Merged Jeffrey MacDonald did it. He really did.

[byn63]

Whatever Bost and Potter were other than authors of Fatal Joke is not the point henri. The POINT is that FJ is replete with errors, lies, misrepresentation, cut and paste nonsense. There is at least 1 error for every 5 pages of text. The point is that Fatal Joke is where you had to have read the "Kathy Bond did" error that you keep spouting as if it is the Gospel. Fatal Joke is not worth the paper it was printed on as a resource to FACTS in this case. Fatal Vision is the book with the truth from beginning to end. In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE error has been found.

 

[BStrong]

Bost and Potter were journalists.
Inconsequential chatter snipped...

Bost was in SF, so why isn't he suspect in your particular version of events? everybody connected to Bragg is generally referred to by you as a suspect in "C.I.A. drug smuggling" except Bost.

Any particular reason that he isn't a possible co-conspirator? Other than you agree with his conclusions?

 

[JTF]

The Reliability Of A Psychopath

Leave it to Henriboy to rely on the word of a psychopath. Inmate's 1988 letter to his defense team is a combination of ignorance and cherry-picking data to fit a specific narrative.

1) Inmate did not know that prior to Frier's analysis of the fibers in question, Shirley Green placed the two purple cotton fibers in a pillbox.

2) A year after inmate produced this letter, the FBI photographed the purple cotton fibers in the pillbox.

3) The photographs were taken for chain of custody purposes in preparation for an evidentiary hearing before Judge Dupree.

4) There is nothing nefarious about Morris Clark not mentioning the "crucial black wool findings."

- The two fibers differed in chemical composition and only one of the fibers was black

- Neither Clark nor the FBI listed all of the unsourced fibers on the trial summary sheet

- The jury did here testimony regarding numerous unsourced fibers being found at the crime scene

5) Frier didn't testify at trial because he could not find a source for any of the fibers in question.

6) Frier's notes do NOT refute Stombaugh's report that the two pajama seam threads were on slides.

7) Again, Shirley Green transferred the two pajama seam threads from slides to a pillbox.

8) Frier never analyzed the two pajama seam threads as evidenced by Green's notation "left as is."

9) The defense never came close to proving that Brian Murtagh "intentionally and knowingly suppressed" the finding of two unsourced dark woolen fibers.

10) Inmate brings forth two old chestnuts in this case.

- There is no hard evidence that the fragment found in Colette's hand was human skin

- There is an equal chance that the fragment was a piece of surgeon's glove

11) Type O blood CRUSTS, not blood transfer or spatter were found on Colette's hand.

12) What inmate fails to mention is that Kristen had Type O blood.

13) Despite his assertions to the contrary, sourced evidence carries far more weight than unsourced evidence.

14) Neither inmate nor his rotating band of lawyers came close to proving that the "fibers were known by Murtaugh [sic] to be black wool from outside the house."

15) Two years after inmate produced this letter, the government produced an affidavit from Michael Malone which included his opinion that the source of the dark woolen fibers was clothing worn by Colette and/or the children.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

Leave it to Henriboy to rely on the word of a psychopath. Inmate's 1988 letter to his defense team is a combination of ignorance and cherry-picking data to fit a specific narrative.

10) Inmate brings forth two old chestnuts in this case.

- There is no hard evidence that the fragment found in Colette's hand was human skin

- There is an equal chance that the fragment was a piece of surgeon's glove

Even if it was a piece of skin found under Colette's nails, it would have been most likely inmate's skin. (Since it is probable that Colette scratched inmate's chest when she ripped his pajama top at the start of the violent attack he made against her).

11) Type O blood CRUSTS, not blood transfer or spatter were found on Colette's hand.

12) What inmate fails to mention is that Kristen had Type O blood.

To add to this portion - there is also PLENTY of SOLID VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that Colette was on top of Kristen. The type O blood crusts also proves imho what I've said for years, Kristen was already dead or dying when Colette made it into her room.

1. Kristen's blood on Colette's had proves she had already been stabbed.
2. Colette's blood on the wall above Kristen's bed.
3. No sign that Kristen tried to get out from under her mother (or out of bed).

