Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
MIRSE
apartment about 3 blocks from the the apartment because she couldn't stand all
the horror and bloodshed
that she saw around her.
On the other hand, the ProMacs also claim that Stoeckley
had time to giggle on the phone to a stranger, had time to
brush her wig with a hairbrush of undeterminded ownership,
and may have also had time to check out the
the refrigerator where she found some chocolate milk.
According
to the ProMacs, she even had time to walk from the kitchen
to the couch area with the glass of chocolate milk, where she
left the glass on the end table at the far end of the couch and where
the glass was found by investigators. Stoeckley was such a liar.
Did she trip over MacDonald on her way trip to the couch area?
Remember, MacDonald supposedly was lying
unconscious on the steps to the hallway, which means that part
of his body lay in the direct path between the kitchen and couch
areas. Stoeckley never said.
For a person who supposedly was so shaken by the bloody mess
she supposedly witnessed, she sure seemed to take her time
before she ran out the apartment. I guess the chocolate milk looked
too delicious not to have some before she ran out of the apartment walked
about three blocks where the the ProMacs claim she was spotted by an MP.
I found it interesting that only ONE glass of left over chocolate milk was
found. I guess the other "intruders" were not thirsty after their bloody
attacks on the MacDonald family. Or maybe they settled for just some
water to refresh themselves, or maybe they were neat freaks and cleaned
their glasses of left over chocolate milk before they left.
Mi...@aol.com
JIGSAW1695
From: mi...@aol.com (MIRSE)
Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 08:02 AM EDT
Message-id: <19990715080226...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
==============================
Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
Tammy P
<sigh> Of COURSE they existed. Dr. MacDonald said so.
Tammy
bry...@my-deja.com
[snip mirse's pointed question about stoeckley's supposed actions at
crime scene]
> ==============================
> Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
mr. jigsaw, you're a polygrapher. you know that macdonald took
polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can you
tell me why?
b.
"still looking for information"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JIGSAW1695
From: bry...@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 02:54 PM EDT
Message-id: <7mlao6$o7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <19990715084438...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
[snip mirse's pointed question about stoeckley's supposed actions at
crime scene]
> ==============================
> Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
mr. jigsaw, you're a polygrapher. you know that macdonald took
polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can you
tell me why?
b.
==============================
Yup...he failed the first one he took. the second one was not a valid test as
the examiner did not use a control question techique.
Jigsaw
Ronald Helm
>==============================
>
>Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
BINGO! Ron
andrewsmom
>about the O.J. case. He basicly said no murder case is going to make
>perfect sense even when solved. There will always be unanswered
>questions, that's life.
>
You should remember that too, Logan.
Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> On the one hand, the ProMacs claim that Helena Stoeckley ran out
of the
> apartment about 3 blocks from the the apartment because she couldn't
stand all
> the horror and bloodshed
> that she saw around her.
I don't know if that is true or not but i do know a woman that fits her
description was seen by Ken Mica on his way to the MacDonald home. He
reported this right away so it is very unlikely that he is lieing.
> On the other hand, the ProMacs also claim that Stoeckley
> had time to giggle on the phone to a stranger,
I don't know if that is true or not.
had time to
> brush her wig with a hairbrush of undeterminded ownership,
How do you explain the wig hairs in the hairbrush?? You just ignore it
right, because it doesn't fit your scenerio. You just disregard the
evidence that doesn't fit your scenerio. Where did the wig hairs come
from Mirse and why did the prosecution keep this evidence from the
defense?
> and may have also had time to check out the
> the refrigerator where she found some chocolate milk.> According
> to the ProMacs, she even had time to walk from the kitchen
> to the couch area with the glass of chocolate milk, where she
> left the glass on the end table at the far end of the couch and where
> the glass was found by investigators.
Nobody has ever claimed that Mirse. All i know is that a glass of
chocolate milk was found with a fingerprint that remains unidentified
and blood stains were on the refrigirator door.
Stoeckley was such a liar.
You are right. The polygraph did show she was lieing when she said she
wasn't in the MacDonald home.
> Did she trip over MacDonald on her way trip to the couch area?
Who knows.
> Remember, MacDonald supposedly was lying
> unconscious on the steps to the hallway, which means that part
> of his body lay in the direct path between the kitchen and couch
> areas. Stoeckley never said.
Your point?
> For a person who supposedly was so shaken by the bloody mess
> she supposedly witnessed, she sure seemed to take her time
> before she ran out the apartment.
Maybe , maybe not.
I guess the chocolate milk looked
> too delicious not to have some before she ran out of the apartment
walked
> about three blocks where the the ProMacs claim she was spotted by an
MP.
Nobody ever said she drank chocolate milk.
> I found it interesting that only ONE glass of left over chocolate
milk was
> found. I guess the other "intruders" were not thirsty after their
bloody
> attacks on the MacDonald family. Or maybe they settled for just some
> water to refresh themselves, or maybe they were neat freaks and
cleaned
> their glasses of left over chocolate milk before they left.
> Mi...@aol.com
Whose fingerprint was on the glass then Mirse? You fail to answer that
question time and time again.
As Vincent Bugliosi stated on Unsolved Mysteries last night talking
about the O.J. case. He basicly said no murder case is going to make
perfect sense even when solved. There will always be unanswered
questions, that's life.
I have never claimed to know exactly what happend in the house that
night. But the evidence that Mirse, Ron and whoever else fails to
address strongly points to intruders murdering the MacDonald family.
If this evidence didn't it obvously would not have been witheld.
Logan
lbugb...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 08:02 AM EDT
> Message-id: <19990715080226...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
>
of the
> apartment about 3 blocks from the the apartment because she couldn't
stand all
> the horror and bloodshed
> that she saw around her.
> brush her wig with a hairbrush of undeterminded ownership,
> the refrigerator where she found some chocolate milk.
> According
> to the ProMacs, she even had time to walk from the kitchen
> to the couch area with the glass of chocolate milk, where she
> left the glass on the end table at the far end of the couch and where
> Did she trip over MacDonald on her way trip to the couch area?
> unconscious on the steps to the hallway, which means that part
> of his body lay in the direct path between the kitchen and couch
> areas. Stoeckley never said.
> she supposedly witnessed, she sure seemed to take her time
> too delicious not to have some before she ran out of the apartment
walked
> about three blocks where the the ProMacs claim she was spotted by an
MP.
milk was
> found. I guess the other "intruders" were not thirsty after their
bloody
> attacks on the MacDonald family. Or maybe they settled for just some
> water to refresh themselves, or maybe they were neat freaks and
cleaned
> their glasses of left over chocolate milk before they left.
> Mi...@aol.com
>
>
> Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
Maybe <gasp> they did exist?
lbugb...@my-deja.com
t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
>
> Tammy
>
>
<sigh> Of COURSE they didn't exist. Brian Murtaugh said so.
terryh...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> From: bry...@my-deja.com
> mr. jigsaw, you're a polygrapher. you know that macdonald took
> polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can you
> tell me why?
>
> b.
> ==============================
>
> Yup...he failed the first one he took. the second one was not a valid
test as
> the examiner did not use a control question techique.
>
> Jigsaw
Dr. MacDonald never failed any polygraph. Dr. Raskin is the best of
the best and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
Anybody heard of Jigsaw?
Best, Terry
JIGSAW1695
Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 10:48 PM EDT
Message-id: <7mm6hp$2s4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <19990715172433...@ng-xa1.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> From: bry...@my-deja.com
> mr. jigsaw, you're a polygrapher. you know that macdonald took
> polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can you
> tell me why?
>
> b.
> ==============================
>
> Yup...he failed the first one he took. the second one was not a valid
test as
> the examiner did not use a control question techique.
>
> Jigsaw
Dr. MacDonald never failed any polygraph. Dr. Raskin is the best of
the best and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
Anybody heard of Jigsaw?
Best, Terry
============================
Sorry, but JM took a polygraph test shorty before his first civil trial. He was
deceptive to the relevant questions. Since it was done by a private examiner at
the request of his attorney, the results were never m ade public. Rest assured,
if he had passed, the results would have been published on the front page of
every newspaper in the country.
As far as Raskin being the best, I take it you have never heard of Warren
Holms. Richard Slattery, Ed Gelb, John Reid, Richard Keeler, as well as a host
of other prolifice examiners.
I would be accurate in pointing out that several other countries have had
studied the polygraph extensively including the Russians, Isrealis, Japanese,
India(n's) and probalby at one time, the best of the best...the Poles
(Surprise.....Surprise..if you knew anything about polygraph you would know
that the Poles did most of the research and development for the Russians in
the counter-polygraph investigations. )
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
Jigsaw
lbugb...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> From: bry...@my-deja.com
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> > Subject: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
>
> [snip mirse's pointed question about stoeckley's supposed actions at
> crime scene]
>
> > Maybe <gasp>> they never existed?
>
> polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can you
> tell me why?
>
> b.
> ==============================
>
> Yup...he failed the first one he took.
Wrong! CID had lied to him about having one ready then when he agreed
they said it would take a few days. He eventually sat down for one in
1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
test.
the second one was not a valid test as
> the examiner did not use a control question techique.
>
> Jigsaw
Let me guess, because Jeffrey passed a polygraph test with flying
colors it was not a "valid test" even though it was given by one of the
top polygraphers in the nation at the time.
Logan
MIRSE
>Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 10:40 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7mm63g$2o6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> <sigh> Of COURSE they existed. Dr. MacDonald said so.
