Why were the Ramseys afraid of the po...

Why were the Ramseys afraid of the polygraph test?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#1 Mar 6, 2012
Hi Folks,
The Ramseys offered to take a polygraph test, then when the offer was accepted, they put on a lot of restrictions, trying to duck the test.

Among the restrictions, was they didn't want the BPD to conduct the test, and they wanted an "independant polygrapher", then rejected the FBI polygrapher who was considered indipendant by the BPD.

What were they afraid of? If they failed, the results would not be allowed as evidence in any trial, but if they PASSED, the results would have forced the BPD to look elsewhere for suspects in spite of the evidences.

As Deb pointed out, attorneys will advise their clients not to take polygraph tests, but I think Lin Wood didn't clarify his thoughts with the Ramseys when they made the offer. So, since the offer was made, Lin Wood and the Ramseys could not really back down. Why did they get their own polygrapher? Patsy failed the polygraph at least once, if not twice, but it made no difference as to the beliefs of the IDIs.

I think if they were willing, there would be more IDIs, because of the unreliability of the polygraph tests. Now, by their actions, I think there are more RDIs.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#2 Mar 6, 2012
As you must already realize, you have answered the questions just based on the events and description of the circumstances and backtracking of the Ramseys

They knew they would not pass an FBI polygraph, plain and simple. The FBI wouldn't let them set conditions, would require blood tests for drugs, etc

I think it is fairly obvious. As it was, on their own they still had to take several before they could get a passing mark. Not only did they have to take several but refused one of their own independent polygraphers when he required a drug test

Why? I think we know

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#3 Mar 6, 2012
They acted the same way about the interviews, offering and then placing restrictions so that it was 4 months before they were interviewed. Not exactly innocent behavior.
Bakatari wrote:
Hi Folks,
The Ramseys offered to take a polygraph test, then when the offer was accepted, they put on a lot of restrictions, trying to duck the test.
This has always been a bugaboo with me. On one hand they were so sure the FBI was out to get them, and on the other hand they didnít understand why the FBI wasnít involved (even though they were). They were adamant they not take an FBI-sponsored test because (if I remember correctly) they felt the FBI was out to get them, therefore they didnít believe the test would be impartial.
Bakatari wrote:
Among the restrictions, was they didn't want the BPD to conduct the test, and they wanted an "independant polygrapher", then rejected the FBI polygrapher who was considered indipendant by the BPD.
I am not sure it would have gone like that CC, because regardless of what the Ramseys said, the BPD/DA already were looking at people outside the family. I think if they had taken the FBI polygraph and passed, it would have gone a long way in establishing their innocent personae in the publicís eye.
Bakatari wrote:
What were they afraid of? If they failed, the results would not be allowed as evidence in any trial, but if they PASSED, the results would have forced the BPD to look elsewhere for suspects in spite of the evidences.
Stop and think what you just said here CC. The IDI seldom look at the evidence without trying to explain it away and spin it for everything it is worth if it is unfavorable to the Ramseys, or whomever their suspect is. I believe the fact that they even shopped for a polygrapher who would do the test and not require information relating to the drugs they were taking at the time, speaks volumes as to whether they believed they could pass the test. That, in the court of public opinion, indicates deception. Not so in the eyes of the IDI. They will cajole and spin the information until it is unrecognizable to point it in any direction away from the Ramseys.

I believe if you have nothing to hide, you do whatever you are asked to do in order to eliminate yourself from the kidnapping equation. The Ramseys never did that in any scenario Ė not even close. They got their own polygrapher on their own terms and still had to take multiple tests to come up with a respectable passing score on one of several tests taken.
Bakatari wrote:
Why did they get their own polygrapher? Patsy failed the polygraph at least once, if not twice, but it made no difference as to the beliefs of the IDIs.
I think if they were willing, there would be more IDIs, because of the unreliability of the polygraph tests. Now, by their actions, I think there are more RDIs.
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#5 Mar 6, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
As you must already realize, you have answered the questions just based on the events and description of the circumstances and backtracking of the Ramseys
They knew they would not pass an FBI polygraph, plain and simple. The FBI wouldn't let them set conditions, would require blood tests for drugs, etc
I think it is fairly obvious. As it was, on their own they still had to take several before they could get a passing mark. Not only did they have to take several but refused one of their own independent polygraphers when he required a drug test
Why? I think we know
Hi Capricorn,
Of course, that is assuming that they are guilty, as we RDIs believe. But if innocent, I think the IDIs have a lot of dancing to do around this.