That says to me Kristen had already been stabbed and even if she was not yet dead, she was dying when inmate battered Colette on top of Kristen.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Whatever Bost and Potter were other than authors of Fatal Joke is not the point henri. The POINT is that FJ is replete with errors, lies, misrepresentation, cut and paste nonsense. There is at least 1 error for every 5 pages of text. The point is that Fatal Joke is where you had to have read the "Kathy Bond did" error that you keep spouting as if it is the Gospel. Fatal Joke is not worth the paper it was printed on as a resource to FACTS in this case. Fatal Vision is the book with the truth from beginning to end. In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE error has been found.

From what I have seen of the work of Potter and Bost they wrote sense about the MacDonald case, and they spoke only as to facts, and not to opinions, or fabricated and manufactured evidence. Joe McGinniss was a drunken Irish son of a bitch who cheated MacDonald for an FBI media campaign against MacDonald, so that there would be inaccurate newspaper reports, and TV reports, and internet reports about the MacDonald case.

It was proved in that McGinniss v MacDonald case in 1987 that McGinniss wrote the Fatal Vision book for the Bank of New England because he was in financial trouble at the time. The pivotal McGinniss theory without facts was that MacDonald was supposed to have done it in an amphetamine psychosis, which McGinniss admitted in court he didn't even believe himself. That matter of an amphetamine psychosis was never mentioned at the MacDonald trial.

This is part of what Jeff MacDonald has written about the matter in the past, and it's true. The MacDonald trial and appeals were unsafe verdicts:

McG had basically no defense, so his major defenses became an amalgam of several things. First, he countersued me, alleging I wasn't truthful with him (so therefore, he could be released from his contractual obligations). He alleged I cooperated with other journalists, thereby abridging my pact with him (the "exclusivity" clause). And McG alleged he hadn't stolen my money, but rather kept some funds aside, in a trust fund, when I sued him.

The trial was not a libel trial, since a person in prison essentially is libel-proof, libel being based on reputation. Neither was the trial supposed to be a rehash of my 1979 murder trial. The issue in court in 1987 was, did Joe McG civilly wrong me? Judge Rea, for instance, at Kornstein's urging, set a pretrial rule for neither side to attempt to re-argue the 1979 trial. His rule was promptly broken by Kornstein himself, in his opening statement to the jury, thereby unleashing 6 weeks of my efforts to refight the criminal trial of 1979, as well as fight the civil issues of 1987.

In my view, the real issue was extremely simple: was "Fatal Vision" a novel, or was it nonfiction, as McG claimed it to be? And, was I the monster portrayed by McG? It was my strong belief that for any good to come out of the civil trial, I had to prove "F.V." was a novel, and I had to prove McG created his monster out of whole cloth, to fulfill some need in McG himself, as well as to sell books and television movies.

 

[BStrong]

inconsequential opinion snipped

This is part of what Jeff MacDonald has written about the matter in the past, and it's true. The MacDonald trial and appeals were unsafe verdicts:

That's a whole new term for a individual being found guilty of murder.

Maybe it's the verdict of choice for California police departments?

 

[byn63]

I find it amazing that henri can look at a book like Fatal Joke and NOT SEE all of the errors, misrepresentations, cut and paste, and outright lies that fill that book. the fact is that if henri doesn't like a piece of evidence he calls it "manufactured". He cannot dispute the case using true, verifiable, corroborated, provable FACTS so instead he makes racist, mean-spirited, and ugly comments about JoeM, Brian M, Stombaugh, Dupree, Fox, etc. those comments really make me angry.......

 

[BStrong]

I find it amazing that henri can look at a book like Fatal Joke and NOT SEE all of the errors, misrepresentations, cut and paste, and outright lies that fill that book. the fact is that if henri doesn't like a piece of evidence he calls it "manufactured". He cannot dispute the case using true, verifiable, corroborated, provable FACTS so instead he makes racist, mean-spirited, and ugly comments about JoeM, Brian M, Stombaugh, Dupree, Fox, etc. those comments really make me angry.......

In the best tradition of attorneys without facts, he pounds the table.

 

[kali1137]

I find it amazing that henri can look at a book like Fatal Joke and NOT SEE all of the errors, misrepresentations, cut and paste, and outright lies that fill that book. the fact is that if henri doesn't like a piece of evidence he calls it "manufactured". He cannot dispute the case using true, verifiable, corroborated, provable FACTS so instead he makes racist, mean-spirited, and ugly comments about JoeM, Brian M, Stombaugh, Dupree, Fox, etc. those comments really make me angry.......