>>
>> Tammy
>>
>>
>
> <sigh> Of COURSE they didn't exist. Brian Murtaugh said so.
>
>Logan
**********
<sigh> At last. Logan has seen the error of his thinking. He now admits that
he was wrong and Brian Murtaugh was right when Murtaugh said that the
intruders never existed.
Congraulations, Logan, for finally realizing what a liar MacDonald is.
MacDonald claims that he was attacked on the couch by a man with a knife, a
man with an icepick, and a man with a baseball bat.
There are 48 puncture holes in his pajama top. So how many pajama fibers
were found on and in front of the couch where MacDonald would have had to stand
up as he tried to get away from the 3 attackers?
Answer: None.
Compare the "None" to the almost 80 pajama fibers found in the master
bedroom, where the wife was found lying on the floor. Why were there almost 80
pajama fibers found in the master bedroom and none found on and in front of the
couch? The answer is obvious: The attack on MacDonald never took place while
he was supposedly laying on the couch. MacDonald made up the whole story.
MacDonald. What a con artist and a liar. Mi...@aol.com
terryh...@my-deja.com
> Dr. MacDonald never failed any polygraph. Dr. Raskin is the best of
> the best and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
> Anybody heard of Jigsaw?
>
> Best, Terry
>
> ============================
> Sorry, but JM took a polygraph test shorty before his first civil
> trial.
Nope. Not true.
The polygraph that Dr. MacDonald took prior to the civil trial was by
Dr. David Rankin and was in connection with a request by "Playboy" in
connection with publication of an interview. It was shown on F. Lee
Bailey's lie detector show. It was scored blindly by an independent
polygrapher and even by a computer. All came up with the same results.
Dr. MacDonald was telling the truth.
>He was deceptive to the relevant questions. Since it was done by a
>private examiner at the request of his attorney, the results were never
>made public.
LOL! But our informant knows. Actually he knows the lies of Brian
Murtagh and then he is obviously misinformed even there. Ever take a
polygraph, Jigsaw?
>Rest assured, if he had passed, the results would have been published
>on the front page of every newspaper in the country.
They were mostly ignored, of course.
Now for the facts. A polygrapher named Clive Backster was hired to
polygraph Dr. MacDonald in 1970 by Bernie Segal, Dr. MacDonald's lawyer.
MacDonald ended the exam early as Backster started a series of questions
about bestiality and incest. At the civil trial of MacDonald v.
McGinniss Clive was called to testify. He said he had lost the records
of the polygraph. MacDonald's lawyer for the civil trial, Bostwick,
asked our hero if he had been paid. Backster could produce no record of
being paid.
Do people pay you, Jigsaw? Clive been doing a lot of polygraphs has he?
> As far as Raskin being the best, I take it you have never heard of
Warren
> Holms. Richard Slattery, Ed Gelb, John Reid, Richard Keeler, as well
as a host
> of other prolifice examiners.
Any of them that you would care to name that would say Dr. Raskin's
polygraphs are worthless as you claim? I would be delighted to ask
these gentlemen.
> I would be accurate in pointing out that several other countries have
had
> studied the polygraph extensively including the Russians, Isrealis,
Japanese,
> India(n's) and probalby at one time, the best of the best...the Poles
> (Surprise.....Surprise..if you knew anything about polygraph you
would know
> that the Poles did most of the research and development for the
Russians in
> the counter-polygraph investigations. )
>
> Yours in Liberal Solidarity
>
> Jigsaw
Very good for you. Dr. David Raskin is also known for the excellent
results he has achieved.
In case anyone is fooled by our misinformant, Dr. Raskin, like any
expert and any certified member of the American Polygraph Association,
calibrates the polygraph to the examinee. There are differences in
methodology.
You a member, Jigsaw?
Best, Terry
MIRSE
>Message-id: <7mm5ob$2jk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> their glasses of left over chocolate milk before they left.
> Mi...@aol.com
Whose fingerprint was on the glass then Mirse? You fail to answer that
question time and time again.
********
Logan: Did you say the wife Colette and
5 year old Kimberly were ruled out as being the person who drank from that
glass? If they were ruled out, what is your source, so I can read it for
myself.
According to Fatal Vision, MacDonald gave 2 year old Kristen chocolate
milk in her bottle that night at her bedtime. At the very least, this means
that MacDonald was either the first or second person who opened the bottle of
milk. It also means that MacDonald used the milk before one of the intruders
drank some of it later, as claimed by the ProMacs.
Mi...@aol.com
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 12:50 AM EDT
Message-id: <19990716005031...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
>From: lbugb...@my-deja.com
==============================
obviously the jru felt the same way.
Yours in Solidarity
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
===============================
Oviously the jury felt the same way.
Yours in Solidarity
Jigsaw
terryh...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Oviously the jury felt the same way.
The jury didn't know about a bloody palmprint that could be matched to
no one in the home. The jury did not know about bloody hairs torn from
two different killers under the fingernails of the little girls. The
prosecution lied about the hair in Colette's hand that the prosecution
said was too short to match though there had been efforts to match it to
a number of people. The jury did not know about the many sightings,
about the fresh candlewax, about the bloody gloves, about many things.
The prosecutors didn't want the jury confused when they told them that
there was no evidence of intruders. They hid the evidence from the
defense though it was against the law.
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 03:40 AM EDT
Message-id: <7mmnm9$91b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <19990716015856...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Oviously the jury felt the same way.
The jury didn't know about a bloody palmprint that could be matched to
no one in the home. The jury did not know about bloody hairs torn from
two different killers under the fingernails of the little girls. The
prosecution lied about the hair in Colette's hand that the prosecution
said was too short to match though there had been efforts to match it to
a number of people. The jury did not know about the many sightings,
about the fresh candlewax, about the bloody gloves, about many things.
The prosecutors didn't want the jury confused when they told them that
there was no evidence of intruders. They hid the evidence from the
defense though it was against the law.
==============================
Which dosent explain why the verdict has not been reversed as of yet, does it??
terryh...@my-deja.com
Of course it does. Our courts are there to protect official misconduct
not demean it. As with yourself the courts do not readily admit
grievous error.
I note for the record you have not taken issue with the problem of
evidence in the government's own files that blows the prosecution case
out the window.
Somehow I bet your conversations with your friends never got around to
mundane things like bloody palmprints that were hidden away from public
view. I suspect you talked more about women and gossip as men usually
do.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <7mn8ft$dq0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Best, Terry
==============================
The defense has a problem with their own evidence. They have railed agsinst the
prosecution, saying that the evidence was contaminated by the numberous people
wandering in th crime scene. Then they want to take the same scene and say...we
have evidence that MacDonald didnt do it.
Seems to be of a contridiction here.
and yea..it was a guy thing. We didnt gossip. We told war stories.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
terryh...@my-deja.com
> The defense has a problem with their own evidence. They have railed
agsinst the
> prosecution, saying that the evidence was contaminated by the
numberous people
> wandering in th crime scene. Then they want to take the same scene and
say...we
> have evidence that MacDonald didnt do it.
>
> Seems to be of a contridiction here.
No contradiction at all. The prosecution claimed the scene was in
pristine condition. It was far from that. Evidence collection and
anlysis was full of blunders and incompetence.
None of that has a damn thing to do with prosecutorial misconduct in
suppressing and fabricating evidence. A bloody palmprint on the bed or
hairs under the little girls' fingernails have nothing whatever to do
with contamination of the crime scene unless you somehow imagine a
stranger snuck in and planted evidence.
> and yea..it was a guy thing. We didnt gossip. We told war stories.
I was never good at proper terminology.
Tammy P
> >He eventually sat down for one in
>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
>test.
What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
hide, right?
Tammy
WWWoLadyA
Could it be the examiner needed to resort to extremes in order to establish a
control baseline ? Afterall, the person he was testing was suspected of
committing brutal acts and then dispassionately staging a crime scene.
Lady A
terryh...@my-deja.com
Could it be the guy was a clown who was unqualified and had only a
prurient interest? Clive Backster testified in the civil trial and had
no records whatever of the aborted exam and no record he had been paid.
He asked a series of bizarre sex questions that involved bestiality as
well as incest, not exactly a routine part of a polygraph.
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 10:58 AM EDT
Message-id: <378f4800...@news.cgo.wave.ca>
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:10:28 GMT, lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >He eventually sat down for one in
>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
>test.
What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
hide, right?
================================
It is not an appropriate question to ask during a homicide investigation.
The issue was a homicide, therefore, all questions should be directed towards
that end.
Im no fan of JM, but if the above statementis true, I dont blame him for
walking out. Of course, that may have just been an execuse not to take the
test. It has happened before.
On a more practical note, The examiner violated any trust that may have been
established between the two of them.
Yours in Liberal Solidairty
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 11:28 AM EDT
Message-id: <19990716112850...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
t...@cgocable.net wrote:
lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>
>> >He eventually sat down for one in
>>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
>>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
>>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
>>test.
>
> What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
>was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
>know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
>might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
>question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
>hide, right?
Could it be the examiner needed to resort to extremes in order to establish a
control baseline ? Afterall, the person he was testing was suspected of
committing brutal acts and then dispassionately staging a crime scene.
============================
Sorry, but it dosen work that way. The control question needs to be one of a
nature similar to the relevant question for the test to be scored properly.
The target of the investigation was murder, not sexual molestation.
If he failed the polygraph test, then it may have been appropriate to talk
about possible motives, but not before.
terryh...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 10:58 AM EDT
> Message-id: <378f4800...@news.cgo.wave.ca>
>
>
> > >He eventually sat down for one in
> >1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever
had
> >sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
> >he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
> >test.
