also this:

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/25arams.html

 

tidbit from 2000

QUESTION: Have you hired investigators?

J. RAMSEY: Oh yes.

P. RAMSEY: Yes, we have.

J. RAMSEY: We've had investigators on this for 3 1/2 years.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

J. RAMSEY: Who's that?

P. RAMSEY: Lou Smitt.

J. RAMSEY: Lou Smitt has offered to work with us but not for us, so he's been of great assistance to us. We have other investigators that are working on this. We're not going to be very public about it because this isn't -- these people work best when they're not known and they're -- that's the way they operate. But I can tell you they're working on it every day of the week.

 

Just for fun!

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/05252000geraldoriveralive.htm

Geraldo Rivera Live - Thursday, May 25, 2000


Rivera/Host:Abrams, Pozner et al. -- 5/25/00

Posted by LizzieB on 11:56:17 5/26/2000

Okay, Byron. You twisted my arm. Here it is!

Geraldo
5.25.00
Guest Host: Dan Abrams
Guests: Wendy Murphy, Larry Pozner, Nancy Grace, Bill Moffitt NOTE: There were numerous places where several people (sometimes all four guests and Dan) were talking at once, so it was impossible to capture all that was said. This is one of those shows you really had to watch. There is no way to do justice to all the body language and snide laughter, so I didn't even try. Only the words are included here.

Video clip of Ramsey press conference:

P. RAMSEY: It was nerve-wracking. I mean, I really didn't know what a polygraph test amounted to. And there's been so much hoopla over it, you know, basically our guilt or innocence or whatever was hanging on whatever happened in this room, you know? So that's pretty heavy. What was I thinking? I had JonBenet's face in my mind from the moment I went into that room and I just kept saying, this is for you, honey, because we're going to find out who did this. And whatever I have to do . . .

End of video clip

ABRAMS: How about that from Patsy Ramsey? But is she telling the truth? According to the results of a privately administered polygraph test released yesterday in the Atlanta news conference, John and Patsy Ramsey did not attempt to deceive when they denied killing their six-year-old daughter, JonBenet. Boulder authorities weren't impressed with the Ramseys' announcement, saying the test changes nothing.

And this morning, the man who questioned the couple defended his examination. Ed Gelb, former president of the American Polygraph Association, says the test he administers is just as valid as the one that would be given by the FBI, which is what Boulder police still want, and the Ramseys won't agree to.

Video clip of Today Show:

GELB: These tests were properly administered by a competent individual, and that person was me. If I run an examination tomorrow for one of the five police agencies I work for, is there something different in my ethics or my ability to conduct that examination, or is there something different because in this case I worked for the defendant, or somebody who is not a defendant, but is trying to defend themselves.

End of video clip

ABRAMS: I don't know, I found this guy to be very persuasive -- Ed Gelb. Good reputation. A guy with nothing to gain by jumping on the band wagon. Wendy Murphy, does this now tell us that the police should come out and say, "All right, we were wrong?"

MURPHY: On the contrary. It's ridiculous.

ABRAMS: It means nothing?

MURPHY: I mean, first of all, not only does it mean nothing, it means we need to keep watching them very carefully.

ABRAMS: Why?

MURPHY: Because the more they inject themselves into our faces, the harder the law enforcement officials are going to be in terms of following them, and I think they should be following them hard. If they are truly innocent, they should shut up. The fact that they are not shutting up leads me to believe they are worried that come January, when there is a new DA involved, they may well be indicted. And this is all part of their large façade and bunch of baloney, and it's nonsense.

POZNER: Wait! Where do you find these people, Dan? Does she believe in black helicopters hovering over us?

MURPHY: Come on, Larry.

POZNER: Oh, come on now. This is the biggest crock I've ever heard.

MURPHY: Larry, tell me that polygraphs are reliable.

POZNER: Let me see. Because they say they're innocent, that's sure proof that they're guilty.

MURPHY: Tell me polygraphs are reliable when you do them yourself behind closed doors.

POZNER: No, no, no. There you and I agree. A polygraph is an electronic Ouija board.

MURPHY: Thank you.

POZNER: If they'd have failed, I'd have looked in this camera and said it means nothing. They've passed it. I look in this camera and say it means nothing.

MURPHY: Therefore, the fact that they did this is ridiculous.

POZNER: Only facts count, and if there were facts to convict the Ramseys, they'd have come out in the past three years. They didn't.

MURPHY: That's a different issue. That's a different issue. You're saying they did a bogus test, and we're not supposed to judge them harshly?