I feel the same. I am trying to figure out what his endgame or purpose is in posting here. Most who post are already aware of the facts and don't buy what he is selling. And those of us(at least myself)who came looking for the facts are so immediately turned off by his comments that we wouldn't take him seriously even before you guys prove how much he lies. So there is no win that I can see in continuing.

 

[JTF]

Burden Is On Inmate

KALI: Henriboy has been troll..., I mean, posting on true crime discussion boards for the past 13 years and his agenda has not changed one bit. He simply enjoys stirring the pot by imitating his hero, Ted Gunderson, and posting his special brand of thought disorganization.

The central focus for case researchers is on the details surrounding the never-ending legal machinations in this case. Similar to Henriboy's disjointed ramblings, inmate's rotating band of lawyers have simply morphed all of their previous claims into a singular ball of nothing.

This ball of nothing is entitled, hush, "new evidence of innocence." You know the drill... unsourced hairs, unsourced fibers, alleged confessions, unsourced candle wax, oh goodness, why is this man still in jail?

Once the dust settles on the Errol Morris/People Magazine hyperbole train, order is restored by journalists, appellate court judges and MacDonald case researchers who hammer home the FACT that ALL of the sourced evidence points to one perp and one perp only.

Sans the 4th Circuit judges having massive strokes, inmate is going nowhere fast. Despite having a soft spot for inmate, they cannot ignore the FACT that the burden of proof is now on inmate and that the burden is "daunting."

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[desmirelle]

Since Henri's from the UK, I wonder why he's not over defending family murderer Jeremy Bamber.....

 

[Henri McPhee]

Since Henri's from the UK, I wonder why he's not over defending family murderer Jeremy Bamber.....

I happen to think that the evidence against Jeremy Bamber is overwhelming, though I suppose he hopes to get out of jail on any lack of absolute certainty.

I agree that it's annoying, and even dangerous, for the guilty to go free. It must be frustrating for the police who have put in a lot of hard work on a case. The point is that it violates the rule of law for an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted because of a bad court, and biased trial judge, and foreman of the jury, and dishonest prosecutors and lab technicians and violent prejudice.

You decide according to the evidence, and not just opinions or appearances, or inaccurate newspaper reports, or because somebody has called MacDonald MacMurderer and McGuilty, or an inmate and baby killer. You don't disregard leads and suspects and you do a complete investigation. You should not be absurdly credulous and believe that McGinniss Fatal Vision book and TV movie.

This is part of what Jeff MacDonald thinks about the McGinniss Fatal Vision book:

McG's lies were vividly exposed when his trial answers - under oath - were compared and contrasted to his previous answers - some also under oath - in thirty-foot high blowups, projected on the courtroom wall.

[For instance, one very dramatic trial moment - one of the "Top Ten", so to speak - was when we had McG on the stand. My attorney, Gary Bostwick ("G.B."), had McG assure the trial jury that he - McG - had only made up his mind as to my innocence or guilt three long years after trial, after a soul searching time of intense investigation. G.B. immediately then, played for the jury a tape recording of McG in 1984, on a Los Angeles talk show, glibly telling the listeners he had "made up his mind the same time the jury did", that is, way back in 1979, and not 3 years later, as he had just stated. Hung on his own words, as it were. It was a startling moment in the trial - who was the liar was suddenly very clear - Joe McGinniss.

To compound his problem, McG's answer, incredibly enough, almost too good for a movie, to hearing his own voice, was "I can't be sure that is my voice". Courtly, white-haired Judge Rea, who was gazing off into space smiling, jerked his head around, stared at McG, and said, "Surely you recognize your own voice!". A powerful moment, indeed, forever putting in the jury's mind, McG's lack of truthfulness.] Anyway...now I want to very briefly outline for you the course of the entire trial.

 

[desmirelle]

Self-deleted to save the mods the trouble.......

 

[desmirelle]

<snip>
You decide according to the evidence, and not just opinions or appearances, or inaccurate newspaper reports, or because somebody has called MacDonald MacMurderer and McGuilty, or an inmate and baby killer. You don't disregard leads and suspects and you do a complete investigation. You should not be absurdly credulous and believe that McGinniss Fatal Vision book and TV movie family annihilator Jeffrey MacDonald.