>
> What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
> was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
> know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
> might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
> question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
> hide, right?
>
>
> It is not an appropriate question to ask during a homicide
investigation.
>
> The issue was a homicide, therefore, all questions should be directed
towards
> that end.
>
> Im no fan of JM, but if the above statementis true, I dont blame him
for
> walking out. Of course, that may have just been an execuse not to
take the
> test. It has happened before.
>
> On a more practical note, The examiner violated any trust that may
have been
> established between the two of them.
>
> Yours in Liberal Solidairty
>
> Jigsaw
Thanks, Jigsaw.
The only information we normally have from a defense-arranged test is
what the defense cares to divulge. Should the client fail, the test
is naturally deep-sixed. But the polygrapher, Clive Bacster, testified
in the civil trial. The claim that MacDonald failed is apparently just
one of a number of lies told by Brian Murtagh and others.
bry...@my-deja.com
terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <19990715172433...@ng-xa1.aol.com>,
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
>
> > mr. jigsaw, you're a polygrapher. you know that macdonald took
> > polygraph tests. yet you appear to believe macdonald guilty. can
> > you tell me why?
> > Yup...he failed the first one he took. the second one was not a
> > valid test as the examiner did not use a control question techique.
> Dr. MacDonald never failed any polygraph. Dr. Raskin is the best of
> the best and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
> Anybody heard of Jigsaw?
not the point. when the CID investigators (Grebner, Ivory & Shaw) asked
if he would submit to a polygraph, he agreed. Ten minutes or so later,
he called back and refused. In a later interview with Newsday (i
believe) he claimed that he had offered to take the polygraph, but that
the army CID had backed down. he never admitted that he initiated the
cancellation of any polygraph testing.
macdonald never disputed this information in open court, where he would
be required to prove his allegations; although he doubtless claims he
offered to take a polygraph, and his supporters alleged he did take
polygraphs administered by the FBI and passed, i can find no evidence of
that as yet (i'm still looking, folks).
as to the nature and quality of the polygraph testing: jigsaw, i'd
appreciate a cite as to the failed polygraph.
after reading the three URLs posted by LadyA regarding polygraph
testing, i came to the conclusion (feel free to correct any mistaken
impression on my part) that the purpose of asking control questions was
to determine the range and nature of a testee's bodily responses.
without a control question, it would be difficult to determine if the
subject was given to exaggerated responses or was a low-key person
unlikely to respond with the same markers of physiological excitement.
moreover, the diane sawyer/cbs expose of polygraphy did not leave me
with as good an opinion of it as a failsafe method of discovering
deception. i am now inclined to find the polygraph evidence inadequate
and unworthy of weight, positive or negative, although a *failed*
polygraph will certainly be given *more* weight if i can discover such.
terryh...@my-deja.com
> > Dr. MacDonald never failed any polygraph. Dr. Raskin is the best of
> > the best and has written and lectured extensively on the subject.
> > Anybody heard of Jigsaw?
>
> not the point. when the CID investigators (Grebner, Ivory & Shaw)
asked
> if he would submit to a polygraph, he agreed. Ten minutes or so
later,
> he called back and refused. In a later interview with Newsday (i
> believe) he claimed that he had offered to take the polygraph, but
that
> the army CID had backed down. he never admitted that he initiated the
> cancellation of any polygraph testing.
>
> macdonald never disputed this information in open court, where he
would
> be required to prove his allegations; although he doubtless claims he
> offered to take a polygraph, and his supporters alleged he did take
> polygraphs administered by the FBI and passed, i can find no evidence
of
> that as yet (i'm still looking, folks).
You are making various allegations that don't fit the facts, Brysly.
Dr. MacDonald and this wretched person not only do not deny that Dr.
MacDonald refused to take a polygraph test but insist on it as a fact.
Dr. MacDonald had an experience with an incompetent polygrapher that did
not encourage his cooperation and he was told that the CID had no one
that was competent to administer a proper test.
I think you are confusing this with a sodium amytal test (truth serum)
which he was reluctant to take but agreed. The test was then cancelled
by prosecutor Brian Murtagh when Dr. MacDonald showed up. If you wish
to know the reason consider what reliving the experience could do under
control of the drug.
Incidentally he was hypnotized as mentioned.
And he did pass a polygraph test shown on national television against
the advice of his lawyers.
> as to the nature and quality of the polygraph testing: jigsaw, i'd
> appreciate a cite as to the failed polygraph.
>
> after reading the three URLs posted by LadyA regarding polygraph
> testing, i came to the conclusion (feel free to correct any mistaken
> impression on my part) that the purpose of asking control questions
was
> to determine the range and nature of a testee's bodily responses.
This is all part of calibration. Consider that much of the pretesting
is to indoctrinate the subject on the "infallibility" of the test but
there is also the need to keep the person from making the normal excited
response to the key question. A control question must excite some
reaction.
> without a control question, it would be difficult to determine if the
> subject was given to exaggerated responses or was a low-key person
> unlikely to respond with the same markers of physiological excitement.
>
> moreover, the diane sawyer/cbs expose of polygraphy did not leave me
> with as good an opinion of it as a failsafe method of discovering
> deception. i am now inclined to find the polygraph evidence
inadequate
> and unworthy of weight, positive or negative, although a *failed*
> polygraph will certainly be given *more* weight if i can discover
> such.
LOL!
There is none but despite myths it is slightly more probable that an
innocent person will fail than that a guilty person will fool the
polygrapher.
Best, Terry
Tammy P
>
>Could it be the examiner needed to resort to extremes in order to establish a
>control baseline ? Afterall, the person he was testing was suspected of
>committing brutal acts and then dispassionately staging a crime scene.
>
>
>
>============================
>
>Sorry, but it dosen work that way. The control question needs to be one of a
>nature similar to the relevant question for the test to be scored properly.
>
>The target of the investigation was murder, not sexual molestation.
>
>If he failed the polygraph test, then it may have been appropriate to talk
>about possible motives, but not before.
>
>
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info, Jigsaw.
Tammy
andrewsmom
>prurient interest? Clive Backster testified in the civil trial and had
>no records whatever of the aborted exam and no record he had been paid.
>
>He asked a series of bizarre sex questions that involved bestiality as
>well as incest, not exactly a routine part of a polygraph.
>
he had asked MacDonald, and why he asked those particular questions?
I'm assuming he probably had no record of that either, but did he recall?
Thanks, Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
t...@cgocable.net (Tammy P) wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:10:28 GMT, lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >He eventually sat down for one in
> >1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever
had
> >sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
> >he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
> >test.
>
> What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
> was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
> know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
> might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
> question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
> hide, right?
>
>
Tammy,
If you were being WRONGLY (hypothetical,you are innocent) accused of
the triple murder of your own family and you sat down for a polygraph
that you shouldn't even be taking because you are innocent. After the
CID had lied to you about the polygraph. Then the examiner asks you
questions such as "did you have sex with your daughters", "have you
ever had sex with animals", and no questions related to if you lied
about the events that night. Wouldn't you get up and leave and be
angry? I know i would.
MacDonald has passed a polygraph. But i guess now polygraphs don't
work, right?
Didn't O.J. fail a polygraph? Hmm, interesting.
Logan
lbugb...@my-deja.com
wwwo...@aol.com (WWWoLadyA) wrote:
> t...@cgocable.net wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >He eventually sat down for one in
> >>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever
had
> >>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime
scene
> >>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
> >>test.
> >
> > What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
> >was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all
we
> >know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions
that
> >might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
> >question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
> >hide, right?
>
establish a
> control baseline ?
Hello! You are supposed to ask questions where the answers are known
and are obvious to establish a "control baseline", am i wrong?
Afterall, the person he was testing was suspected of
> committing brutal acts and then dispassionately staging a crime scene.
>
> Lady A
>
Then why didn't the examiner ask him questions about the crime and
crime scene?
terryh...@my-deja.com
> Terry, when Clive testified at the civil trial, was he asked what
questions
> he had asked MacDonald, and why he asked those particular questions?
> I'm assuming he probably had no record of that either, but did he
recall?
> Thanks, Lori
I have no transcripts, Lori. All I know is that the questions were
entirely inappropriate on any basis.
Best, Terry
WWWoLadyA
>lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> >He eventually sat down for one in
>>>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
>>>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
>>>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
>>>test.
>>
Tammy:
>>What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
>>was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
>>know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
>>might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
>>question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
>>hide, right?
>
>Lady A:
>Could it be the examiner needed to resort to extremes in order to establish a
>control baseline ? Afterall, the person he was testing was suspected of
>committing brutal acts and then dispassionately staging a crime scene.
>
>
>
>============================
>Jigsaw:
>Sorry, but it dosen work that way. The control question needs to be one of a
>nature similar to the relevant question for the test to be scored properly.
>
>The target of the investigation was murder, not sexual molestation.
>
>If he failed the polygraph test, then it may have been appropriate to talk
>about possible motives, but not before.
>
Well, don't be sorry.
Instead, visit the following URL and tell me if you agree with its basic
premise.
http://www.nopolygraph.com/poldil.htm
If you do, and if I am understanding it correctly, those very offensive
questions which were put to Doctor MacDonald would have given him a distinct
advantage in "passing" the polygraph......or in other words........ of having a
greater autonomic response to the Control question as opposed to the Relevant
question.
This study cautions against "weaker" Control questions, which it warns may run
the risk that the innocent examinee will be found deceptive.