As ST stated, they bluffed, and they were called, then they folded.

Because they already had attorneys when they made the offer, I am quite sure their attorneys didn't cover it. Perhaps, if their attorneys believed they were guilty, they would have told them up front, if asked to take a polygraph test, to refuse. However, they didn't cover the possibility that the Ramseys would OFFER to take one because at the time, they probably believed that the Ramseys were innocent, and anytime they were interviewed by the police, their attorneys were present to give them the advice.
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#7 Mar 6, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
They acted the same way about the interviews, offering and then placing restrictions so that it was 4 months before they were interviewed. Not exactly innocent behavior.
<quoted text>
This has always been a bugaboo with me. On one hand they were so sure the FBI was out to get them, and on the other hand they didnít understand why the FBI wasnít involved (even though they were). They were adamant they not take an FBI-sponsored test because (if I remember correctly) they felt the FBI was out to get them, therefore they didnít believe the test would be impartial.
<quoted text>
I am not sure it would have gone like that CC, because regardless of what the Ramseys said, the BPD/DA already were looking at people outside the family. I think if they had taken the FBI polygraph and passed, it would have gone a long way in establishing their innocent personae in the publicís eye.
<quoted text>
Stop and think what you just said here CC. The IDI seldom look at the evidence without trying to explain it away and spin it for everything it is worth if it is unfavorable to the Ramseys, or whomever their suspect is. I believe the fact that they even shopped for a polygrapher who would do the test and not require information relating to the drugs they were taking at the time, speaks volumes as to whether they believed they could pass the test. That, in the court of public opinion, indicates deception. Not so in the eyes of the IDI. They will cajole and spin the information until it is unrecognizable to point it in any direction away from the Ramseys.
I believe if you have nothing to hide, you do whatever you are asked to do in order to eliminate yourself from the kidnapping equation. The Ramseys never did that in any scenario Ė not even close. They got their own polygrapher on their own terms and still had to take multiple tests to come up with a respectable passing score on one of several tests taken.
<quoted text>
I agree, BUT trying to dance around their offer made them look worse than taking the test through the FBI and failing. OJ Simpson took the test, failed, and still could not get convicted.

Playing Monday Morning QB, if they were guilty, the ONLY provision they should have set, was that the results of the tests must never be made public. If innocent, then they shouldn't have been worried about anything.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#8 Mar 6, 2012
At the end of the day it is all summed up in this one statement.
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
If innocent, then they shouldn't have been worried about anything.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#9 Mar 6, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Capricorn,
Of course, that is assuming that they are guilty, as we RDIs believe. But if innocent, I think the IDIs have a lot of dancing to do around this.
As ST stated, they bluffed, and they were called, then they folded.
Because they already had attorneys when they made the offer, I am quite sure their attorneys didn't cover it. Perhaps, if their attorneys believed they were guilty, they would have told them up front, if asked to take a polygraph test, to refuse. However, they didn't cover the possibility that the Ramseys would OFFER to take one because at the time, they probably believed that the Ramseys were innocent, and anytime they were interviewed by the police, their attorneys were present to give them the advice.
CC
Every attorney, even if they believe their client innocent, will advise them NOT to take a polygraph.....just in case they fail. However, in this case, the Ramseys offered to take polygraphs on NATIONAL TELEVISION, which kind of backed them into a corner in the eyes of the public, so they had to if they wanted to save face

They then began "shopping" for polygraphers, took a few, couldn't "pass" until they found Gelb, and then, foolishly held a press conference as if the world just hit the lottery to announce that they had passed. Unfortunately, they were foolish enough to believe that the public wouldn't find out about the previous polys and the refusal to take a drug test, and the polygrapher who refused THEM because of it.

It ended up making them look even worse in the eyes of the public. If they had already passed, what would be the harm in now taking the FBI poly that would have been way more respected? None, if you are innocent. They had every right to take the FBI polygraph with their own independent polygrapher present along with their attornies to assure that there was nothing underhanded, but they just flatly refused all of it.