<snip>

FTFY

 

[byn63]

In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE ERROR has been found in Fatal Vision. The same cannot be said of Fatal Joke or WOE. FACT! not opinion FACT

 

[Henri McPhee]

In all the years since its publication not one single SUBSTANTIVE ERROR has been found in Fatal Vision. The same cannot be said of Fatal Joke or WOE. FACT! not opinion FACT

That's simply not true. Dr. Sadoff testified that it was very, very unlikely, that there was an amphetamine psychosis, as Fatal Vision suggests, and that Dr. Sadoff was quite capable of detecting a psychopath when he saw one. His clinical judgment was that Jeff MacDonald is not a psychopath. The CID just thought polygraphs were 'foolproof' which is ridiculous.

This is part of what one of MacDonald's military lawyers, Malley, wrote in 1971:

As I recall, my first piece of advice was for Jeff to keep his big mouth shut. One of my enduring Princeton memories of Jeff is his outspokenness. To put it bluntly, Jeff used to come through walls when he got excited. I just didn't want Jeff ********ting with the CID, whom I had come to detest at Fort Bliss. I did not want them to get him angry or excited and have him without benefit of a lawyer, blurt out things that would hang him.

Jeff already had talked to the CID for 6 hours without a lawyer; he told them the truth, answered all their questions, and confounded the bastards thereby.

But lawyers believe in the trickiness of police too much, underestimate their stupidity, and therefore worry about the ability of even ( or more likely, especially) honest people to fend for themselves in the face of interrogation. I also told Jeff (accurately, as it turned out) that the CID was not interested in clearing things up any more, but only in prosecuting him; so if he did cooperate with them, he did so at his own risk.

 

[JTF]

Old News Is Bad News

Henriboy never misses an opportunity to mix and match timelines AND replace context with hyperbole. Malley's comments are fodder for inmate's advocates, but...

1) Little did Malley know that when he was creating this manifesto, the FBI was now involved in this case and that was bad news for his college buddy.

2) The FBI's involvement led to forensic analysis that was not available to the Army's lead attorney during the 1970 Article 32 hearings.

3) Malley is the only person on the planet who could listen to the 4/6/70 CID interview and conclude that inmate "confounded" CID investigators. The truth of the matter is that inmate performed so poorly during this interview that shortly after inmate left the building, Grebner/Ivory/Shaw concluded that inmate was a cold-blooded killer.

4) Malley leaves out the fact that after agreeing to take a CID administered polygraph, inmate left the building and called investigators 10 minutes later stating that he would not take the polygraph.
5) In his manifesto, Malley also doesn't say one word about his friend flunking a defense funded polygraph exam a mere month after the CID interview.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

 

[byn63]

That's simply not true. Dr. Sadoff testified that it was very, very unlikely, that there was an amphetamine psychosis, as Fatal Vision suggests, and that Dr. Sadoff was quite capable of detecting a psychopath when he saw one.

Yes Henri it IS TRUE. Dr. Sadoff's comments are irrelevant and apparently he couldn't detect a sociopath if he didn't find inmate to be such a one.

I said NO SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS have been found in Fatal Vision and that is the absolute truth. Since the amphetamine psychosis was brought up in an epilogue and was clearly pointed out as an untrained opinion whether inmate did or did not suffer from such a condition is irrelevant. IT is also irrelevant as to the veracity of Fatal Vision.

Dr.Hirsch L. Silverman was able to detect the psychopath inmate. And I quote:

MacDonald is a psychopath subject to violence under pressure, rather effeminate, given to overt behavior when faced with emotional stress. Sociopathic individual with troublesome psychopathy with an overlay of submerged and confused sexuality.

Despite his hedonism he seems self-destructive, nairve, superficial and even illogical at times. Seeks freedom and emancipation for personal removal from constraint, controls, and restrictions.

He seeks attention and is given to denial of truth. Is seriously emotional and gives evidence of secretiveness with questionable moral standards. He is detailistic and lacks insight in seeing the gestalt, the whole quality of things and events and persons, as well as circumstances.

 

[Henri McPhee]

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com[/url]

Polygraphs are far from accurate. Lin Wood, the Ramsey lawyer in the JonBenet case would not allow the Ramseys to take an FBI polygraph after the experiences of the wrongfully convicted Olympic Atlanta 1996 bomber case, where there was a biased and inaccurate FBI polygraph.

Colonel Rock at the Article 32 was fair and just, until the FBI came in with their FBI media campaign, and fake news, and Malone of the FBI with his dolls theory without facts and Stombaugh of the FBI who only said it could be and the same with the threads, and Shirley Green's "conceptually unsound" pajama folding experiment, and the psychiatrist Silverman with his false psychiatric testimony.