Lady A
Ronald Helm
>The jury didn't know about a bloody palmprint that could be matched to
>no one in the home.
and never has been matched to any of the drug crazed hippies and never
will be matched to anyone.
The jury did not know about bloody hairs torn from
>two different killers under the fingernails of the little girls.
Not much useful information in the gunk under the little girls'
fingernails, therefore not mentioned
The
>prosecution lied about the hair in Colette's hand that the prosecution
>said was too short to match though there had been efforts to match it to
>a number of people.
So what, the prosecution could match it to no one, nor would the
defense have ben able to match it to anyone.
The jury did not know about the many sightings,
>about the fresh candlewax, about the bloody gloves, about many things.
So what, why bother since all of that evidence was from the defendant
anyway, and they did not need it to convict.
The prosecutors didn't want the jury confused when they told them that
>there was no evidence of intruders. They hid the evidence from the
>defense though it was against the law.
Too bad the jury was ever allowed to hear Jeffrey throwing away his
life on the stand...bad mistake by his defense team. They could have
rested their case without the jury ever having heard the cockamamie
story that nailed it for the prosecution. Ron
>
>Best, Terry
Tammy P
>
>Tammy,
>
>If you were being WRONGLY (hypothetical,you are innocent) accused of
>the triple murder of your own family and you sat down for a polygraph
>that you shouldn't even be taking because you are innocent. After the
>CID had lied to you about the polygraph. Then the examiner asks you
>questions such as "did you have sex with your daughters", "have you
>ever had sex with animals", and no questions related to if you lied
>about the events that night. Wouldn't you get up and leave and be
>angry? I know i would.
The questions about sex with animals would be
irrelevant, yes. The questions about sex with the girls may or may not
be irrelevant. Yes, I would be angry but before I got up and left I
would ask the polygrapher to please ask me questions pertinent to the
case. I wouldn't just get up and leave in a huff. Not if my freedom
could possibly depend on taking and passing this test.
Tammy
Ronald Helm
>Wrong! CID had lied to him about having one ready then when he agreed
>they said it would take a few days. He eventually sat down for one in
>1970 but when the questions were along the lines of "have you ever had
>sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
>he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
>test.
Sounds like this polygrapher was getting too close for comfort,
MacDonald's comfort anyway. Remember that Colette often slept on the
couch when Kristen moved in with Jeffrey. This may well have had much
to do with the crime scene. Terry says that the sexual abuse rumors
were all lies. Did anyone check the older girl for evidence of sexual
abuse? Probably not, as colposcopy of the vulva and vagina was not
described at the time. How as the question of sexual abuse ruled out,
Terry? Ron
Ronald Helm
> What's so unusual about that question? MacDonald
>was, after all, a suspect in the murder of those daughters. For all we
>know the polygrapher might have been instructed to pose questions that
>might possibly point to motive. Why didn't MacDonald just answer the
>question? If he didn't sexually abuse the girls, he had nothing to
>hide, right?
>
>Tammy
Terry has this theory that children are never sexually abused. Ron
Ronald Helm
>He asked a series of bizarre sex questions that involved bestiality as
>well as incest, not exactly a routine part of a polygraph.
>
>Best, Terry
>
Did the CID ever talk to Trooper the new addition to the MacDonald
family? Maybe MacDonald was into bestiality :-) Ron
BRogers115
>polygraph Dr. MacDonald in 1970 by Bernie Segal, Dr. MacDonald's lawyer.
>MacDonald ended the exam early as Backster started a series of questions
>about bestiality and incest.
What is the defense's stand on why it was stopped rather than be questioned on
these subjects? Was it just general outrage at such subject matter? Were
infantacide and spousacide considered to be less outrageous?
Brenda
andrewsmom
>Didn't O.J. fail a polygraph? Hmm, interesting.
>
>Logan
Yeah, well, he was acquitted. Go figure.
Lori
andrewsmom
>questions
>> he had asked MacDonald, and why he asked those particular questions?
>> I'm assuming he probably had no record of that either, but did he
>recall?
>> Thanks, Lori
>
>I have no transcripts, Lori. All I know is that the questions were
>entirely inappropriate on any basis.
>
>Best, Terry
I'm not arguing that, Terry. I would agree entirely that they are very
inappropriate questions to ask.
I just want to know if Backster admitted to asking these questions (or if we
have other proof that he did). Otherwise we only have JM's word to take for
it.
Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
>
> not the point. when the CID investigators (Grebner, Ivory & Shaw)
asked
> if he would submit to a polygraph, he agreed. Ten minutes or so
later,
> he called back and refused. In a later interview with Newsday (i
> believe) he claimed that he had offered to take the polygraph, but
that
> the army CID had backed down. he never admitted that he initiated the
> cancellation of any polygraph testing.
Reading Fatal Vision again? The CID agents told MacDonald they had a
man ready to administer the test and when MacDonald came back from
lunch he would take it. When he got back they said that it would take a
few days before he could take it. Well, they obviously lied to him so
he didn't trust them.
>
> macdonald never disputed this information in open court,
Please tell me where this information came from.
where he would
> be required to prove his allegations;
Not true.
although he doubtless claims he
> offered to take a polygraph,
He did say he would take one.
and his supporters alleged he did take
> polygraphs administered by the FBI and passed,
nobody ever said that he took one administered by the FBI
i can find no evidence of
> that as yet (i'm still looking, folks).
Years after trial the army claimed they cleared Greg Mitchell with a
polygraph yet not a single document has been released to the defense
showing this to be true. But i am sure you believe it.
>
> as to the nature and quality of the polygraph testing: jigsaw, i'd
> appreciate a cite as to the failed polygraph.
OK, Helena Stoekley failed (i believe more than one) polygraph when she
said she wasn't in the home.
>
> after reading the three URLs posted by LadyA regarding polygraph
> testing, i came to the conclusion (feel free to correct any mistaken
> impression on my part) that the purpose of asking control questions
was
> to determine the range and nature of a testee's bodily responses.
> without a control question, it would be difficult to determine if the
> subject was given to exaggerated responses or was a low-key person
> unlikely to respond with the same markers of physiological excitement.
I have no idea.
>
> moreover, the diane sawyer/cbs expose of polygraphy did not leave me
> with as good an opinion of it as a failsafe method of discovering
> deception. i am now inclined to find the polygraph evidence
inadequate
> and unworthy of weight, positive or negative, although a *failed*
> polygraph will certainly be given *more* weight if i can discover
such.
Helena Stoekley failed a polygraph denying she was in the MacDonald
home.
Glad to help.
Logan
terryh...@my-deja.com
There is just nothing that you cannot twist out of shape. This says a
lot more about you, Brenda, than about Dr. MacDonald.
A fellow who claims to be a professional polygrapher and still thinks
MacDonald is guilty has told you it was unprofessional conduct. I
believe Jigsaw is a polygrapher from his obvious knowledge and lack of
guile [I hate to say "truthfulness" but <blush> that is the correct
word].
This type of voyeurism by unqualified clowns is one reason that
polygraphs have been banned in employment most everywhere outside of
high security government jobs.
When one accepts such abuse it says something too.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
>...if I am understanding it correctly, those very
offensive
> questions which were put to Doctor MacDonald would have given him a
distinct
> advantage in "passing" the polygraph......or in other words........ of
having a
> greater autonomic response to the Control question as opposed to the
Relevant
> question.
>
> This study cautions against "weaker" Control questions, which it warns
may run
> the risk that the innocent examinee will be found deceptive.
>
> Lady A
This is ridiculous, Lady A. If that is all it takes then the janitor or
anyone else might as well run the polygraph. And he should be willing
to work for less since his prurient interests get a kick.
You might as well just hire Brenda Moran or Doc Ron to tell you who is
lying and save the expense of the machine.
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 07:17 PM EDT
Message-id: <19990716191712...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
>Now for the facts. A polygrapher named Clive Backster was hired to
>polygraph Dr. MacDonald in 1970 by Bernie Segal, Dr. MacDonald's lawyer.
>MacDonald ended the exam early as Backster started a series of questions
>about bestiality and incest.
=============================
If im not mistaken, soeone accuswed the US Army CID examiner of the same thing.
Could this be another urbanmyth??
terryh...@my-deja.com
OK let's say Tammy is accused of strangling Dr. Ron because his ignorant
statements are making all the MacDonald haters look bad. Tammy
volunteers for a polygraph over the advice of Johnnie Cochran who has
taken the case to show he can jive to white racist devils. The
polygrapher tells Tammy she is lying when she says she doesn't screw
donkeys.
Does Tammy:
A. Ask the operator how he knew?
B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
C. Paint her face black?
D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
terryh...@my-deja.com
drs...@bigplanet.com (Ronald Helm) wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:10:28 GMT, lbugb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Wrong! CID had lied to him about having one ready then when he agreed
> >they said it would take a few days. He eventually sat down for one in
had
> >sex with your daughters", etc. and nothing to do with the crime scene
> >he got up and left. Jeffrey MacDonald has never failed a polygraph
> >test.
>
> Sounds like this polygrapher was getting too close for comfort,
> MacDonald's comfort anyway. Remember that Colette often slept on the
> couch when Kristen moved in with Jeffrey. This may well have had much
> to do with the crime scene. Terry says that the sexual abuse rumors
> were all lies. Did anyone check the older girl for evidence of sexual
> abuse? Probably not, as colposcopy of the vulva and vagina was not
> described at the time. How as the question of sexual abuse ruled out,
> Terry? Ron
Wife cut you off again?
terryh...@my-deja.com
Besides this abortion, MacDonald only sat for one polygraph. That was
for David Raskin.
