TH's polygraphs

[desquire]

I know I am inviting flames here but let me go out on a limb and say that the fact that Terri voluntarily sat through two polygraphs tells us much more than the fact that she supposedly "failed" one or more of them. Most investigators will say that the real value of polygraphs is that people actually believe they can detect lies and therefore will make statements or admissions while hooked up to the machine that they wouldn't make in and ordinary interview. And even though the polygraph itself is not admissible in court because it is generally deemed unreliable, any statements or admissions that a person makes during the polygraph session can be used by the prosecutors at trial.

Everyone know that a polygraph just measures the physiological indicators that can change in response to anxiety on the theory that deception will be accompanied by some level of anxiety. But often it can be the nature and/or the manner of questioning that produces the anxiety, not the answer. We know that the questions put to Terri were so upsetting to her that she went home and vented about them and even walked out, so I'd be shocked if those polygraphs DIDN'T show indications of anxiety. Yet she still showed up to go throuigh the process 3 times. So the question is: is it more likely that a guilty Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back she'd eventually fool the machine or that an innocent Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back the machine would clear her?

 

[Morag]

I know I am inviting flames here but let me go out on a limb and say that the fact that Terri voluntarily sat through two polygraphs tells us much more than the fact that she supposedly "failed" more than one of them. Most investigators will say that the real value of polygraphs is that people actually believ e they can detect lies and therefore will make statements or admissions while hooked up to the machine that they wouldn't in and ordinary interview. And even though the polygraph itself is not admissible in court because it is generally deemed unreliable, any statements or admissions that a person makes during the polygraph session can be used by the prosecutors at trial.

Everyone know that a polygraph just measures the physiological indicatiors that can change in response to anxiety on the theory that deception will be accompanied by some level of anxiety. But often it can be the nature and/or the manner of questioning that produces the anxiety, not the answer. We know that the questions put to Terri were so upsetting to her that she went home and vented about them and even walked out, so I'd be shocked if those polygraphs DIDN'T show indications of anxiety. Yet she still showed up to go throuigh the process 3 times. So the question is: is it more likely that a guilty Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back she'd eventually fool the machine or that an innocent Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back the machine would clear her?

Would this potentially fall under "conscious of innocence" behaviour? And, she had no attorney.

ETA- Please note that I don't think having an attorney indicates guilt! And I hate the term "lawyered up".

 

[Calliope]

I know I am inviting flames here but let me go out on a limb and say that the fact that Terri voluntarily sat through two polygraphs tells us much more than the fact that she supposedly "failed" one or more of them. Most investigators will say that the real value of polygraphs is that people actually believe they can detect lies and therefore will make statements or admissions while hooked up to the machine that they wouldn't make in and ordinary interview. And even though the polygraph itself is not admissible in court because it is generally deemed unreliable, any statements or admissions that a person makes during the polygraph session can be used by the prosecutors at trial.

Everyone know that a polygraph just measures the physiological indicators that can change in response to anxiety on the theory that deception will be accompanied by some level of anxiety. But often it can be the nature and/or the manner of questioning that produces the anxiety, not the answer. We know that the questions put to Terri were so upsetting to her that she went home and vented about them and even walked out, so I'd be shocked if those polygraphs DIDN'T show indications of anxiety. Yet she still showed up to go throuigh the process 3 times. So the question is: is it more likely that a guilty Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back she'd eventually fool the machine or that an innocent Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back the machine would clear her?

Good point.

 

[Krisy]

Would LE even tell Terri if she passed/failed right after that test?

So maybe the "venting" about the polys was just that...not whether she passed/failed.

 

[eyes4crime]

I know I am inviting flames here but let me go out on a limb and say that the fact that Terri voluntarily sat through two polygraphs tells us much more than the fact that she supposedly "failed" one or more of them. Most investigators will say that the real value of polygraphs is that people actually believe they can detect lies and therefore will make statements or admissions while hooked up to the machine that they wouldn't make in and ordinary interview. And even though the polygraph itself is not admissible in court because it is generally deemed unreliable, any statements or admissions that a person makes during the polygraph session can be used by the prosecutors at trial.

Everyone know that a polygraph just measures the physiological indicators that can change in response to anxiety on the theory that deception will be accompanied by some level of anxiety. But often it can be the nature and/or the manner of questioning that produces the anxiety, not the answer. We know that the questions put to Terri were so upsetting to her that she went home and vented about them and even walked out, so I'd be shocked if those polygraphs DIDN'T show indications of anxiety. Yet she still showed up to go throuigh the process 3 times. So the question is: is it more likely that a guilty Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back she'd eventually fool the machine or that an innocent Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back the machine would clear her?