The matter was discussed with the polygraph man Backster at the McGinniss v MacDonald trial in 1987:

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Mr. Backster, the polygraph instrument is not an infallible device for telling truth and falsity; is it?
A No, it is not.
Q And sometimes when people are telling the truth, it indicates that they are being deceptive; does it not?
A On issues that are not intense, I would say that there is a possibility certainly of that happening.
Q And in fact the accuracy rate in terms of whether a lie detector test can tell whether someone is lying or not varies between maybe 70 to 90 percent; isn't that correct?
A The figures you're mentioning relate to laboratory studies, not field studies.
Q But isn't it correct?
A That laboratory studies do show, or that it could be as low as 70 percent or as high as 90 percent, yes, that's correct.
Q And that you have no way, as a polygrapher, of telling when the error occurs or doesn't occur; isn't that correct also?
A We can work on probability, and there is a scale to tell you the probability of your accuracy, depending on the intensity of the case, the adequacy of your case information, and the distinctness of the issue that you're pursuing.
Q Isn't it true that the questionable accuracy of polygraph examinations is one reason that it's not admitted in criminal trials in federal courts?

MR. KORNSTEIN: Objection, your Honor. Calls for legal conclusion.

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, I don't think --

THE COURT: Let's find out if he knows, first of all. Do you know about this subject?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I can talk about it.

THE COURT: All right. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: What was your question again, Counselor?

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Isn't it true that the questionable accuracy of polygraph examinations is one of the reasons that it is not allowed as evidence in federal courts?
A I would state that it would relate more to the questionable qualifications of the polygraph examiners than it would the technique itself.
Q Have you, as a polygraph examiner, ever testified in a criminal case in which your polygraph results were admitted in evidence?
A Absolutely.
Q How many times?
A Ah, I can -- I have an itinerary of my cases; but I've been the chief witness for the Department of Justice on several occasions and also for major defense attorneys in federal court where the -- are you talking of when I've testified concerning my own case results, or where I've testified in regard to anyone's results in federal court?
Q No, your own case results.
A May I look at my notes for that?
Q Certainly.
A Well, I helped with laying foundation in the Medina case, which was the United States vs. Medina in the Mai Lai massacre case.
Q When you say you helped in laying a foundation, are you saying that the evidence was admissible?
A Yes, it was.
Q And are you saying that it was not reversed on appeal?
A No, it was not, no.
Q Any others?
A Yes. United States vs. Zeiger (phonetic) case in 1972.
Q Was that admitted?
A Yes, it was.
Q Was it reversed on appeal?
A Not to my knowledge, it wasn't. And the U.S. vs. DeLorean case, I was quite active as the chief government witness in that in the polygraph phase of the trial; it was a 19-day preliminary hearing on polygraph admissibility, and at the end of that the defense's polygraph results were discounted; and then the government did not choose to go ahead with theirs which was supported by testimony. And there are a number of others. I don't have a complete listing with me; but by stipulation, the test can be admitted quite often, in fact, if both sides agree in advance, which would seem to be a reflection that the technique can be accurate and --
Q As long as both sides agree; isn't that correct?
A Yes, if both sides agree.

MR. KORNSTEIN: Objection. Counsel is interrupting the witness.

THE COURT: Yes. Let him finish his answer.

THE WITNESS: -- that -- it would seem to be a reflection that the technique is accurate; but the problem is, do you have a qualified examiner.
Q Now, you've named three times in 39 years you've been practicing that you can recall that it has been admitted into evidence when you have testified.
A If you'd like more, I can look in another folder.
Q Do you know the number?
A I beg your pardon?
Q Do you know the number?
A I would say maybe ten occasions.
Q Ten occasions?
A Yes.
Q And how many times have you testified?
A Well, between 40 and 50 occasions.
Q Are you aware of an article in Hastings Law Journal, known as the -- or titled "The Deceptive Certainty of the Lie Detector"?
A No, I'm not acquainted with that particular article.

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, we'd like to -- the Court to take judicial notice of the case of Brown vs. Darcey, 783 F. 2d, 1389, Ninth Circuit 1986.

THE COURT: I'll take judicial notice of it.