There was supposed to be a CID polygraph exam but the government kept
"forgetting" to make arrangements. Later MacDonald was unwilling to
take a polygraph until he took the Raskin exam against the advice of his
lawyers.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
I don't know what he testified to without seeing the transcripts. The
only thing that Potter and Bost said was that he had no records of the
examination and could produce no record he had been paid.
terryh...@my-deja.com
It's typical of our courts. Justice for sale. Unfortunately for
MacDonald he didn't have the resources so he couldn't get the evidence
that was suppressed. Fortunately for OJ he could hire a jury consultant
that found jurors that didn't care what the evidence said.
MIRSE
>Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 05:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7mo8q2$rs1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> he had asked MacDonald, and why he asked those particular questions?
> I'm assuming he probably had no record of that either, but did he
recall?
> Thanks, Lori
I have no transcripts, Lori. All I know is that the questions were
entirely inappropriate on any basis.
Best, Terry
**********
Hallinan: Who chose Clive to give MacDonald the test? I thought it was the
defense lawyer Segal's choice. If the polygrapher was as bad as you claim,
then I don't understand why the defense lawyer Segal chose him to give the lie
detector test. Mi...@aol.com
Tammy P
>
>OK let's say Tammy is accused of strangling Dr. Ron because his ignorant
>statements are making all the MacDonald haters look bad. Tammy
>volunteers for a polygraph over the advice of Johnnie Cochran who has
>taken the case to show he can jive to white racist devils. The
>polygrapher tells Tammy she is lying when she says she doesn't screw
>donkeys.
>
>Does Tammy:
>
>A. Ask the operator how he knew?
>
>B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
>
>C. Paint her face black?
>
>D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
>
>E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
F. None of the above. <g>
Tammy
lbugb...@my-deja.com
> >Date: Thu, 15 July 1999 10:34 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <7mm5ob$2jk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
>
> > their glasses of left over chocolate milk before they left.
> > Mi...@aol.com
>
> Whose fingerprint was on the glass then Mirse? You fail to answer that
> question time and time again.
>
> ********
> Logan: Did you say the wife Colette and
> 5 year old Kimberly were ruled out as being the person who drank from
that
> glass? If they were ruled out, what is your source, so I can read it
for
> myself.
I know Colette was ruled out but i am not sure about Kimberly. Fatal
Justice.
> According to Fatal Vision, MacDonald gave 2 year old Kristen
chocolate
> milk in her bottle that night at her bedtime.
True.
At the very least, this means
> that MacDonald was either the first or second person who opened the
bottle of
> milk.
True.
It also means that MacDonald used the milk before one of the intruders
> drank some of it later, as claimed by the ProMacs.
> Mi...@aol.com
True.
You still didn't answer my clear and specific question. Whose
fingerprint was on the glass of chocolate milk?
Logan
Ronald Helm
> Hallinan: Who chose Clive to give MacDonald the test? I thought it was the
>defense lawyer Segal's choice. If the polygrapher was as bad as you claim,
>then I don't understand why the defense lawyer Segal chose him to give the lie
>detector test. Mi...@aol.com
It seems Segal made many tactical errors in the defense of JM...like
putting him on the stand. Ron
lbugb...@my-deja.com
> Sorry, but JM took a polygraph test shorty before his first civil
trial. He was
> deceptive to the relevant questions. Since it was done by a private
examiner at
> the request of his attorney, the results were never m ade public.
Do you have proof of this? Or do you just expect us to take your word
for it?
andrewsmom
>statements are making all the MacDonald haters look bad. Tammy
>volunteers for a polygraph over the advice of Johnnie Cochran who has
>taken the case to show he can jive to white racist devils. The
>polygrapher tells Tammy she is lying when she says she doesn't screw
>donkeys.
>
>Does Tammy:
>
>A. Ask the operator how he knew?
>
>B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
>
>C. Paint her face black?
>
>D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
>
>E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
>
>
Terry, I hope you are proud of yourself. You are a lovely person, a true
MacDonald advocate & a credit to your species.
Jimmy the Greek got fired for less.
Lori
andrewsmom
>only thing that Potter and Bost said was that he had no records of the
>examination and could produce no record he had been paid.
>
>Best, Terry
>
either, right?
Lori
andrewsmom
>MacDonald he didn't have the resources so he couldn't get the evidence
>that was suppressed. Fortunately for OJ he could hire a jury consultant
>that found jurors that didn't care what the evidence said.
>
>Best, Terry
>
don't want to be on two of your shit lists.
Lori
andrewsmom
>You still didn't answer my clear and specific question. Whose
>fingerprint was on the glass of chocolate milk?
>
>Logan
>
scene before it was secured. There could have been a couple (there was at
least one). As we all know, the CID bungled quite a bit & they were proven
liars when they stated the crime scene was well protected.
I can't understand how you pro-macs are so ready to ridicule the CID when it
suits your purpose, but believe in them totally whenever a piece of evidence
that exonerates MacDonald is produced. Either they screwed up or they
didn't. And if they did screw up, then we can't trust the milk glass and
it's unidentified fingerprint.
Lori
lbugb...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 08:27 AM EDT
> Message-id: <7mn8ft$dq0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> In article <19990716041153...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> > Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 03:40 AM EDT
> > Message-id: <7mmnm9$91b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> > In article <19990716015856...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> > jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> >
> > > Oviously the jury felt the same way.
> >
> > The jury didn't know about a bloody palmprint that could be matched
to
> > no one in the home. The jury did not know about bloody hairs torn
> from
> > two different killers under the fingernails of the little girls.
The
> > prosecution lied about the hair in Colette's hand that the
prosecution
> > said was too short to match though there had been efforts to match
it
> to
> > a number of people. The jury did not know about the many sightings,
> > about the fresh candlewax, about the bloody gloves, about many
things.
> >
> > The prosecutors didn't want the jury confused when they told them
that
> > there was no evidence of intruders. They hid the evidence from the
> > defense though it was against the law.
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> > Which dosent explain why the verdict has not been reversed as of
yet,
> > does it??
>
> Of course it does. Our courts are there to protect official
misconduct
> not demean it. As with yourself the courts do not readily admit
> grievous error.
>
> I note for the record you have not taken issue with the problem of
> evidence in the government's own files that blows the prosecution case
> out the window.
>
> Somehow I bet your conversations with your friends never got around to
> mundane things like bloody palmprints that were hidden away from
public
> view. I suspect you talked more about women and gossip as men usually
> do.
>
> Best, Terry
>
> ==============================
>
> The defense has a problem with their own evidence. They have railed
agsinst the
> prosecution, saying that the evidence was contaminated by the
numberous people
> wandering in th crime scene.
What evidence? There is no evidence against MacDonald.
Then they want to take the same scene and say...we
> have evidence that MacDonald didnt do it.
a bloody palmprint on a wooden surface, fingerprint on a glass, fresh
candle wax in key locations, hairs under victims fingernails and in a
victims hand, skin under a victims fingernail, black wool fibers on a
victims mouth and a murder weapon, blond wig hairs in a hairbrush,
multiple bloody gloves,etc.
None of this evidence could have come from people who were in the home
after the murders.
The only evidence i say was contaminated was blood spots on the floor.
Which obviously would be contaminated by over 200 boots or shoes
walking thru it. Pajama fibers on the floor would also be contaminated
by people walking over them.
Don't you think there is a difference in the two sets of evidence?
MIRSE
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 10:56 PM EDT
Message-id: <378ff0d1...@news.cgo.wave.ca>
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:22:35 GMT, terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>OK let's say Tammy is accused of strangling Dr. Ron because his ignorant
>statements are making all the MacDonald haters look bad. Tammy
>volunteers for a polygraph over the advice of Johnnie Cochran who has
>taken the case to show he can jive to white racist devils. The
>polygrapher tells Tammy she is lying when she says she doesn't screw
>donkeys.
>
>Does Tammy:
>
>A. Ask the operator how he knew?
>
>B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
>
>C. Paint her face black?
>
>D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
>
>E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
F. None of the above. <g>
Tammy
***********
Hallinan:
A. Ask the operator how he knew?
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 09:13 PM EDT
Message-id: <cNQj3.10422$xK4....@news3.atl>
I'm not arguing that, Terry. I would agree entirely that they are very
inappropriate questions to ask.
I just want to know if Backster admitted to asking these questions (or if we
have other proof that he did). Otherwise we only have JM's word to take for
it.
Lori
===============================
Clive Backster is the father of the Backster Zone of Comparison polygraph test.
It is designed as a single issue test that conists of four types of questions.
they are : (1) Irrelvant (2) relevant (3) control
(4) Symtomatic (outside issue).
One a single issue test, there is one, and only one main target area, and that
is usally a question that is a "Did you....." question.
Other tests may consist of (1) do you know for sure who..... (2) Where you
present when.... (3) and any secondary relevant. these questions are asked
only after the target question ( Did you....) is asked and the subject is NDI.
If there was any discussion about child molestatation, it would come deep into
the pre-test interview if disussed at all.
I seriously doubt if Backster, who has constantly set the highest of
professional standards in for polygraph examiners, would ask such questions
during the pre-test interview or durig the test. I seriously doubt is he would
do even at the instance of a defense attorney.
Unfortunatly, there is no way to veryify his participation in test that no one
wants to talk about.