POZNER: The whole test is bogus.

ABRAMS: Wait a second. Hang on a second. You guys think it's bogus. But Nancy Grace, it's used all the time in law enforcement.

GRACE: It's used all the time in law enforcement. It's very rarely allowed into evidence, because even the Rules of Evidence think it's unreliable.

ABRAMS: Don't tell me about the Rules of Evidence . . .

GRACE: I'll tell you what I think this means. I think this means that their attorneys crafted a set of quetsions that they probably practiced and it also means they're spending a hell of a lot of money on PR. Why are they doing that about themselves?

POZNER: Oh, God.

ABRAMS: I'll tell you why. Because if I'm . . .

GRACE: They just wrote a book and made a million dollars.

ABRAMS: But hypothetically, if I'm them, and I didn't commit this crime, I would want to go out there and somehow convince America that I didn't do it.

GRACE: And take a polygraph that the state offered you. Why have they waited this long? Why won't they take a polygraph the state has offered them? Why wouldn't they cooperate with police? If they're so innocent, why have they stonewalled for years?

ABRAMS: Bill, go ahead.

MOFFITT: You know, this is the only way you can be innocent in America, is to talk to the police. I mean, it's an absurd notion, number one. Our Constitution doesn't require it.

GRACE: Polly Klaas' father did. He took a lie detector test. He wasn't afraid of the police.

MOFFITT: Well, but I'm afraid of the police, okay?

GRACE: I'd like to know, why? Why?

MOFFITT: I haven't done anything, and I'm afraid of the police.

GRACE: Are you willing to take a polygraph?

MOFFITT: I'm afraid of the police. I'm not taking any polygraph. Okay? But then again, I haven't also been subjected to the publicity campaign on the other side of this case that has gone on forever.

GRACE: It's their campaign.

MOFFITT: So, I mean, there's two campaigns. There's a campaign that suggests that they're guilty of something, and there's a campaign to meet that. And I think that people have to defend themselves. They defend themselves any way they can. But to suggest here under these circumstances that this really means anything - this doesn't really mean anything.

ABRAMS: We're going to take a break. We'll continue talking about the Ramseys' polygraph test. What does it mean? Where is the investigation going from here? We're calling this segment, "True Lies?" Back in a moment.

BREAK

ABRAMS: As you may have already heard, the Ramseys, John and Patsy, passed five lie detector tests from May 6th to May 17th, and now they're going public, saying to the public, to the Boulder authorities, "All right, what else do you want from us?" Their attorney, Lin Wood, has said that he doesn't want them to do a polygraph with the FBI because as he wouldn't allow his client Richard Jewell to take a polygraph from the FBI, he simply doesn't trust them.

Wendy Murphy, is that a legitimate point? Can Lin Wood say, legitimately, "The FBI is going to bring them in there and in essence treat them like criminals. Why should I subject them to that?"

MURPHY: Look, if people have feelings about the FBI and the police, that's fine. If they don't want to take a polygraph in a reliable, objective setting, with a reliable, independent examiner, that's fine. No one's forcing them to do that. But don't then take one with a bought-and-paid-for expert who is doing it under questionable circumstances.

POZNER: Oh, come on. This is horrible. How absurd.

MURPHY: How come this wasn't video-recorded?

ABRAMS: It was. It was video-recorded.

MURPHY: These tests are so extremely easy to beat, especially three years later.

POZNER: The American Polygraph Association's going to call you.

MURPHY: Everybody knows that polygraphs are easy to beat. It's extremely easy three years after the crime. And so, if you don't want to take the FBI's polygraph, that's fine, but don't ask us to swallow a bunch of garbage.

MOFFITT: That's a nice, objective organization, the FBI. That is probably one of the most [unintelligible] organizations in America.

ABRAMS: Wait. Hang on a sec. Does no one on this panel think that this polygraph means anything? Am I the only one who thinks, "Well, I'm not saying it means that they're innocent. I'm saying it means we've got to at least give them some credit here." Does no one agree with me?

POZNER: We should have given them credit three years ago, though, Dan.

MURPHY: It means somebody taught them how to beat the test and to hire the right experts, that's all.

GRACE: It means more than that, Wendy. I think it means, "Methinks thou dost protest too much." They're screaming, "No!" way too much.

POZNER: Oh, stop it. Forget the test. If they don't have enough evidence at this point, having spent millions on crime scene evidence, it's because they're innocent.

MURPHY: Yeah, right.