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q When you said that Dr. MacDonald was, in your opinion, deceptive on the questions, could you tell from the results of the test whether any one answer was a true answer or a false answer?
A Well, in the polygraph testing procedure where it is adequately applied, the person to the control questions will attempt deception; but the deception will not show in the typical way, because the person is focusing on that block of time containing the relevant question that will be most injurious to them if it leads the investigation in a certain way.
Q As to the nine or ten questions that you asked him that you said were the specific questions on the subject, could you tell whether Dr. MacDonald was telling the truth or was not telling the truth on each question?
A Each of the relevant questions, I could.
Q You could tell that?
A Yes.
Q And on each of those questions, it was your opinion that he was being deceptive?
A That is correct.
Q Now, isn't it true that extreme emotional tension can affect the reliability of lie detector exams?
A The problem with emotional tension during a polygraph examination was the reason for the introduction by John E. Reid of the reviewed control question procedure. This was introduced, oh, way back in 1948. It took quite a while for the field to start applying that concept. But the purpose of the control question was to allow the person to focus nervous energy on that question that would involve uncertainty or deception about a background area, so that they would not falsely show to the relevant questions. So that is the prime purpose of the control question.
Q But isn't it true that extreme emotional anxiety or tension can affect the results of polygraph tests?
A It could produce general nervous tension, which would produce an inconclusive result.
Q And isn't it also true that respiratory disorders will also affect the results of a polygraph test?
A Well, disorders of this type would equally affect the control question and the relevant question. They would not be selective in nature. So they are not a problem.
Q You're saying that respiratory problems play no part whatsoever, because the control questions will neutralize whatever problems a person has that is taking a lie detector test?
A Well, anything that was a defect in regard to medical problems would equally affect both control questions and relevant questions, which would produce, again, an inconclusive result. You would not get a focusing or a flow.
Q Well, are you trying to say that, in fact, there are no errors in the lie detector test?
A No, I'm not saying that at all.
Q What causes the errors in the lie detector test?
A An incompetent examiner would be one reason; a case that did not qualify for the optimum use of the polygraph, that didn't meet the criteria as far as the three requirements that I mentioned before were concerned; the adequacy of case information upon which to formulate your questions; the strength of issue and the distinctness of issue.
Q I'd like to read to you from the case that the judge just took judicial notice of. It says that "Respiratory problems and high stress levels will affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination." You don't disagree with that; do you?
A If the judge meant that --

THE COURT: Wait just a minute. Let's clarify this now. I don't know who -- is that a witness' testimony or what is that quote?

MR. BOSTWICK: Your Honor, that is from the case itself, the opinion by Judge Cynthia Hall and the citing of the article by Heileman on the deceptive certainty of the lie detector.

THE COURT: Are these her words?

MR. BOSTWICK: These -- two things. First, they are her words describing a witness, an expert witness' testimony upon which the opinion relies, and her words describing the results of an article in the Hastings Law Journal which is footnoted.

THE COURT: Very well. All right.

THE WITNESS: What was your question, please?

BY MR. BOSTWICK:
Q Are you disputing the fact that respiratory problems and high stress levels can affect the accuracy of a polygraph examination?
A They can create inconclusive results.
Q But that they cannot affect the accuracy?
A They would not affect error; they would create inconclusive results where the charts could not be properly interpreted.
Q Have you ever made a mistake in conducting a polygraph exam?
A I'm sure I have; but I'm also sure that it has not been brought to my attention, where it is a case that qualifies, as far as the reliability estimate and rating is concerned, as in a case of a triple murder.
Q But you don't know of any errors you've made; is that right?
A In a case of that quality, I know of none that's been brought to my attention.
Q Do you know of any errors you've made in 39 years of conducting polygraph exams?
A Yes. I'm sure I have.
Q Do you remember any of them?
A Oh, not offhand. I guess they are the things you try to forget, but they were inconsequential cases.
Q You didn't bring a list of those with you?
A No, no. I don't carry that with me.
Q Were you aware of the fact that when you took Dr. MacDonald's examination, that he was still suffering from a collapsed lung?

 

[BStrong]

Polygraphs are far from accurate. Lin Wood, the Ramsey lawyer in the JonBenet case would not allow the Ramseys to take an FBI polygraph after the experiences of the wrongfully convicted Olympic Atlanta 1996 bomber case, where there was a biased and inaccurate FBI polygraph.

Background noise snipped...

Swing, and a miss.

Richard Jewell was never even charged, let alone convicted.

You truly are a creature of habit. Your casual relationship with the truth seems to be congenital.