Great post! I've done some research on polys and the results rely heavily on the repor the examiner develops with the subject (Terri). Teri hasn't been described as a 'social' person, that may have been one of the problems. Sound to me, the examiner failed to develop trust and a friendly interaction with Terri. We don't know what medications Terri may have been on, waiting 10 days may have been a result of what she was told the first time around.

Finally, these polys are meaningless. If she had passed all, I'm sure people everywhere would be saying how meaningless and irrelevant they are.

Why anybody would take even one is beyond me. A person can be completely innocent and be inconclusive or fail. In addition, LE can tell you what ever results they want...they can say 'fail' when a person 'passed'. I think Terri took a poly after being interrogated for hours. That alone is highly questionable. This case is a mess. mho

 

[mmmagique]

I know I am inviting flames here but let me go out on a limb and say that the fact that Terri voluntarily sat through two polygraphs tells us much more than the fact that she supposedly "failed" one or more of them. Most investigators will say that the real value of polygraphs is that people actually believe they can detect lies and therefore will make statements or admissions while hooked up to the machine that they wouldn't make in and ordinary interview. And even though the polygraph itself is not admissible in court because it is generally deemed unreliable, any statements or admissions that a person makes during the polygraph session can be used by the prosecutors at trial.

Everyone know that a polygraph just measures the physiological indicators that can change in response to anxiety on the theory that deception will be accompanied by some level of anxiety. But often it can be the nature and/or the manner of questioning that produces the anxiety, not the answer. We know that the questions put to Terri were so upsetting to her that she went home and vented about them and even walked out, so I'd be shocked if those polygraphs DIDN'T show indications of anxiety. Yet she still showed up to go throuigh the process 3 times. So the question is: is it more likely that a guilty Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back she'd eventually fool the machine or that an innocent Terri stupidly thought that if she kept going back the machine would clear her?

No flames here, great comments and questions.
However, there are many, many egotistical criminals who think (and are sometimes correct) that they can fool a lie detector.
I believe she honestly had no choice but to take a lie detector, whether guilty or innocent; if your step child disappeared, and you were the last known person to see him/her, you can bet your patootie your spouse is going to expect you to hurry up and take that test so that LE can start looking for the "real" criminal.
I don't know whether she passed or failed, so can't comment on that. Perhaps the answers were actually inconclusive...the only ones who can clear that up is LE, and they're not talking!

 

[desquire]

Would this potentially fall under "conscious of innocence" behaviour? And, she had no attorney.

ETA- Please note that I don't think having an attorney indicates guilt! And I hate the term "lawyered up".

I think volunteering to take a polygraph is the classic example of consciousness of innocence, right up there with failure to flee the scene. Now that you've mentioned it, I need to research whether the Oregon Jury Instructions include a consciousness of innocence instruction.

 

[AbbieNormal]

Bean,

Great thread. After reading this case 7 days a week, hours a day since it began I have only one question.

Are these margaritas really strong?

Bean,

I also have a very important question. Are they frozen, slushy, and could I possibly get a salted rim? Thanks much-

abbie

 

[STEADFAST]

Now you would think this was a simple question, right? When I happened across it while cruising the net a few days, I couldn't imagine why the question was even posed. YES! I thought to myself. Of course she did! Don't you read the news?

Following the link where the question had come up in Google led me to a page where the question didn't appear, so I forgot about it for a few days. Then something posted somewhere herein got me to realize that I couldn't remember which poly Terri had walked out of and not actually taken, so off I went Googling to find that, and as I read interview after interview, I found that Kaine never says that Terri failed the third poly. Yeah. I hate when that happens.

So I posted the question in the Q&A thread, thinking surely someone would have a link to an interview I just wasn't thinking of, but that hasn't happened, and it's driving me crazy, so I'm creating this thread.

Well okay, so that's not all there it is to it.

The rest of it is that there's an article that says a source says that Terri was "evasive" on a poly, and that's got me wondering if maybe rather than fail that third poly, the results were actually Inconclusive versus Passed or Failed. Not that Inconclusive means "evasive" at all - it means, actually, no opinion. That is, the examiner is able to determine neither truth nor deception on one or more poly answers, and therefore chooses to render no opinion either way. It's a big fat I Don't Know.

And the other part of the rest of it is that Desiree does, in one (and only one) interview say that Terri failed two polys, but the thing is, I don't know where she would have gotten that from. See, I did find one interview with Kaine where he says Terri came home from the third poly and vented to all who were there. (Not vented that she failed, mind you, because he never says she failed the third poly, but just that on that third one, she vented.)