ABRAMS: Hang on. You guys gotta take turns. Go on, Nancy.

GRACE: What I think it means, based on their entire PR blitz for the last three years, "Methinks thou dost protest too much." All they do is talk about themselves. It's never about JonBenet. It's always, me, me, me.

ABRAMS: But why should they?

POZNER: Because they're innocent. You've got to watch out for those Americans who plead not guilty. That's a sure trick. You're never going to be happy.

MOFFITT: My God, let's protest our innocence. So therefore we've got to be guilty.

GRACE: Hey look, they beat the rap with Alex Hunter. They need to go away, quit making money off JonBenet's death by writing a book.

POZNER: Well, Steve Thomas investigated it and made money writing about it.

MURPHY: And let's be clear about something. There is a Constitutional right to remain silent. There is no Constitutional right to lie. So there's a difference. They can shut up and we shouldn't judge them, but when they lie, we should judge them.

ABRAMS: Hang on for a second. Why should they shut up? I mean, from my perspective, either way, if they did it or they didn't do it, as their attorney, as their advisor, as their friend, I'm going to tell them to go out there and either convince the American public that they're innocent, if they truly are innocent. Or even if they did it, you know what? Do everything you can at this point to continue to try and prove to people that you did it [sic]. Why shouldn't we encourage them?

MURPHY: First of all, it's bad for them. As a criminal defense attorney would, generally speaking, tell their clients to say nothing . . .

ABRAMS: At this point?

MURPHY: Well, even at this point, because if the new DA comes in in January, everything they're saying now can and will be used against them. They now know it.

ABRAMS: Yeah but, they've been interviewed so many times.

MURPHY: I still think that they are loaded guns. I mean, Patsy Ramsey is always saying very odd things. I think she, potentially, could say something that could hurt her. I think they've already made inconsistent statements. They said on national television, "We will take a polygraph for the police," and then they backed off and said, "We were kidding. We wanted to say that on the Today Show, but now that you're really holding us to it, we're going to do it with our very own paid expert. Thanks very much."

POZNER: Oh, come on.

MURPHY: It's a bunch of nonsense.

GRACE: Their paid experts -- they got that money, Wendy, from that book they wrote and those millions of dollars they made off their daughter.

POZNER: Only the police should have money to run lab tests. Let's not let the American citizen who is accused run their own lab tests. Because that would be corrupt.

MURPHY: That doesn't mean we have to buy the baloney.

POZNER: The only lab we should trust is the FBI lab that's been proven to turn out fraudulent results?

ABRAMS: Bill Moffitt.

MOFFITT: How many people have made money off of this case? My God, this is ridiculous. So they are the only people that shouldn't do it? Is that what you're saying?

MURPHY: That's not the issue.

GRACE: But that doesn't mean it's okay. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's okay.

MURPHY: It's disgraceful.

GRACE: None of them should do it. Why make money off a dead girl?

MURPHY: You don't exploit your child who was murdered. I'm sorry.

POZNER: Oh, exploit. You know, they have legal bills like everybody else who has to hire a lawyer. What do you expect them to do?

MURPHY: Oh, it's for the legal bills. Oh, I see.

POZNER: They shouldn't hire a lawyer, because hiring a lawyer in America is a sure sign they're guilty.

GRACE: The man is a millionaire. He's not worried about the bills.

ABRAMS: Hang on, everybody. Hang on a second. I want to get back to the issue of this polygraph. Again, there's not a single person on this panel that's going to give them credit? This is the last time. I'm going to go around the horn. Nancy Grace, they get nothing?

GRACE: No credit from me.

ABRAMS: Bill Moffitt?

MOFFITT: I mean it's a polygraph. I don't trust polygraphs.

ABRAMS: All right. Wendy Murphy?

MURPHY: They get extra suspicion from me.

ABRAMS: Larry Pozner?

POZNER: I have no faith in the electronic Ouija board.

ABRAMS: All right. Well, the Ramseys certainly would not be happy with today's panel, but I want to thank you all for joining us on both of these topics. Geraldo will be back in this chair on Monday.

THE END

 

Statement from Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner

"We did receive a fax this morning from the Ramseys' attorney at the same time the press conference was happening. We will accept any information they are willing to provide regarding the polygraph examinations, just as we're happy to receive any information from others who come forward. That's part of our job, to collect all information, no matter what the source, and add it to the investigation. Certainly, how information is obtained and under what circumstances affects the reliability of the information, no matter who provides it."

