Angela Hammond - Girl abducted from phone booth

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by James T

Problem is it is junk science. You are going with the theory that it is actual scientific evidence which it isn't & why more states refuse to recognise them. The biggest serial killer in US history was able to pass the test & remained at large & likely murdered several more women.

But in this case, the polygraph helped clear an innocent guy.

That's my whole point. Had Shafer failed, or was found to be deceptive on some questions, the police would have never ruled him out.

[LilMissKryssy]

Rob didn't do it. Polygraph or no polygraph. I'm quite certain of that

[Koala]

Re polygraphs: They are a useful tool. They are not admissible for a good reason. They may not be reliable but they do work. I was told that I had failed my polygraph. I knew that was BS. At least I did it and was cleared. The tool is more than just the polygraph. It is about agreeing to do it. Some won't, some will. It is a good tool for investigation. No doubt.

[TheCars1986]

Despite law enforcement ruling him out a week after Angela disappeared, here we are 20+ years later, on page 70, still debating as to whether or not Shafer did it. I feel like there should be a new forum rule where Shafer must be referred to as innocent at all times.

[SeekDaGreat]

Not one single shred of evidence to incriminate Rob, yet "he did it."

[mikewho]

To me lie detectors don't mean squat. I've never thought the boyfriend had anything to do with it.

[James T]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

But in this case, the polygraph helped clear an innocent guy.

That's my whole point. Had Shafer failed, or was found to be deceptive on some questions, the police would have never ruled him out.

Again there is zero evidence they have any use.

http://skepdic.com/polygrap.html

[James T]

Originally Posted by Koala

Re polygraphs: They are a useful tool. They are not admissible for a good reason. They may not be reliable but they do work. I was told that I had failed my polygraph. I knew that was BS. At least I did it and was cleared. The tool is more than just the polygraph. It is about agreeing to do it. Some won't, some will. It is a good tool for investigation. No doubt.

Wow, so they are not reliable but they work-so if a known female liar says somebody sexually assaulted her that guy should be convicted on her testimony simply because she/it exists? How can something unreliable be used to convict somebody-possibly for life or put them on death row?

So you were arrested for something & told you failed your polygraph even though you were telling the truth & ended up being cleared? Doesn't that scream to you that is is bs? I am assuming other evidence came to light that exonerated you-like actual proof such as a reliable alibi or DNA testing? How would you have felt if the cops had just left it at the polygraph & a jury convicted you on it?

Anybody who takes a polygraph nowadays is a damn fool. Since large swathes of the general public still believe it is proof of guilt or innocence thanks to television then it can be used against you at trial in a state that still allows it. Just like volunteering for a police line-up with the equally unreliable eye witness testimony is foolhardy.

It is a great tool for lazy investigators who just want to convict somebody & can use junk science in a case with nothing else going for it in that there are no fingerprints, DNA, no confession etc. It reminds me of the old trial by ordeal-only we are supposed to be living in enlightened times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal

[amandab1234]

Do they still use the polygraph? I always thought it was pointless because even if u didn't do the crime in question, you'll be nervous during the questioning so that can throw the test off..

Rob is like Joe Jones to me from the Su Ya Kim segment there's no way I can picture them as suspects

[James T]

Originally Posted by amandab1234

Do they still use the polygraph? I always thought it was pointless because even if u didn't do the crime in question, you'll be nervous during the questioning so that can throw the test off.

In USA a person must agree to the admission of a lie detector test under the terms of a stipulation before the test, in order for this evidence to be relied on in court. The case of Frye v United States (293 F 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) established that scientific evidence, including lie detector tests, was admissible on the condition that, “the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs”. Now evidence must meet the ‘Daubert standard’ and by produced from sound ‘scientific methodology’. In case of United States v Scheffer the Supreme Court allowed individual jurisdictions to decide on the admissibility of lie detector tests. Different states rely on the two different standards (Frye and Daubert), although many states still do not allow lie detectors to be used as evidence.

The states which do use lie detector tests are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. In California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida, they can be used but both parties must agree. In California, they may be used as evidence as long as both parties agree to their use in advance, in this case, the jury is presented with the lie detector results; in Georgia defendants who suffer due to false results may sue the operator for damages and attorneys fees, and in Florida, people can be submitted to take the test but this will not be used in court, but instead for their therapy. In Michigan appellate courts, in a motion for a new trial lie detector results of a witness may be used to show that a prosecution witness committed perjury or to suppress evidence in a pre-trial motion where the defendant believes the police officer acted illegally to obtain the evidence.

In New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, lie detector tests are inadmissible even if both parties agree. In Massechussettes, they can be used as ‘supporting probably cause’.

It was stated in the case of United States v. Posado that “… we have today opened the door to the possibility of polygraph evidence in certain circumstances.” The per se rule excluding unstipulated lie detector evidence has been overturned.

[James T]

Originally Posted by amandab1234

I always thought it was pointless because even if u didn't do the crime in question, you'll be nervous during the questioning so that can throw the test off.

It is garbage for many reasons-even if you believe in it I can recall a case where a guy was accused of sexually molesting his daughter by a bitter former partner & the cops used their own polygraph expert to administer a test which he failed.

A justice group picked up the case & used an independent expert to administer another test which he passed-it turned out the cop examiner was asking ambiguous questions such as have you ever touched your daughter inappropriately, to which the guy was thinking about having her on his knee with his hand supporting her, bathing her etc-all innocent acts but could that be construed as inappropriate? The other examiner asked questions like if he had ever touched his daughter in a sexual way/abused her.

So yes he failed a stress test which is all it measures simply because of the wording of the questions & that no doubt he was also highly stressed at being arrested & taken to the cop shop with a bunch of cops who wanted to prove his guilt, as opposed to an independent person whose only interest would be doing the test & finding out the truth.

[WishfulDreamer]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Despite law enforcement ruling him out a week after Angela disappeared, here we are 20+ years later, on page 70, still debating as to whether or not Shafer did it. I feel like there should be a new forum rule where Shafer must be referred to as innocent at all times.

While I would usually disagree and say everyone has a right to an opinion, in this case I think you're right. LE cleared him. Witnesses corroborated his testimony. There's pretty much no evidence against him and 70 pages later it's like beating a dead horse having to listen to additional "Rob did it" comments.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

While I would usually disagree and say everyone has a right to an opinion, in this case I think you're right. LE cleared him. Witnesses corroborated his testimony. There's pretty much no evidence against him and 70 pages later it's like beating a dead horse having to listen to additional "Rob did it" comments.

Same old same old. Every few months someone pops into the Angela Hammond thread with this "revelation " that we all over looked stating "rob did it". I honestly have never seen a missing persons case where there was so much clear and blatant evidence that the boyfriend was not involved. The witness statements, the timelines, physical evidence etc etc all proves Rob was not involved. People who come in here and post this non sense really need to go through and read the threads before making these senseless statements.

[James T]

In this case I was just highlighting something of interest I came across with a cop who was on that force & stated many years later to an author that the van theory had been discounted.

[kane7474]

Originally Posted by Hambone2421

Thanks man. Their MO isn't too far from the facts that we know about the Hammond disappearance. However, Angela only saw one person in the truck. Of course its possible that the other was elsewhere or maybe even not involved at all. This group seemed to stalk the nights looking for women alone.

They also expressed some knowledge of avoiding DNA and other types of forensic evidence as evident by his statement of "if the barn hadn't been burned down, they'd know what else we did and we'd be on death row".

There is alot more on that. The prosecutors used evidence of these men being involved in other murders to coerce them into pleading guilty . Jess rush mentions in letters he wrote to another inmate basically stating there where other women they murdered and other people involved .