So off I went looking some more (I really wish I wouldn't do it) to see if there was anything that might indicate that Desiree was there when Terri got home from the third poly, and might have heard Terri say that LE told her she failed, but... well, that didn't work out so well. In fact, it just added to my bafflement.

Because what I found was that on the day that Terri took poly #3, there was a People reporter at the house. And not only does the People reporter indicate that Desiree wasn't there, but the People reporter indicates that Terri didn't vent. You know, in front of Kaine. Or anybody.

So. Here I am starting this thread in hopes that my good fellow sleuthers will, as always, put their best efforts towards helping me figure out whether or not Terri failed that third poly.

I've got some source reference links, as well as some lovely Margaritas and platters of tasty snacks coming up in just a sec.

Thanks,
BeanE

Yes, I learned a lot about inconclusive polygraphs from the Smiths (Gabriel Johnson case). Of course, at the time, I thought they were talking a bunch of rot, but maybe not?

NG:You took a polygraph voluntarily. You did not pass, you did not fail. Your polygraph was inconclusive. Jack Smith, why?

JACK SMITH: Well, they told us pretty much that that`s what would happen. We would either fail or we would -- that would happen because I guess they have to examine how the questions were asked and all that. But we did, however, get a call that a high-ranking official at the Tempe Police Department said to one of the reporters off to the side that it`s clear we have no idea where Gabriel is.

GRACE: What about it, Tammi?

TAMMI SMITH: Same thing. I pretty much have the same thing as his comment. But I was also told by the examiner that every time that he said the word "Gabriel," he could tell that we had an emotional response to it and that that could possibly cause it to come out inconclusive, and which it did. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/11/ng.01.html

I'd say "evasive" means Terri was being evasive. Strange that she would be evasive when answering questions about her step-son's disappearance.
You'd think she'd answer questions directly and give as much information as possible, not try to evade the question. Hmmmm . . . I don't think evading the questions is a way to pass a polygraph.

 

[pufnstuf]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't put much stock in polygraphs or voice analysis, or any of these pseudoscience exams anyway. Not in the Haleigh Cummings case, not in the Gabriel Johnson case, not in any of them.

It reminds me too much of cupping, or phrenology, or miasmas, or any of the silly pseudoscience theories from centuries ago.

There's so much more in this case that points to Terri being behind Kyron's disappearance, that the polygraph really isn't even a consideration to me.

 

[eyes4crime]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't put much stock in polygraphs or voice analysis, or any of these pseudoscience exams anyway. Not in the Haleigh Cummings case, not in the Gabriel Johnson case, not in any of them.

It reminds me too much of cupping, or phrenology, or miasmas, or any of the silly pseudoscience theories from centuries ago.

There's so much more in this case that points to Terri being behind Kyron's disappearance, that the polygraph really isn't even a consideration to me.

Hey puffy, I knew one day we would agree on something! :yes:

ETA: I'm referring to the uselessness of the polys!

 

[wondering1]

I think volunteering to take a polygraph is the classic example of consciousness of innocence, right up there with failure to flee the scene. Now that you've mentioned it, I need to research whether the Oregon Jury Instructions include a consciousness of innocence instruction.

I don't think she volunteered in the true sense of the word. I think if she had refused and/or hired Houze right off the jump, everyone in the family and LE would have perceived her as DEFINITELY guilty right away, rather than gradually over a period of time. I'm sure she recognized that and took the poly because there was no way to avoid it and maintain innocence in the eyes of those around her. If she's guilty of a crime of this nature, I'm guessing she felt there was a chance she could beat the poly. Or, if not, she could explain it away and/or turn herself into the victim.

If she took it because she's innocent, it would have been really great if she could have passed one -- assuming that LE isn't just yankin' her chain on that. Just my thoughts.

 

[eyes4crime]

I don't think she volunteered in the true sense of the world. I think if she had refused and/or hired Houze right off the jump, everyone in the family and LE would have perceived her as DEFINITELY guilty right away, rather than gradually over a period of time. I'm sure she recognized that and took the poly because there was no way to avoid it and maintain innocence in the eyes of those around her. If she's guilty of a crime of this nature, I'm guessing she felt there was a chance she could beat the poly. Or, if not, she could explain it away and/or turn herself into the victim.

If she took it because she's innocent, it would have been really great if she could have passed one -- assuming that LE isn't just yankin' her chain on that. Just my thoughts.

How did the poly get elevated to the point of assigning guilt? IMO it's an assignment of guilt that has NO merit. How unfortunate people are not aware of this.