"At this point, nothing has changed the way this case will be investigated. We remain committed to solving this crime through legitimate, accepted, credible investigative methods. Contrary to the myths of the pundits and lawyers, we have not focused our investigation solely on the Ramseys. In fact, we've spent well over half our investigative time in the past three-and-a-half years on information not specific to the Ramsey family. The Ramseys and their attorneys are fully aware of this."

"What's unfortunate about our position as a law enforcement agency is that we don't have the luxury to provide many explanations. This is an active homicide investigation, and we can't afford to compromise our ability to provide justice in this case simply to satisfy public curiosity."

May 25, 2000

 

Right On, Sister!

MURPHY: And let's be clear about something. There is a Constitutional right to remain silent. There is no Constitutional right to lie. So there's a difference. They can shut up and we shouldn't judge them, but when they lie, we should judge them.

:bowdown:
RR

 

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

Jerry Toriello was the name of the first polygrapher. I'd like to note that jameson claimed that the reason Patsy's polygraph was inconclusive was due to POLYGRAPHER ERROR. This was one of her pieces of alleged inside information and was made at a time when Toriello was refusing to speak about the case. It was later proven to be a lie. She had to backtrack when Toriello eventually spoke out about it (but she never apologised).

It just goes to show that jameson is willing to lie about things when she thinks she can get away with it.

 

(emphasis mine)


:doh:

Head blow...strangulation...head blow...strangulation...head blow...strangulation

 

It's all semantic, huh JR?

Just the fact that it took them BOTH 4 or 5 days to barely victoriously answer 4 or 5 questions keeps me over here on this side of reality.

:bee:
RR

 

More Wood Spin

You're gonna love this one

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2000/26apoly.html

Still waiting....

 

This one too!

24. "The Questions"
Posted by Chris on 18:00:46 5/24/2000
NOTE: This message was last edited 18:00:46, 5/24/2000

Questions Asked in Ramsey Lie Test

BODY:
Questions asked by polygraph expert Ed Gelb in several sessions with John
and Patsy Ramsey between May 6 and May 17.

Both John and Patsy Ramsey were asked the series 1 and series 2
questions. Only Patsy Ramsey was asked the series 3 questions regarding
the ransom note.

The Ramseys answered ''no'' to all questions.

Series 1:

1. Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her
death?

3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you?

Series 2:

1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet?

2. Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her?

3. Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet?

Series 3 (Patsy Ramsey only)

1. Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house?

2. Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?

3. Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your house?

Source: Lin Wood, Ramseys' attorney


Also, consider the source, but the leader of the little heads has posted their
scores as:

John's scores were +10 and +17
Patsy's scores were +10, +12, and +16

The +16 concerned writing the note - just wanted to note that.

A score higher than +9 was truthful,
a score from +9 to -18 was indefinite
and a score lower than -18 indicated deception

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/05242000JW-TranscriptForPressConference5241.txt

 

Paging Sabreena!!!

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/10042000JW-PolygraphTidbits-312.txt

"Polygraph Tidbits"
Posted by sabrina on 08:03:11 10/04/2000
Ok, slow news day so I started this thread.
Last week I finally met the polygrapher who has an office in the
same building as mine, he hardly is there because he said he does
alot of work on the military base.
I asked him if polygraphs can be beat. He said absolutely. I said I
was wondering about this because of my interest in the Ramsey
case.

He proceeded to rattle off all the evidence (fibers,no tounge
imprint in duct tape, handwriting, etc.) and said "Patsy did it."
(The guy follows the case.) He also proceeded to tell me he knows
Ed Gelb and spoke to him very recently about the Ramsey
polygraphs. Ed Gelb said she came out truthful on the polygraph,
and that's all he would say although he had a smirk on his face.
But he told me "it's like a defense attorney who will not admit their
client is guilty."

He also told me the scuttlebutt amoung the polygraphers is that
the "inconclusives" came out leaning towards guilt, and there were
perhaps several more taken than were admitted.

Apparently, there are not that many polygraphers around and they
all know one another. I looked in my yellow pages and saw there
are only a few and I live in a major city.

He said if you practice you can beat the polygraph and it looks like
the Rams had a lot of practice.

He also said it only takes a few hours for a complicated polygraph
and theirs took days so that should tell you something.

Just thought this was interesting.

 

Thank you RiverRat, and Barbara for all your hard work.

I read a lot of Christopher Anderson's reports from The Daily Camera. He was an excellent reporter. I was so sorry to read he had been killed by lightning a few years ago, when on the beach with friends. Must have been devastating for them. A big loss for The Daily Camera.