Ed Gelb test results
#1
May 24, 2000  Atlanta, Georgia

ED GELB, POLYGRAPH EXPERT: Thank you, Lin. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I think, in the interest of time, my reading to you the result report of the polygraph examinations may be the most succinct way to provide you with the information that I gleaned from all of the examinations that I conducted with the Ramseys. So I think that I will actually read the report to you. We'll have time for questions and answers, but I think this will give you a basic understanding of the process.

This is a report that was directed to L. Lin Wood, the attorney in this matter. "Psychophysiological detection of deception examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey. This is summary report covering a series of examinations of John and Patsy Ramsey, conducted between May 6 and May 17 of the year 2000. The examinations were conducted in Atlanta, Georgia and Los Angeles, California. The issues under consideration dealt with the allegation that the Ramseys were involved in the murder of their daughter, JonBenet, who was found dead in the Ramsey home in Boulder, Colorado, December 26, 1996. Case information was provided by attorney L. Lin Wood and, through numerous reports of the murder in print.

"During extensive pre-test interviews, both John and Patsy Ramsey denied involvement in JonBenet's murder. These examinations were requested by the Ramseys who agreed that the results of the examinations could be given to the authorities prior to their knowing the outcome themselves.

"The equipment utilized, an axiton (ph) computerized polygraph calibrated to factory specifications were used for the five series of examinations.

"Technique, a zone comparison technique was utilized for all of the examinations with three polygrams being collected for each of the five series conducted. The zone comparison technique has been validated in numerous studies conducted for United States governmental agencies. The resultant polygrams were numerically scored on a 7- position scale by the primary examiner Edward I. Gelb, Ph.D, and then subjected to quality control and blind scoring by Cleve Baxter, the originator of the numerical scoring system.

"John Ramseys examinations: Two series of single-issue examinations were conducted with John Ramsey. In a single issue examination all of the relevant questions are necessarily included in one and are designed to mean the same thing; hence, it is a single- issue examinations.

"The first examination was conducted to determine if he had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether John inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet.

"The second examination was conducted to determine whether John knew who killed JonBenet.

"The questions asked during the two single-issue examinations follow with John Ramsey's answers.

"Series one, John Ramsey. Question 1: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. Answer: no.

"2. Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"3. Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examination in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet. "Series 2, John Ramsey, Question 1. Do you know for sure who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, John Ramsey was telling the truth when he denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Patsy Ramsey's examinations. The first polygraph examination was unusable due to distortions. Appropriate cautions were suggested to eliminate the artifacts so that conclusive results could be obtained. Three series of single-issue examinations were conducted with Patsy Ramsey. The first examination was conducted to determine if Patsy Ramsey had direct involvement in the murder. In other words, whether Patsy inflected the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet. The second examination was conducted to determine whether Patsy knew who killed JonBenet. The third examination was conducted to determine if Patsy wrote the ransom note that was found at the scene.

"The questions asked during the three single-issue examinations follow with Patsy Ramsey's answer.

"Series one, Patsy Ramsey: Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No."

"Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death. Answer: No.

"Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenet's death inflicted by you? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied inflicting the injuries that caused the death of his daughter, JonBenet.

"Series two, Patsy Ramsey. Do you know for who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Regarding JonBenet, do you know for sure who killed her? Answer: No.

"Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenet? Answer: No.

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied knowing who killed JonBenet.

"Series 3, Patsy Ramsey: Did you write the ransom note that was found in your house? Answer: No.

"Question 2: Regarding the ransom note, did you write it? Answer: No."

"Question 3: Is that your hand-writing on the ransom note found in your house? Answer: No."

"Conclusion: Based on the numerical scoring of the examinations in this series, Patsy Ramsey was telling the truth when she denied writing the JonBenet ransom note.

"Quality control: A separate report covering the quality control of these examinations has been written by Cleve Baxter, who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of detection of deception and the person who originated numerical scoring. Baxter's independent analysis corroborated the findings of the undersigned primary examiner.

"Final conclusion: Based on extensive polygraph examination, neither John nor Patsy Ramsey were attempting deception when they gave the indicated answers to the relative questions."
Reply
#2
News Release
May 24, 2000
Contact: Jana Petersen, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090
Jennifer Bray, Media Relations, (303) 441-3090
City's Home Page http://www.ci.boulder.co.us

Ramsey Release #77
Statement from Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner regarding Ramsey news conference

"We did receive a fax this morning from the Ramseys' attorney at the same time the press conference was happening. We will accept any information they are willing to provide regarding the polygraph examinations, just as we're happy to receive any information from others who come forward. That's part of our job, to collect all information, no matter what the source, and add it to the investigation. Certainly, how information is obtained and under what circumstances affects the reliability of the information, no matter who provides it.