According to NG, if someone fails a poly, they belong on death row. I'm sorry, but that's uneducated thinking! moo

 

[nursebeeme]

legal definition of "evasive answer":

an answer by a defendant that fails to admit or deny the allegations set forth in the complaint

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evasive answer

 

[eyes4crime]

legal definition of "evasive answer":

an answer by a defendant that fails to admit or deny the allegations set forth in the complaint

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evasive answer

Does that definition hold true on polygraphs?

ETA: The polygraph machine can't measure deception or evasiveness - it measures physiological responses like the heart rate, blood pressure, and pulse. My blood pressure goes up just seeing my doctor, not because he's good looking but because I get nervous.

How about the person who took a No Doz the night before to complete a project and a couple Excedrin, and had 2 cups of coffee in the AM before going in for the poly. If not used to caffeine, that person would have no idea why he/she failed or was said to be evasive on a poly. Just wondering - how does a machine measure evasiveness? TIA

 

[wondering1]

How did the poly get elevated to the point of assigning guilt? IMO it's an assignment of guilt that has NO merit. How unfortunate people are not aware of this.

According to NG, if someone fails a poly, they belong on death row. I'm sorry, but that's uneducated thinking! moo

bbm~

It didn't -- by me, anyway. But I think FOR SURE that's the way DY, TY and KH would have perceived it. And I also think FOR SURE that TH knew that and wasn't willing to put herself in that position. And I think, rightly or wrongly, it would have influenced LE to a certain extent as well. They don't use poly's for nothing and they don't like *uncooperative* witnesses, either.

Just to clarify, I personally don't think it looks great to fail a poly, but I also know that they're not perfectly reliable -- otherwise they'd be admissible. I also think that I could be capable of failing a poly myself just because of my personality. Again, this is just to clarify where my posts are coming from. I wouldn't conclude that TH is guilty from a failed poly, but I'll admit that alone does make me suspicious. I AM NOT saying that they're conclusive proof of guilt in my mind.

 

[nursebeeme]

Does that definition hold true on polygraphs?

sigh... I don't know???

Just giving the definition I found since it was used to describe her performance in the polygraph

 

[BeanE]

legal definition of "evasive answer":

an answer by a defendant that fails to admit or deny the allegations set forth in the complaint

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evasive answer

Well, we don't have a defendant in this case. And we don't know if the source who used the word "evasive" has a legal background, or really why they chose the word "evasive" at all.

And that's why that word has my interest. When talking about passing a poly, I think most people would use the words "pass" and "truth". When talking about failing a poly, I think most people would use the words "Fail" and "lie". Words along those lines.

So knowing how 'inconclusive' is often misunderstood, and taken for a failure or indication of lying, I'm thinking - guessing really - that the source's choice of the word "evasive" just might their way of describing an inconclusive result.

I know in Gabe's case, an unbelievable number of people (not talking about WS here - just people in general) were practically insistent that Tammi Smith's Inconclusive was a failed test, or indicative of her lying, or indeed, indicative of her being evasive. And that's just not what an inconclusive test means.

 

[nursebeeme]

Does that definition hold true on polygraphs?

ok... in looking around I found this:

Q: How does a polygraph work?
A: A polygraph examination is a complicated procedure that measures and records several physiological responses such as blood pressure, pulse, respiration, breathing rhythms, body temperature and skin conductivity while the subject is asked and answers a series of questions; untruthful or evasive answers will produce distinctive measurements the examiner can detect. The polygraph also measures physiological changes caused by the sympathetic nervous system during questioning.


http://stevenspolygraph.com/FAQ.aspx

***note there were many other links on this same topic (evasive answers on polygraphs) on google***

***further note again the legal definition of evasive answer: an answer by a defendant that fails to admit or deny the allegations set forth in the complaint

 

[nursebeeme]

Well, we don't have a defendant in this case. And we don't know if the source who used the word "evasive" has a legal background, or really why they chose the word "evasive" at all.

And that's why that word has my interest. When talking about passing a poly, I think most people would use the words "pass" and "truth". When talking about failing a poly, I think most people would use the words "Fail" and "lie". Words along those lines.

So knowing how 'inconclusive' is often misunderstood, and taken for a failure or indication of lying, I'm thinking - guessing really - that the source's choice of the word "evasive" just might their way of describing an inconclusive result.

I know in Gabe's case, an unbelievable number of people (not talking about WS here - just people in general) were practically insistent that Tammi Smith's Inconclusive was a failed test, or indicative of her lying, or indeed, indicative of her being evasive. And that's just not what an inconclusive test means.

bbm
we don't have a defendant but we do have a woman who took two polys and the term evasive was used to describe her test. I posted a link above that shows that the term is used in relation to LDTs fwiw.