Speaks volumes.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#10 Mar 6, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
They got their own polygrapher on their own terms and still had to take multiple tests to come up with a respectable passing score on one of several tests taken.
I think they were foolish to even broach the subject of the polygraph. No matter who administered the test, they were bound to fail it! And failure to pass it is not indicative of guilt, IMO.

In the first place, Patsy could NEVER have passed a polygraph test. And since John had "attitude" issues, IMO he, too, would never have passed one. So I really can't understand why they made such an offer. I think they should have kept mum about a test unless/until the BPD asked them to take one and then let the BPD administer the test! Many, many innocent people fail polygraph tests. And that is why defense attornies don't recommend their clients take one. However, since everything was the fault of the BPD anyway, they could have used the polygraph as just one more thing to chalk up against the department.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#11 Mar 6, 2012
Correction: "And that is why defense ATTORNEYS don't recommend their clients take one."

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#12 Mar 6, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they were foolish to even broach the subject of the polygraph. No matter who administered the test, they were bound to fail it! And failure to pass it is not indicative of guilt, IMO.
In the first place, Patsy could NEVER have passed a polygraph test. And since John had "attitude" issues, IMO he, too, would never have passed one. So I really can't understand why they made such an offer. I think they should have kept mum about a test unless/until the BPD asked them to take one and then let the BPD administer the test! Many, many innocent people fail polygraph tests. And that is why defense attornies don't recommend their clients take one. However, since everything was the fault of the BPD anyway, they could have used the polygraph as just one more thing to chalk up against the department.
Hi OS,
If innocent, I don't think there would be any problem in passing the test regardless of who administered it.

Marc Klaas volunteered to take the polygraph test in his daughter's (Polly Klass) murder and passed easily, and he didn't requre any independant polygrapher.

IF innocent, what makes you think they would fail?
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#13 Mar 6, 2012
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Every attorney, even if they believe their client innocent, will advise them NOT to take a polygraph.....just in case they fail. However, in this case, the Ramseys offered to take polygraphs on NATIONAL TELEVISION, which kind of backed them into a corner in the eyes of the public, so they had to if they wanted to save face
They then began "shopping" for polygraphers, took a few, couldn't "pass" until they found Gelb, and then, foolishly held a press conference as if the world just hit the lottery to announce that they had passed. Unfortunately, they were foolish enough to believe that the public wouldn't find out about the previous polys and the refusal to take a drug test, and the polygrapher who refused THEM because of it.
It ended up making them look even worse in the eyes of the public. If they had already passed, what would be the harm in now taking the FBI poly that would have been way more respected? None, if you are innocent. They had every right to take the FBI polygraph with their own independent polygrapher present along with their attornies to assure that there was nothing underhanded, but they just flatly refused all of it.
Speaks volumes.
It is true, that almost every, if not, every attorney will advise his client not to take a polygraph test if accused or suspected of a crime. However, in the Ramsey case, they were never accused,or officially named as suspects.

Some murder victim survivors demand to take a polygraph test if they feel they are suspected, and this would be to help the investigation steer itself into the right direction.

I think Lin Wood blew it by not covering the polygraph offer with the Ramseys
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#14 Mar 6, 2012
Only people with guilty knowledge are BOUND or doomed to flat out fail a polygraph.

The BPD had to defer to the FBI to administer the test, and the Ramseys refused FBI involvement in the administration of the polygraph. So it would not have worked as a black mark against the BPD.

I donít think Johnís attitude would have much to do with him passing or failing a test. Being under the influence of drugs doesnít always give an accurate reading though.