"At this point, nothing has changed the way this case will be investigated. We remain committed to solving this crime through legitimate, accepted, credible investigative methods. Contrary to the myths of the pundits and lawyers, we have not focused our investigation solely on the Ramseys. In fact, we've spent well over half of our investigative time in the past three-and-a-half years on information not specific to the Ramsey family. The Ramseys and their attorneys are fully aware of this.

"What's unfortunate about our position as a law enforcement agency is that we don't have the luxury to provide many explanations. This is an active homicide investigation, and we can't afford to compromise our ability to provide justice in this case simply to satisfy public curiosity."

---CITY---
Reply
#3
Sorry, I really can't stop myself from commenting here.

The problem here is that the Boulder Police has always been willing to take information and squirrel it away. They have NOT been willing to look at everything with no bias, to follow good leads given to them by good to GREAT sources (like Lou Smit). Lou told me himself how frustrated he was to give them names, files, leads... and be brushed off.

Boxes of information sit in offices and storage areas and NO ONE is doing the tedious work of putting all the information together and SOLVING THIS.

I am haranguing about the BPD but they are not the only ones holding evidence. There are lawyers, investigators, families of lawyers and investigators who have moved on, amateur sleuths and those who suspect family or friends or co-workers who are just sitting on information and contributing to the blockade that continues to leave this unsolved.
Reply
#4
2000-05-30: Geraldo Rivera Live - Tuesday, May 30, 2000

Guests: Edward Gelb (polygrapher), Daniel Petrocelli (trial atty), Dori Ann Hanswirth (media atty), Gerald Shargel (criminal defense atty)

GERALDO: John and Patsy Ramseys' lawyer. Of course, they say that the privately administered polygraph proves that they're innocent. But even before they triumphantly released the favorable results of their lie detector test last week, results which of course have little legal consequence in a murder case - or any other case, for that matter, in criminal law - they have already begun to file lawsuits.

That was the Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood. He's the guy who filed five lawsuits on behalf of JonBenet's brother, Burke. In March, the Ramseys settled a $25 million lawsuit against the Star magazine tabloid. Now they're suing the New York Post and Time-Warner for $4 million a pop. In addition, they're also seeking $35 million from the company that owns the Globe supermarket weekly.

But that's not all. Attorney Wood now says that he plans another lawsuit or two on Burke's behalf, after which he will start suing people who have allegedly libeled John and Patsy. Now, the defamation suits would target the couple's fiercest critics. The Governor has been mentioned, Governor William Owens, and of course the Denver radio talk show host, Peter Boyles.

In the attorney's words: "I have a list. The only person I can say for certain will be sued is Steve Thomas." Thomas is of course the cop who wrote the book. Wood continues, "The Ramseys are entitled to certain rights and protections . . . In my mind, Governor Owens has trampled on these people's rights."

What role, if any, will the lie detector test play in the libel suit? We don't know, but our first guest is the man who administered the test to the Ramseys. He is Dr. Edward Gelb. He has conducted more than 30,000 polygraphs - is that right, Ed? 30,000?

GELB: That's right, Geraldo, 30,000.

GERALDO: He is the former president of the American Polygraph Association, and Ed joins us from Los Angeles. Welcome aboard, Doctor. Nice to see you in this context.

GELB: Thank you.

GERALDO: First off, I must ask: You are indeed the examiner who examined Orenthal J. Simpson in the days following the brutal double-homicide in Brentwood, are you not?

GELB: OJ who? If that exam was conducted, it would have been conducted under attorney-client privilege. And you only seem to hear about the ones people pass, not the ones they fail.

GERALDO: That was my question exactly. Is it that you only hear about the polygraphs people pass and not the ones they fail?

GELB: Certainly. And if I was an attorney, which I'm not, I wouldn't want to be gone after for malpractice for having clients take polygraph tests willy-nilly without knowing how they were going to do.

GERALDO: So you neither confirm nor deny that you administered a polygraph to OJ Simpson that he failed miserably?

GELB: You're correct.

GERALDO: Okay [laughing]. Dan, I've got to talk to Ed one-on-one, but I want you to stow this information away in your mind. Is it not a fact, though, Dr. Gelb, that you administered tests to the Ramseys that they did not pass?