Yours in Solidarity
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 09:26 PM EDT
Message-id: <7mom3a$7n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Best, Terry
============================
Having been involved in investigations of this nature during my career, I
would say that the issue of possible sexual molestation is a legitmate area of
concern.............. at the proper time.......
NOTE::: i said at the proper time.
This is not a contridiction to my statement that the questions regrading sexual
molestation were not proper during a homicide investigation.
Just suppose JM agreed to a polygraph test and I was the examiner.
If anyone is interested in how I would administer such an exam I will be happy
to tell you..otherwise I wont bore you.
Jigsaw
andrewsmom
>
>If anyone is interested in how I would administer such an exam I will be
happy
>to tell you..otherwise I wont bore you.
>
>Jigsaw
Well, duh, jigsaw, we've all been asking you this ('cept maybe Hallinan).
Please do go on.
Lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
When I hear a denial from the polygrapher who is being attacked, Lori, I
will listen. Until then all there is is de nile flowing along. I
suspect that the tall tales of MacDonald failing a polygraph originated
with Mr. Bachster but he had no records of any kind when hauled into
court and was not even paid.
If OJ's polygrapher had been brought into court, I reasonably expect he
would have screamed long and loud (and gotten a very attentive audience)
if he had been accused of the same thing as MacDonald's.
There is more than the self-interested claims of the defense. And then
there is the contra-indicator of Brian Murtagh claiming MacDonald
failed. Murtagh also knowingly claimed wool fibers on the club that
bludgeoned Colette MacDonald were cotton fibers from Jeffrey MacDonald's
pajamas. The guy sets a standard for lying that is hard to beat even
among lawyers.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
It isn't true that no one wants to talk about it.
Backster was called to testify in "MacDonald v. McGinniss." I find it
amazing that he had no records. Don't you, Jigsaw? I would love very
much to read his testimony. Wouldn't you defend yourself if you had
been falsely accused?
andrewsmom
test.
>It is designed as a single issue test that conists of four types of
questions.
>they are : (1) Irrelvant (2) relevant (3) control
>(4) Symtomatic (outside issue).
>
>professional standards in for polygraph examiners, would ask such
questions
>during the pre-test interview or durig the test. I seriously doubt is he
would
>do even at the instance of a defense attorney.
>
>Unfortunatly, there is no way to veryify his participation in test that no
one
>wants to talk about.
>
questions. (ie transcripts of Clive admitting same)
We know that JM states he was asked inappropriate questions.
That's all we have to go on.
As near as I can tell, Clive never admitted to asking inappropriate
polygraph questions. There is no tape of this polygraph.
JM could be lying his ass of for all I know.
Terry has me thinking this guy is a complete butt. Jigsaw, you seem to
indicate he is well respected in his field.
lori
terryh...@my-deja.com
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >OK let's say Tammy is accused of strangling Dr. Ron because his
ignorant
> >statements are making all the MacDonald haters look bad. Tammy
> >volunteers for a polygraph over the advice of Johnnie Cochran who has
> >taken the case to show he can jive to white racist devils. The
> >polygrapher tells Tammy she is lying when she says she doesn't screw
> >donkeys.
> >
> >Does Tammy:
> >
> >A. Ask the operator how he knew?
> >
> >B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
> >
> >C. Paint her face black?
> >
> >D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
> >
> >E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
> >
> >
> Terry, I hope you are proud of yourself. You are a lovely person, a
true
> MacDonald advocate & a credit to your species.
> Jimmy the Greek got fired for less.
> Lori
Jimmy the Greek got fired for promoting racism. And you think
lampooning racism is worse? Shame on you.
JIGSAW1695
Date: Sat, 17 July 1999 12:00 AM EDT
Message-id: <7mov5c$303$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Sorry, but JM took a polygraph test shorty before his first civil
trial. He was
> deceptive to the relevant questions. Since it was done by a private
examiner at
> the request of his attorney, the results were never m ade public.
Do you have proof of this? Or do you just expect us to take your word
for it?
Logan
===============================
trust me son, Im here to help you,
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 10:16 PM EDT
Message-id: <19990716221639...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
>From: terryh...@my-deja.com
>Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 05:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7mo8q2$rs1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
**********
Hallinan: Who chose Clive to give MacDonald the test? I thought it was the
defense lawyer Segal's choice. If the polygrapher was as bad as you claim,
then I don't understand why the defense lawyer Segal chose him to give the lie
detector test.
===============================
let me give you some insite into this.
First, you have to understand that a polygraph examiner who admisters a
polygraph test is legally considered to be working for that attorney, and
therefore anything he does is covered by the attorney-client relationship. This
has been tested in court many times and the court have consistantly held that a
work product developed by an agent for counsul is privilaged information.
Second... you would be surprised how many people hire an attorney, lay out
thousands of dollars and then lie to him or her regarding their involvement in
the incident. No attorney wants to be blindsides out of ignorence about the
case. No attorney likes to go into a trial blindfolded. He wants to know what
happen so he can prepare a defense for any possible contingency.
third..the tactics of an attorney are based on what knowldge he possesses
regarding the incident.
An attorney may have his client tested for several reasons 1) he wants to
verify statments made by his client that are contridictory to the evidence 2)
he wants to determine if his client can pass a polygraph test by the
prosecution.
No attorney in his right mind would allow his client to take a test without
being screened (unless of course the client is a total asshole who insists that
he take one for the police right away).
So the attorney calls his favorite examiner and scheduls a test. "This is what
I want he says..................." and the examiner runs an ethical test .
(There are examiners who have sold out and prostituted the results of their
test for financial gain unfortunatly).
3) Also, the attorney who has a polygraph examiner he has faith in,usually has
the examiner evaluate the subject as a witness.
the examiner can tell the attorney..."yea, he passed the test, but what ever
you do, dont put this guy on the stand. He answers questions without thinking,
he has a temper and would rather duel with who ever is asking him questions. He
could piss of Mother Theresa by just saying good moring".
4) or he may say... your client was decptive to all of the relevant questions.
what ever you do, do agree to a polygraph test by the prosecution.
the polygraph is an investigtive aide tha works equally well for the
prosecution of the defense.
If you will notice, the defense did not offer to let the proscecution
administer a polygraph test after Raskin ran his. Maybe they declined . Maybe
an offer was made with stipulations... like..."Hey Mr. Prosecutor..we will let
you test JM, but you have to ask only the questions we agree upon. If he passes
the test you drop the charges or petetion the court to reverse the sentence. If
he fails, you cannot use the results of the test against him. If he fails, you
cannot ask him any questions after the test,
Sounds like a one way street here.
Yours in Solidarity
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 11:06 PM EDT
Message-id: <37a7f300....@bpnews.bigplanet.com>
On 17 Jul 1999 02:16:39 GMT, mi...@aol.com (MIRSE) wrote:
> Hallinan: Who chose Clive to give MacDonald the test? I thought it was the
>defense lawyer Segal's choice. If the polygrapher was as bad as you claim,
>then I don't understand why the defense lawyer Segal chose him to give the lie
>detector test. Mi...@aol.com
It seems Segal made many tactical errors in the defense of JM...like
putting him on the stand. Ron
==============================
MacDonald may insisted on taking the stand.
terryh...@my-deja.com
The only absolutes are in the hereafter. One should look to the odds.
So you say if there is a chance, a chance mind you, that some unknown
person snuck in then he most certainly put his fingerprints on the
glass, put his bloody palmprint on the bed, got his hair - wait a
minute. It was a woman's fingerprint (probably) on the glass. Think a
woman would have been noticed among all the men? And it was two
different women (probably) that had hairs most likely torn out of their
arms by the little girls. Seems there were lots of people (mainly
women) that snuck in.
Actually the odds are against anyone outside the list having been inside
the apartment. But it is easy to throw generalizations around when one
does not wish to know.
JIGSAW1695
Date: Sat, 17 July 1999 02:37 AM EDT
Message-id: <7mp8b2$5bs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <19990717011902...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Subject: Re: Jeffrey MacDonald: Helena Stoeckley, what a liar!
> From: "andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 09:13 PM EDT
> Message-id: <cNQj3.10422$xK4....@news3.atl>
>
> I'm not arguing that, Terry. I would agree entirely that they are
very
> inappropriate questions to ask.
> I just want to know if Backster admitted to asking these questions (or
if we
> have other proof that he did). Otherwise we only have JM's word to
take for
> it.
> Lori
>
> ===============================
>
> Clive Backster is the father of the Backster Zone of Comparison
polygraph test.
> It is designed as a single issue test that conists of four types of
questions.
> they are : (1) Irrelvant (2) relevant (3) control
> (4) Symtomatic (outside issue).
>
> One a single issue test, there is one, and only one main target area,
and that
> is usally a question that is a "Did you....." question.
>
> Other tests may consist of (1) do you know for sure who..... (2)
Where you
> present when.... (3) and any secondary relevant. these questions are
asked
> only after the target question ( Did you....) is asked and the subject
is NDI.
>
> If there was any discussion about child molestatation, it would come
deep into
> the pre-test interview if disussed at all.
>
> I seriously doubt if Backster, who has constantly set the highest of
> professional standards in for polygraph examiners, would ask such
questions
> during the pre-test interview or durig the test. I seriously doubt is
he would
> do even at the instance of a defense attorney.
>
> Unfortunatly, there is no way to veryify his participation in test
that no one
> wants to talk about.
>
> Yours in Solidarity
>
> Jigsaw
It isn't true that no one wants to talk about it.