Yes, sometimes innocent people fail them, but as a rule, innocent people pass them, or maybe get an inconclusive, so I don't get where you say many many innocent people fail them. As a rule, innocent people who want the investigation to move forward to clear the 'inner circle' of family volunteer to take one, and as a rule, those innocent people who take them pass them.
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they were foolish to even broach the subject of the polygraph. No matter who administered the test, they were bound to fail it! And failure to pass it is not indicative of guilt, IMO.
In the first place, Patsy could NEVER have passed a polygraph test. And since John had "attitude" issues, IMO he, too, would never have passed one. So I really can't understand why they made such an offer. I think they should have kept mum about a test unless/until the BPD asked them to take one and then let the BPD administer the test! Many, many innocent people fail polygraph tests. And that is why defense attornies don't recommend their clients take one. However, since everything was the fault of the BPD anyway, they could have used the polygraph as just one more thing to chalk up against the department.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#16 Mar 6, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi OS,
If innocent, I don't think there would be any problem in passing the test regardless of who administered it.
Marc Klaas volunteered to take the polygraph test in his daughter's (Polly Klass) murder and passed easily, and he didn't requre any independant polygrapher.
IF innocent, what makes you think they would fail?
CC
Hi, Charlie: Although you might think they would have had no problem passing a test, IMO chances are very high that they would NEVER have passed such a test. Just go back and look at all the inconsistencies in their responses in their depositions! To me, that indicates they are at least "confused" regarding what happened. Each time they would be asked a question, they would probably think, "Now how did I answer that before?" And their responses in a polygraph test would show that indecision and hesitancy.

But disregarding even that, since they apparently thought they could pass the test by "beating it", I think that is one of the very reasons why they would never have passed one. Or maybe it's just opinion. But I just feel that they would fall among the many who would fail such a test, innocent or not.

Since: May 11

Seattle, WA

#17 Mar 6, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
Only people with guilty knowledge are BOUND or doomed to flat out fail a polygraph.
The BPD had to defer to the FBI to administer the test, and the Ramseys refused FBI involvement in the administration of the polygraph. So it would not have worked as a black mark against the BPD.
I donít think Johnís attitude would have much to do with him passing or failing a test. Being under the influence of drugs doesnít always give an accurate reading though.
Yes, sometimes innocent people fail them, but as a rule, innocent people pass them, or maybe get an inconclusive, so I don't get where you say many many innocent people fail them. As a rule, innocent people who want the investigation to move forward to clear the 'inner circle' of family volunteer to take one, and as a rule, those innocent people who take them pass them.
<quoted text>
hi Doc:D
The first words out of Patsy were mentions of OJ and Susan Smith. Both cases were very public and just about everyone in the country got a crash course in law. Both Susan Smith and OJ took polygraphs and failed, and even though they're not used in court, they're accurate enough to use as a clue for the cops and public opinion.

The Ramseys were well aware of that, so there was no reason to take ten (as Patsy claimed she would) or be insulted that they were asked (as John claims he was) if they had nothing to hide.
Their resistance to FBI polygraphs gives them away like nothing else because hiring one that will do what they wanted says THEY believed polygraphs are accurate and knew they'd never pass one that they couldn't control. LOL

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#19 Mar 6, 2012
DrSeussMd wrote:
Only people with guilty knowledge are BOUND or doomed to flat out fail a polygraph.
The BPD had to defer to the FBI to administer the test, and the Ramseys refused FBI involvement in the administration of the polygraph. So it would not have worked as a black mark against the BPD.
I donít think Johnís attitude would have much to do with him passing or failing a test. Being under the influence of drugs doesnít always give an accurate reading though.
Yes, sometimes innocent people fail them, but as a rule, innocent people pass them, or maybe get an inconclusive, so I don't get where you say many many innocent people fail them. As a rule, innocent people who want the investigation to move forward to clear the 'inner circle' of family volunteer to take one, and as a rule, those innocent people who take them pass them.
<quoted text>
I don't get why you say that ONLY people with guilty knowledge are bound or doomed to flat out fail a polygraph test. Take me for instance! I just know that no matter how completely and thoroughly innocent I might be, if I were to be given such a test I would fail it, FLAT!! Some people are not candidates for polygraph and I believe I'm one of those people! I would be shaking in my shoes and such a nervous wreck that I'd probably make the instruments fly off the chart! So I think your statement is invalid since you are making it so general. Also, I can be wrong, but I believe it has been proven there are certain people who are not candidates for the test!

And I also disagree with your saying that sometimes innocent people fail them, but as a rule, innocent people pass them, or maybe get an inconclusive. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and it's fine for you to say that so long as it's understood you're expressing your opinion. But IMO, if just the opposite were true, more attorneys would INSIST that their clients take the test. So IMO there must be good reason for them not to allow their clients to take one and that reason must be the proclivity of their client to fail.