GELB: No, that's not correct. The only tests I administered, they passed. In fact, there were five separate polygraph examinations and they passed all of them, and those examinations were blind-scored by the person, Cleve Backster, who created the numerical scoring system.

GERALDO: But is it not a fact that you administered a series of tests, the results of which were inconclusive?

GELB: No, that's not correct.

GERALDO: Then where does that report come from? To the best of your knowledge, have the Ramseys ever taken a lie detector test the results of which were inconclusive?

GELB: Yes they did, with Gerry Toriello in New Jersey.

GERALDO: And when, timewise, were those tests.

GELB: Well prior to the examinations that I conducted.

GERALDO: So, prior to the examinations that you conducted, they took and did not pass a lie detector test?

GELB: They did not fail; they ran inconclusive or what the government calls, "no opinion." And based on that result, their attorney offered that they take a polygraph test with me without even notifying me that that offer had been made.

GERALDO: So, you admit as you sit there, Dr. Gelb, that another polygraph examiner - and his reputation is what? Will you fill us in? Is he a reputable polygrapher?

GELB: Yes he is.

GERALDO: And you admit that his results were different, significantly, than yours?

GELB: Of course. They were inconclusive, no opinion.

GERALDO: So, what happened between their taking that test and their taking your test?

GELB: Well, there's an adage in the business, Geraldo, and it says that, "The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier." People can take polygraph tests and run inconclusive. They can subsequently be re-tested by another examiner and prove to be conclusively truthful, and those are the results I stand by: A well-conducted examination by a recognized expert. That's me.

GERALDO: But you said that the other fellow was a well-recognized expert. Can we not presume that his tests were as well administered?

GELB: Oh yes, and I've run inconclusive examinations too in my life.

GERALDO: Is this a classic reason why polygraphs are deemed, legally speaking, unreliable?

GELB: Well, they're not deemed unreliable. The accuracy runs around 94-95%. What is the fact is that we don't have trial by polygraph in this country. We have trials by judges and juries. Those are the people who decide guilt and innocence, not polygraph examiners.

GERALDO: But Ed, are you not troubled by the fact that this other fellow, of equal renown, came to a different conclusion?

GELB: Absolutely not. He came to no conclusion, or as the United States Government calls it, "no opinion."

GERALDO: And that doesn't affect your confidence in your own results?

GELB: Absolutely not. I'm very confident in my results, to a certainty of 94-95%.

GERALDO: Did you administer a blood or urine test to determine whether or not they had taken any drugs? Sodium pentothal, or something like that?

GELB: Well, if they had taken sodium pentothal, which is commonly known as truth serum, I don't think that I would have had anything to do with that. They were fit subjects for polygraphs.

GERALDO: Is the answer no, Ed?

GELB: They were not given urinalysis tests or blood tests by me, no.

GERALDO: Can those drugs, of whatever stripe, affect a person's physiological response measured by your polygraph machine?

GELB: No. To pass a test, there must be presence of reaction. If you're going to mediate the reactions or eliminate the reactions with drugs, you wouldn't pass a polygraph test. There's no drug that we know of that selectively affects the zone of influence. In other words . . .

GERALDO: How about lithium?

GELB: I'm sorry?

GERALDO: Lithium.

GELB: Lithium does not select one zone of influence and not the other. The entire test would be affected, not one zone or the other, and that's what we do. We compare zones of influence.

GERALDO: Do you expect to be subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff's witness?

GELB: I have no idea whether I'm going to be subpoenaed or not.

GERALDO: Well, you didn't come here in response to a subpoena. Thanks for being a voluntary witness. I have no further questions, Dr. Ed Gelb. We'll be right back, ladies and gentlemen, and we'll discuss what you just heard. Stay tuned.
Reply
#5
2000-05-31: Larry King Live "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?"

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, a first in the JonBenet Ramsey homicide case: Her parents, John and Patsy, square off against former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas. He believes that Patsy killed her daughter on Christmas night, 1996. It's exclusive, it's next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Since last with us, the Ramseys took a lie detector test, not under FBI order. And your lawyer said that you didn't want the FBI to do it. Why?

JOHN RAMSEY, FATHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: We didn't necessarily not want the FBI to do it. We wanted someone that was fair and independent.

KING: Do you think the FBI would have been partial, Patsy? I mean, do you think the FBI cares?