Backster was called to testify in "MacDonald v. McGinniss." I find it
amazing that he had no records. Don't you, Jigsaw? I would love very
much to read his testimony. Wouldn't you defend yourself if you had
been falsely accused?
Best, Terry
=================================
I have had several people ask for a polygraph test ho wanted no written record,
just verbal results and paid cash for the test.
Yours in Solidarity
Jigsaw
terryh...@my-deja.com
> > I seriously doubt if Backster, who has constantly set the highest of
> > professional standards in for polygraph examiners, would ask such
> questions
> > during the pre-test interview or durig the test. I seriously doubt
is
> he would
> > do even at the instance of a defense attorney.
> >
> > Unfortunatly, there is no way to veryify his participation in test
> that no one
> > wants to talk about.
> It isn't true that no one wants to talk about it.
>
> Backster was called to testify in "MacDonald v. McGinniss." I find it
> amazing that he had no records. Don't you, Jigsaw? I would love very
> much to read his testimony. Wouldn't you defend yourself if you had
> been falsely accused?
>
> Best, Terry
>
> =================================
>
> I have had several people ask for a polygraph test ho wanted no
written record,
> just verbal results and paid cash for the test.
Damn. I should have realized that. <hitting forehead>
Still I take it the second answer is yes since you avoided the question.
I had read about Backster since you mentioned his credentials. I don't
know what happened but obviously he has a reputation to defend and chose
not to. It is reasonable to guess that he couldn't defend his actions.
Most odd.
I would be glad to send a couple of dollars to a fund to polygraph the
polygrapher should he deny the accusations. :-}
IAC you haven't really denied Raskin's results while making a side
attack on his methodology. The one test we know about, Dr. MacDonald
passed with the best.
terryh...@my-deja.com
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
-
> If you will notice, the defense did not offer to let the proscecution
> administer a polygraph test after Raskin ran his. Maybe they declined
. Maybe
> an offer was made with stipulations... like..."Hey Mr. Prosecutor..we
will let
> you test JM, but you have to ask only the questions we agree upon. If
he passes
> the test you drop the charges or petetion the court to reverse the
sentence. If
> he fails, you cannot use the results of the test against him. If he
fails, you
> cannot ask him any questions after the test,
>
> Sounds like a one way street here.
Interesting discussion, Jigsaw, but you overlook some things. MacDonald
agreed to a polygraph by CID and CID reneged. MacDonald reluctantly
agreed to a truth serum test and Brian Murtagh reneged. The Rankins'
test was paid for by a tv show not under control of the defense and in
defiance of MacDonald's lawyers.
[You think Backster could really have been hired to see if he could
rattle MacDonald, Jigsaw, perhaps even to see how he might do at the
Army hearing?]
terryh...@my-deja.com
I would remind you, Lori, that it is you who is in denial about numerous
polygraphs taken by both Dr. MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley.
I would be delighted if Jigsaw would share his knowledge with us.
Best, Terry
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <7mpgbi$849$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
==================================================
good point!
Considered them denied.
I would like to see the charts, though.
Yours in Liberal Whatever,
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <7mph38$89o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
==============================
"rattle him" is not a term I would use. Maybe "practice", "condition" "train"
as well as determie tructor deception. Not being able to read the minds of
attorneys, I really dont know for sure.
On basic questions always ( at least it should be) during the pre-test
interview is;
"have you ever taken a polygraph test before".
Yours in Liberal Togetherness
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <7mphjs$8db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <EvUj3.10930$xK4....@news3.atl>,
"andrewsmom" <lmar...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Just suppose JM agreed to a polygraph test and I was the examiner.
> >
> >If anyone is interested in how I would administer such an exam I will
be
> happy
> >to tell you..otherwise I wont bore you.
> >
> >Jigsaw
>
> Well, duh, jigsaw, we've all been asking you this ('cept maybe
Hallinan).
> Please do go on.
> Lori
I would remind you, Lori, that it is you who is in denial about numerous
polygraphs taken by both Dr. MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley.
I would be delighted if Jigsaw would share his knowledge with us.
Best, Terry
===============================
<Blush> shucks folks....I would be glad to.
let me pull out my notes (Jigsaw then pulls out three large the ring notebooks,
a slide projector and a pitcher of beer)
Part one
Pre-test interview.
Miranda warning if appropriate. Polygraph test waiver, a hold-harmless
agreement, and notification in writing that he is here of hisown free will, and
who the results can be released to.
Nothing is off the record unless stated. This room is monitored both for audio
and video. The camera is there and the microphone is there.
Your attorney (is, is not) present and watching this test.
I would explain the nature of the test to him and tell him that he didnt have
to answer any questions if he didnt want to, that I wanted to make sure he
understood each and every question, and that it was his obligation to speak up
if he did not understand what I was asking or saying or to clarify any points.
Also, that he could discontinue the interview and polygraph examination any
time he or she desired, Just tell me you want to quit and and that will be it.
You can take a break anytime that you want to. (My interview consists of a five
pages of questions. Embedded in the form several times is the question about
wanting or needing a break.)
Also, I will not ask him any surprise questions on the test,
If the question has not been reviewed prior to the test, it will not be asked.
I may repeat a question, that is ask the same question two times during the
same test. Do not be alarmed if a test question is repeated because at one
point or another, I may do this.
On the third test, I will not ask the questions in the same order as the first
two tests. Once again, dont worry about this.
And then... this part covers the background of the subject. Name, DOB, POB,
race, sex, height weight, medical history, phsychological/psychiatric
treatement, martial status, military, alcohol and drug use and abuse,
medication usageage, arrest record, work record, addresses in the past ten
years, social security number,
and other relevent personal information.
Part two of the pre test interview would deal with "why are you hear" or what
events transpired prior to this polygraph examination that caused you to come
into my office.
Part three of the pre-test interview would cover the specifics of the crime
starting 24 hours prior to the actual time of the incident. (what did you do,
who was with you, how did you feel, what did you drink, what medication or
drugs,if any did you use.
Then the specifics of his or her involvement in the crime. I am curious to see
the incident from the subjects point of view because I always keep in mind that
the person may be telling the truth.
I like to start off with the interview question in this phase what are you
accused of doing?
Where you present when the incident occured...do you know who for sure who did
it...who do you think did it...did you do it... why do you think it
happened..if our seats were reveresed and you were me, and giving a polygraph
test about (the incident under investigation) what questions would you ask
during the polygraph examination? Why?
et al. Is there anything you would like to comment on, add to the discussion or
say
This could take anywhere from a half an hour to two hours or more with
appropriate breaks.
Take a break for ten minutes..go to the bathroom if you want..Sorry, no
smoking.
Then I would write out the questions for the test and review them with the
subject, making sure that they were clearly understood and rewording them if
necessary. for MacDoand the test could be designed one of two ways:
1, Is today __________?
1a. Did you give me your correct name?
2. Regarding the death of your wife and children, do you intend to answer all
of my questions truthfully during this test.
3. Is there something you are afraid I will ask you a question about even
though I told you I would not?
4. Before (date..the death of his wife and children..) did you intentionally
cause anyone serious physical harm.
5. Did you kill your wife Collette on the night of ____________?
6. Before your wifes death, were you ever involved in serious injuring someone
on purpose where they died?
7. Did you cause the death of your wife Collette by _____________ her..
8. Are you afraid that I will ask a question during this test that I havent
already reviewed with you?
9. Were you present when people broke into your home and killed your wife?
(maybe...... or some other question that is secondary to his direct
involvement)
10. Are we now in the state of ________________.
the test is run three time.One the last test,a fter review questions 11,12 and
13 are: Do you know for sure who killed you wife ; did you see anyone kill
your wife; and finally, did you kill your wife.
a variation of this test could be designed as follows:
1. Is today ______________.
2. Are we now in the state of ________________.
3. Do you know for sure who killed your wife Collette?
4. Is this the month of ______________
5. Did you kill your wife Colette on the night of__________?
6. Before (date of death of Collette) did you ever seriously injury anyone
through a physical attack.
7. Are we now in the state of__________________.
8. An evidence connecting question such as : did you have someone kill your
wife at yor request.
9. Were you born in the state of ______________-
test one, a zone of comparison is the prefereed test for a single issue test.
Possible Problems with the test that should be anticipated as well as thoughts
and considerations.
1. JM may display strong emothional feels prior to the test from remorse,
guilt or acting out.
2. He may have used medication or drugs prior to the test that he dosent want
me to know about.
3. He may have despised his wife and loved his children, therefore do not ask
about the death of the children on the first series of tests.
4. if he had someone helping him, he may have reserved the privalage of the
murder of his wife for himself.
5. JM may have agreed to take the test because he was not involved or because
he thinks he can "beat" it despite the fact that he in fact killed his wife.
6. He will probaby try to overwhelm me with his academic credentials as
well as he membership in an elite military unit.
7. Me may try to take control of the interview at an early time.
8. Evaluate JM as to whether he is falls into the categoy of emotional or
non-emotional offender. Tailor interview to same.
9. Always consider the simplest solution initially. Dont get involved in
bizarre plots. But listen to what JM has to say. If you listen close enough
with an unbiased ear, he will tell you if he is guilty or not during the prest
test interview phase.
Etc...etc.. feel free to ask questions and render critique (I know you will..I
have faith in you)
Jigsaw
terryh...@my-deja.com
> IAC you haven't really denied Raskin's results while making a side
> attack on his methodology. The one test we know about, Dr. MacDonald
> passed with the best.
>
> ==================================================
>
> good point!
>
> Considered them denied.