Why else in your opinion would an attorney advise his client not to take such a test even if he knows beyond a resonable doubt that his client is innocent?

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#20 Mar 6, 2012
Hi RT,

Absolutely, and I agree with every point you made, and most especially your last sentence - which cannot be said too many times:

"Their resistance to FBI polygraphs gives them away like nothing else because hiring one that will do what they wanted says THEY believed polygraphs are accurate and knew they'd never pass one that they couldn't control."
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
hi Doc:D
The first words out of Patsy were mentions of OJ and Susan Smith. Both cases were very public and just about everyone in the country got a crash course in law. Both Susan Smith and OJ took polygraphs and failed, and even though they're not used in court, they're accurate enough to use as a clue for the cops and public opinion.
The Ramseys were well aware of that, so there was no reason to take ten (as Patsy claimed she would) or be insulted that they were asked (as John claims he was) if they had nothing to hide.
Their resistance to FBI polygraphs gives them away like nothing else because hiring one that will do what they wanted says THEY believed polygraphs are accurate and knew they'd never pass one that they couldn't control. LOL

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#24 Mar 6, 2012
Ole South wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, Charlie: Although you might think they would have had no problem passing a test, IMO chances are very high that they would NEVER have passed such a test. Just go back and look at all the inconsistencies in their responses in their depositions! To me, that indicates they are at least "confused" regarding what happened. Each time they would be asked a question, they would probably think, "Now how did I answer that before?" And their responses in a polygraph test would show that indecision and hesitancy.
But disregarding even that, since they apparently thought they could pass the test by "beating it", I think that is one of the very reasons why they would never have passed one. Or maybe it's just opinion. But I just feel that they would fall among the many who would fail such a test, innocent or not.
Hi OS,
Don't you think that the inconsistencies was because of their guilt or their involvement?
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#25 Mar 6, 2012
realTopaz wrote:
<quoted text>
hi Doc:D
The first words out of Patsy were mentions of OJ and Susan Smith. Both cases were very public and just about everyone in the country got a crash course in law. Both Susan Smith and OJ took polygraphs and failed, and even though they're not used in court, they're accurate enough to use as a clue for the cops and public opinion.
The Ramseys were well aware of that, so there was no reason to take ten (as Patsy claimed she would) or be insulted that they were asked (as John claims he was) if they had nothing to hide.
Their resistance to FBI polygraphs gives them away like nothing else because hiring one that will do what they wanted says THEY believed polygraphs are accurate and knew they'd never pass one that they couldn't control. LOL
I agree. But for the IDIs, why fear anything if they were innocent? Afterall, they offered to take the polygraph. That one is about as hard to explain as the pineapple in the small intestines,
CC

Since: Feb 12

Lihue, HI

#26 Mar 6, 2012
MM> How can a machine tell truth from deception?

CC> The polygrapher has enough experience to detect any "inconsistency" which could point to a lie, but nothing is conclusive. THAT is the reason it is not admissable in court trials.

MM> Does everyone have the same physiological reaction when telling a lie?

CC> No, but the polygrapher can get a very good idea when the look at the change in your pulse, blood pressure, and the reaction of your nervous system. Not everyone passes a polygraph even if innocent, and some guilty actually do pass.

It looks to me, that you are afraid of polgraph tests. They don't hurt physically, so there should be nothing to fear.

Ole South

“2009, 2011, 2012”

Since: Aug 11

Roll Tide - Good Luck, Tide!

#29 Mar 6, 2012
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi OS,
Don't you think that the inconsistencies was because of their guilt or their involvement?
CC
I believe they COULD have been due to their involvement or their guilt in knowing more than they revealed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Music for the soul (Feb '17) 7 hr Brrokenpcs 608
News Boulder DA forming cold case unit to review uns... 11 hr icu2 9
It (Nov '17) 11 hr Dedred 57
John Ramsey vs. CBS, Critical Content,Experts 12 hr Brrokenpcs 35
Random thought about the Stines (Jan '15) 12 hr Dedred 134
Patsey,victim or murderer? 13 hr Brrokenpcs 6
websleuths down 14 hr Dedred 25