PATSY RAMSEY, MOTHER OF JONBENET RAMSEY: I'm not saying that, I'm not accusing that at all, just that was not the definition of independent.

KING: Do you think they come with a degree of opinion?

J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but we eliminated that possibility by insisting they be independent. We went to the best polygrapher in the country, had the results quality control by the person who invented the polygraph system.

KING: And he was going to release the results no matter what, right?

P. RAMSEY: Absolutely.

KING: There was a given understanding that it would be made public, no matter what they found.

J. RAMSEY: That was the condition we agreed to.

KING: Steve, did that appeal to you?

STEVE THOMAS, FORMER BOULDER POLICE DETECTIVE: Well, it certainly didn't satisfy the Boulder Police Department. They are putting little stock in this polygraph. And quite frankly, it took Patsy, if I'm not mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- three tries to pass a polygraph: We had an inconclusive test, a second test that showed distortion, and finally, a third test with another examiner. She passed truthfully.

KING: Was that examiner respected?

THOMAS: Certainly nobody is testing or challenging the credentials of the examiner, but again, it's not the government authorities who want to conduct that polygraph.


(SNIP)


KING: Now back on the FBI thing for a moment, one would assume that the FBI, all they want to do is gather evidence. They don't care if you did it or didn't do it.


(SNIP)


J. RAMSEY: I don't know. I have friends in the FBI. They're good people. All I know is they're not independent. The Boulder police stated to us it would take them a week to get the polygrapher from the FBI ready to ask us questions. That shouldn't be necessary unless there's other motives in mind. The question is very simple: Did you kill your daughter? Did you write the ransom note? Do you know who killed your daughter? If we answered those truthfully...

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) more than that, do you? I know the Boulder police said they'd -- the polygrapher needed to know more. What did he need to know more to...

THOMAS: Well, in a polygraph there's no legal consequence to a polygraph at this point. And the chief of police...

KING: In Colorado.

THOMAS: Yes. The chief of police has even said he's not accepting the results of this polygraph, and it doesn't make or break the case one way or the other. But you've now based a polygraph. Will you not submit to an FBI polygrapher?


(SNIP)


J. RAMSEY: I don't know, but all I asked for was independent. Look, we were never asked to take a polygraph test. When we were asked...

KING: It's not -- Colorado doesn't allow it in a court, right?

J. RAMSEY: Wrong. Steve, let's address that right now. The cover of your book -- your book, your disgraceful book. "Why? His inside story answers a wide range of important questions. Why were the Ramseys handled with kid gloves and never asked by law enforcement to take lie detector tests?"

THOMAS: Because the D.A. carried you in their pockets during...

J. RAMSEY: But then don't tell me it was wrong. It's in your book that you were never asked.


(SNIP)


THOMAS: At the press conference they released a press packet in which they gave the verbatim transcript. And I think even Alex Hunter has said that anybody reading that transcript, a monkey could understand what was asked. Let's call that ancient history. I'm asking you today, not three years ago...

J. RAMSEY: Larry, if I'm reading this wrong, correct me.

THOMAS: And again, Larry, he's not letting me answer the question. But three years ago we're talking about. We're right here at the table tonight. Will you take an FBI-sponsored polygraph? And the answer is?

P. RAMSEY: Why will they not review the polygraphs that were taken? Why has he made a statement that says they're unacceptable when he has not even taken the time to look at them?

THOMAS: Well, when you're at the police department next week, ask them these questions.
Reply
#6
jameson
Charter Member
8687 posts Feb-03-03, 05:35 PM (EST)

20. "The questions and scores"
In response to message #18

I had posted scanned pages from the Press Packet givem Media om May 24th, 2000. Those pages dealt with the questions asked, how the Ramseys scored, and what the scores meant. The entire press packet included the statement made by Lin Wood, the CV of Backster and Gelb and other papers.

The print out wasn't terribly clear and I also typed things out for the forums - the questions and scores. I will share them again.

Did you inflict any of the injuries that caused the death of JonBenét?
Regarding JonBenet, did you inflict any of the injuries that caused her death?
Were those injuries that resulted in JonBenét's death inflicted by you?

Do you know for sure who killed JonBenét?
Regarding JonBenét, do you know for sure who killed her?
Are you concealing the identity of the person who killed JonBenét?

John and Patsy answered "NO" to each of the questions.

Scoring:
+ 6 is the numerical cut off for a truthful determination required by the military and government agencies
including the FBI

John scored a +10 on the first set of questions and a +17 on the second.