Then you tell me that Raskin's results are meaningless? Do you claim
the same of Honts?
> I would like to see the charts, though.
Why?
I am sure the test materials could be made available by contacting the
MacDonald Defense website.
The chart was independently scored by another polygrapher and by a
computer.
andrewsmom
>polygraphs taken by both Dr. MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley.
>
>I would be delighted if Jigsaw would share his knowledge with us.
>
>Best, Terry
>
yet about how much weight I am going to give them.
Lori
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <7mq3dg$cgn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> IAC you haven't really denied Raskin's results while making a side
> attack on his methodology. The one test we know about, Dr. MacDonald
> passed with the best.
>
> ==================================================
>
> good point!
>
> Considered them denied.
Then you tell me that Raskin's results are meaningless? Do you claim
the same of Honts?
> I would like to see the charts, though.
Why?
I am sure the test materials could be made available by contacting the
MacDonald Defense website.
The chart was independently scored by another polygrapher and by a
computer.
Best, Terry
============================
<sigh>
Since Dr. raskins tes does not use a control question, it cannot be scored
under acceptable norms.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
Jigsaw
terryh...@my-deja.com
If you are like most people you will ignore them when they conflict with
your bias. People trumpet polygraphs when they support whatever they
think but pay no attention when they conflict.
I personally believe polygraphs are very valuable - and sometimes not
very pretty - tool. They should be strictly controlled because they are
very dangerous. They are actually misused rather than being overused.
A horrible example is the test for honesty by employees that always
probed sexual activities. At least that has ended.
When a Dr. John Story can pass a lie detector test saying he raped no
one even though he raped dozens, maybe hundreds of women, I want to know
why. The answer was simple. Even though Dr. Story raped girls as young
as 5 and as old as 80 he convinced himself he was doing God's work in
raping mostly Mormon women. He was a devout Baptist. One need only
delve slightly beneath the surface of this psychopath. It was not the
nature of psychopathy but the nature of this pyschopath that allowed him
to pass.
Not all failures of lie detectors are solved so easily, of course. If
you insist that Dr. MacDonald is guilty, you have a multitude of
failures in tests on Dr. MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. Such is
possible. Just another strange coincidence? Could be. Don't you think
there are an awful lot of strange coincidences?
Ronald Helm
>I am sure the test materials could be made available by contacting the
>MacDonald Defense website.
Don't waste your time with the MacDonald Defense website or mailing
list. They would just say that this is a moot point and you need to
go somewhere else if you question their evidence. They are just
interested in "fresh leads" and "late breaking news". Ron
Nancy Rudins
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >Does Tammy:
> > >
> > >A. Ask the operator how he knew?
> > >
> > >B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
> > >
> > >C. Paint her face black?
> > >
> > >D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
> > >
> > >E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
> > >
> Jimmy the Greek got fired for promoting racism. And you think
> lampooning racism is worse? Shame on you.
>
This didn't come across as a lampoon. Perhaps next time
you might include the smiley faces.
Kind regards,
Nancy
Ronald Helm
>Having been involved in investigations of this nature during my career, I
>would say that the issue of possible sexual molestation is a legitmate area of
>concern.............. at the proper time.......
>NOTE::: i said at the proper time.
Whether the "proper time" was during a polygraph examination or not,
it is something that definitely should have been excluded at sometime
during the investigation...not just denied with blind faith like Terry
wants to do. Ron
Ronald Helm
>It seems Segal made many tactical errors in the defense of JM...like
>putting him on the stand. Ron
>
>==============================
>
>MacDonald may insisted on taking the stand.
Be that as it may, Segal should have vigorously fought against his
clients wishes to take the stand. OJ supposedly wanted to take the
stand in Trial#1, and I bet he wished his lawyer in Trial#2 had talked
him out of it also. Ron
Tammy P
>
>When a Dr. John Story can pass a lie detector test saying he raped no
>one even though he raped dozens, maybe hundreds of women, I want to know
>why. The answer was simple. Even though Dr. Story raped girls as young
>as 5 and as old as 80 he convinced himself he was doing God's work in
>raping mostly Mormon women. He was a devout Baptist. One need only
>delve slightly beneath the surface of this psychopath. It was not the
>nature of psychopathy but the nature of this pyschopath that allowed him
>to pass.
It is true that a polygraph will only reflect what the
subject *believes* to be true. By the time MacDonald took his first
polygraph, he had told his story, in detail, to numerous people. By
then he may well have convinced *himself* that intruders killed his
family and thus was able to pass the polygraph. When Susan Smith was
arrested, nine days after the death of her sons, she told a reporter
that she had told her "carjacker" story so many times over the
previous nine days that she almost believed it herself. Charles
Manson to this day still claims he had no involvement in the
Tate-LaBianca murders. I'll betcha if he took a polygraph today he'd
pass it.
Oh, and by the way, "Doc" was a superb book.
Tammy
Tammy P
wrote:
I know that the girls' autopsies showed no evidence
of sexual abuse at the time of their deaths, but would the autopsies
have been able to detect previous abuse? Just wondering.
Tammy
terryh...@my-deja.com
> Then you tell me that Raskin's results are meaningless? Do you claim
> the same of Honts?
>
> > I would like to see the charts, though.
>
> Why?
>
> I am sure the test materials could be made available by contacting the
> MacDonald Defense website.
>
> The chart was independently scored by another polygrapher and by a
> computer.
> Best, Terry
>
> ============================
>
> <sigh>
>
> Since Dr. raskins tes does not use a control question, it cannot be
scored
> under acceptable norms.
Ed Gelb, one of those you mentioned among the most outstanding
polygraphers in the nation, used to constantly lecture on the importance
of having an expert polygrapher. The criteria: membership in the
American Polygraphers Association.
Raskin is a most respected author and lecturer on polygraphy, is a
professor and is fully qualfied to practice in New Mexico. His
extensive writings and defense of polygraphy constantly stress the
calibration of the instrument.
And yet you deny there is calibration, Jigsaw, and refuse to address
results which, when you get around to it, is more important than any
doctrine. "Doesn't matter if he's right, his ideas are wrong" seems to
be Jigsaw's motto.
This seems an obvious argument over dogma.
terryh...@my-deja.com
Nancy Rudins <nru...@tao.ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 terryh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > >Does Tammy:
> > > >
> > > >A. Ask the operator how he knew?
> > > >
> > > >B. Throw herself on the mercy of the court?
> > > >
> > > >C. Paint her face black?
> > > >
> > > >D. Go on the Jerry Springer Show?
> > > >
> > > >E. Get Bill Clinton interested?
> > > >
> > Jimmy the Greek got fired for promoting racism. And you think
> > lampooning racism is worse? Shame on you.
> >
>
> This didn't come across as a lampoon. Perhaps next time
> you might include the smiley faces.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nancy
I am not overly fond of leftwing racism that lets a Johnnie Cochran
practice a racism as ugly as that of David Duke and pat him on the back
because he is only an inferior black man.
Raw racism is more common in the black community these days than in the
wilds of Idaho. I don't find patronizing it very appealing.
Did you notice Johnnie Cochran's use of the ethnic insult "devil" in the
OJ trial, Nancy? I bet there weren't many inner-city blacks that missed
it.
I see no need for smileys when referring to hate-mongers.
Ronald Helm
<nru...@tao.ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>This didn't come across as a lampoon. Perhaps next time
>you might include the smiley faces.
>
>Kind regards,
>Nancy
Terry has his "oons" confused. He is more a buffoon than a lampoon.
Ron
andrewsmom
>
>If you are like most people you will ignore them when they conflict with
>your bias. People trumpet polygraphs when they support whatever they
>think but pay no attention when they conflict.
>
no less, than each other piece of evidence.
>Not all failures of lie detectors are solved so easily, of course. If
>you insist that Dr. MacDonald is guilty, you have a multitude of
>failures in tests on Dr. MacDonald and Helena Stoeckley. Such is
>possible. Just another strange coincidence? Could be. Don't you think
>there are an awful lot of strange coincidences?
>
>Best, Terry
>
There are a lot of strange coincidences. There are also a lot of pieces
that don't fit in.
Lori
Ronald Helm
> I know that the girls' autopsies showed no evidence
>of sexual abuse at the time of their deaths, but would the autopsies
>have been able to detect previous abuse? Just wondering.
>
>Tammy
Not likely that a forensic pathologist, doing an autopsy on a brutally
butchered child would be meticulously examining the hymen or
fourchette for extremely subtle scarring that is now often only
detected by trained colposcopists. The answer is NO. Ron
terryh...@my-deja.com
> It is true that a polygraph will only reflect what the
> subject *believes* to be true. By the time MacDonald took his first
> polygraph, he had told his story, in detail, to numerous people. By
> then he may well have convinced *himself* that intruders killed his
> family...
This is the sort of nonsense that the For Flushers have to resort to to
explain their own lack of evidence and the problem of overwhelming
evidence of innocence.
Dr. MacDonald is completely normal.
Sociopaths like OJ cannot convince themselves of this supposed
innocence. OJ failed as such people do in spite of the sophistry of
Tammy.
Best, Terry
terryh...@my-deja.com
All fits fine, Lori, when you realize all the evidence points to Dr.
MacDonald's innocence. Those who support Dr. MacDonald do not refuse to
answer questions, do not repeat lies endlessly even though they have
been repeatedly refuted, do not pretend to have knowledge of the occult,
do not resort to the toilet down which all the evidence was flushed.
I like your "absence of evidence" proving guilt. That is rather unique.