Patsy scored a +10 on the first set of questions, +12 on the second.

Since Patsy was not eliminated as the writer of the ransom note, she was asked three more questions, she answered "NO" to each.

Did you write the ransom note that was found in your home?
Regarding that ransom note, did you write it?
Is that your handwriting on the ransom note found in your home?

On those, she scored +16.

Clearly, the Ramseys passed the tests.
Reply
#7
After John Mark Karr confessed to Michael Tracey and was found in Thailand, the news hit the public and the news and talk shows were full of interviews like this. This was from the Anderson Cooper show.


FOREMAN: Mr. Gelb, what was your reaction to this news today?

ED GELB, ADMINISTERED RAMSEY POLYGRAPH TEST: I was absolutely ecstatic. Without being involved in a rush to judgment, it's been 10 long years since JonBenet was killed. And when I became involved in the case and polygraphed both Patsy and John, I was convinced and my polygraph was convinced that they were completely innocent. There was no deception indicated.

FOREMAN: You polygraphed them five times, I'm told. And what were the five separate tests for?

GELB: For Patsy, there were three separate examinations. One dealt with whether she inflicted the blows that caused the death of JonBenet. One examination asked her whether she knew who killed JonBenet. And the third examination dealt with the ransom note. John Ramsey was tested on whether he killed JonBenet and whether he knew who killed JonBenet.

FOREMAN: And all of the results on everything came back negative?

GELB: Conclusively truthful. Those polygraph charts were then quality controlled, blind scored by the pioneer of the industry, Cleev Baxter (ph), who independently corroborated my findings.

FOREMAN: Why did the Ramseys -- I know from covering this one of the issues was that the Ramseys hired you. And many people were saying, why didn't they just walk into the police or the state police or the FBI and say, you're independent. Check us out. Not somebody who they paid.

GELB: Well, a couple of reasons. One, I don't think their attorney, Lin Wood, completely trusted the government. He had had an experience with the Atlanta bombing, and I think he was a little gun shy. But you can ask Lin Wood about that.

FOREMAN: You're talking about Lin Wood, the attorney for the Ramseys, or for John Ramsey?

GELB: That's correct.

Secondly, my expertise is probably greater than that of the people that you're speaking about who might have conducted the examination. I've been in the polygraph field since 1968. I'm the past president of the American Polygraph Association. And I stopped counting at 20,000 polygraph examinations. Why not hire an expert like me to resolve this issue?

FOREMAN: Why did they take the lie detector test at all? Do you think this was to advance the case, or was it mainly to quiet the public? Do you have any sense with that?

GELB: Well, certainly there was a media frenzy every time John or Patsy came into the public. And I think there were hopes that the police, knowing the results of the examination, would double their efforts and find out who killed JonBenet.

FOREMAN: All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Gelb, joining us from southern California with your expertise in all of this.
Reply
#8
found this old post

"Urine Analysis for polygraphs?"
Posted by jameson on Nov-19-01 at 03:34 PM (EST)

QUESTION: Did you conduct a drug test, a urinalysis test on John and Patsy Ramsey, prior to these examinations?

GELB: No, I did not, because, one, the drugs that you might be thinking of do not effect the type of examination that was herein conducted. We did what's called a zone comparison examination, this requires reactivity to certain questions and those questions are compared to other questions where you might have less reactivity. No drug that you can name or that I know of can selectively effect that type of examination.

In other words, if this was a guilty knowledge test, that would be a different issue. This is a zone comparison test. I don't know of a drug, and neither do you, that will selectively cause a suppression on certain questions and an elevation on other questions. And the FBI does not do drug screening before they run their polygraph examinations.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) was asked by the Ramsey team to do this polygraph. He insisted on a drug test. Lin Wood said, no.

WOOD: Please, tell me who this individual is.

QUESTION: I don't have his name.

WOOD: Well, let's get our facts right. Let's have the name of the person because I will tell you that I have asked two polygraph examiners to conduct tests on John and Patsy Ramsey: Jerry Toriella, who accepted, Ed Gelb, who accepted. I have never discussed, never discussed anyone else conducting this examination. I have never had anyone asked -- be asked and refused. I've never had anyone discuss with me that they wouldn't do it because of a drug test. That's an absolute, unadulterated falsehood. Let's put it to rest right now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

jameson comment - ò¿ó - I don't know who called Gene Parker - must have been some other attorney - which would have made it LONG before they actuallty did take the test.... and the Ramseys were likely ON medication at that point.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)