Jeremy Bamber and the Polygraph Test

[only me]

This beggars the question. 

Why did Mullins not include all 12 questions in his letter but chose only 3 ?   >@@(*&)

I can actually answer this question.  It's because the rest of the questions were so-called "control" questions, or questions where the answers are obvious and indisputable - things like "Are you a male?" or "Is your name Jeremy Bamber?"  The answers to the control questions are supposed to establish a baseline reaction for a truthful response, therefore any untruthful answer will supposedly cause the readings to fluctuate.  It's total, complete nonsense.  It's about as scientific as saying that you can tell someone is lying from the direction their eyes move in when they're questioned, or that someone is in love because their feet are pointing towards someone of the opposite sex. 

As soon as I can be bothered, I intend to lay the whole case to rest by reading tea leaves.  I'll have to buy a teapot first, mind.   8-)(--)

[ludwig]

This is a famous example of a guilty man who passed the test.

The Green River Killer, Gary Leon Ridgeway, pled guilty to murdering 48 women in the Seattle area over a twenty-year period. Ridgeway was given a polygraph following the murder of his fourth victim and passed the polygraph exam.  He was then dropped as a suspect and went on to kill another 44 women.  He is listed as the most prolific killer in U.S. history.  If the polygraph had been accurate, his reign of terror would have ended after his fourth victim. The failure of the polygraph to detect Ridgeway cost 44 women their lives.

Quoted from here: http://www.cvsa1.com/polygraphfailures.htm

[Tim Invictus]

This is a famous example of a guilty man who passed the test.

The Green River Killer, Gary Leon Ridgeway, pled guilty to murdering 48 women in the Seattle area over a twenty-year period. Ridgeway was given a polygraph following the murder of his fourth victim and passed the polygraph exam.  He was then dropped as a suspect and went on to kill another 44 women.  He is listed as the most prolific killer in U.S. history.  If the polygraph had been accurate, his reign of terror would have ended after his fourth victim. The failure of the polygraph to detect Ridgeway cost 44 women their lives.

Quoted from here: http://www.cvsa1.com/polygraphfailures.htm

Good point Ludwig. Gary Ridgeway is just one of millions of examples of why the courts will not accept polygraph evidence and why it is generally considered as bogus science by most professional bodies.

[John]

This beggars the question. 

Why did Mullins not include all 12 questions in his letter but chose only 3 ?   >@@(*&)

I can actually answer this question.  It's because the rest of the questions were so-called "control" questions, or questions where the answers are obvious and indisputable - things like "Are you a male?" or "Is your name Jeremy Bamber?"  The answers to the control questions are supposed to establish a baseline reaction for a truthful response, therefore any untruthful answer will supposedly cause the readings to fluctuate.  It's total, complete nonsense.  It's about as scientific as saying that you can tell someone is lying from the direction their eyes move in when they're questioned, or that someone is in love because their feet are pointing towards someone of the opposite sex. 

As soon as I can be bothered, I intend to lay the whole case to rest by reading tea leaves.  I'll have to buy a teapot first, mind.   8-)(--)

I understand what you are saying only me but surely these cannot be control questions?

1. Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985? -No.
2. Did you shoot five members of your family with a Anschutz rifle? - No.
3. Were you present inside the house when they were shot with a Anschutz rifle - No.
4. Did you shoot your father Neville? - No.
5. Did you shoot your mother June? - No.
6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? - No.
7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? - No.
8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? - No.
9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent's (sic) home after shooting them? - No.
10. Did you shoot your family in your father's home? - No.
11. Did Pc Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? - Yes.
12. Did you pay a professional hitman to shoot your family? - No.

[only me]

This beggars the question. 

Why did Mullins not include all 12 questions in his letter but chose only 3 ?   >@@(*&)

I can actually answer this question.  It's because the rest of the questions were so-called "control" questions, or questions where the answers are obvious and indisputable - things like "Are you a male?" or "Is your name Jeremy Bamber?"  The answers to the control questions are supposed to establish a baseline reaction for a truthful response, therefore any untruthful answer will supposedly cause the readings to fluctuate.  It's total, complete nonsense.  It's about as scientific as saying that you can tell someone is lying from the direction their eyes move in when they're questioned, or that someone is in love because their feet are pointing towards someone of the opposite sex. 

As soon as I can be bothered, I intend to lay the whole case to rest by reading tea leaves.  I'll have to buy a teapot first, mind.   8-)(--)

I understand what you are saying only me but surely these cannot be control questions?

1. Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985? -No.
2. Did you shoot five members of your family with a Anschutz rifle? - No.
3. Were you present inside the house when they were shot with a Anschutz rifle - No.
4. Did you shoot your father Neville? - No.
5. Did you shoot your mother June? - No.
6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? - No.
7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? - No.
8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? - No.
9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent's (sic) home after shooting them? - No.
10. Did you shoot your family in your father's home? - No.
11. Did Pc Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? - Yes.
12. Did you pay a professional hitman to shoot your family? - No.

That's interesting.  Do we know for certain that this is the list of questions that he was asked?

[John]

On his website, Bamber announced: "Jeremy passed a polygraph test in prison today."


On this site Bamber listed 12 questions he had been asked during the lie detector test. He said they were:
1. Did you shoot your family on 7 August 1985? -No.
2. Did you shoot five members of your family with a Anschutz rifle? - No.
3. Were you present inside the house when they were shot with a Anschutz rifle - No.
4. Did you shoot your father Neville? - No.
5. Did you shoot your mother June? - No.
6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? - No.
7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? - No.
8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? - No.
9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent's (sic) home after shooting them? - No.
10. Did you shoot your family in your father's home? - No.
11. Did Pc Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? - Yes.
12. Did you pay a professional hitman to shoot your family? - No.

The test was carried out by Terry Mullins, one of Britain's leading lie detector experts. Testing takes about two hours and during that time the subject's physiological conditions are monitored such as breathing, blood pressure and pulse rate.

Read more...

[John]

To my knowledge, Terry Mullins has not gone on record to confirm that the other 9 questions provided the same result as the three quoted in his letter of 20 April 2007.

I should point out that this information has now been removed from the website.  You can make up your own minds as to the reason why.   

Foot and Shot come to mind!   

[only me]

To my knowledge, Terry Mullins has not gone on record to confirm that the other 9 questions provided the same result as the three quoted in his letter of 20 April 2007.

That's very interesting.  I wonder if the responses to those questions were "inconclusive", meaning that the measured response was about the same or indistinguishable as that gained from the control questions?

There's lies, damn lies...and then there's the results of polygraphs.  As far as I'm concerned, until they publish the measured response from the rest of the questions, the polygraph is even more irrelevant.  They can't just pick the bits that sound good.

[John]

You might also be interested in this spiel written by his then lawyer, the one and only, currently on bail for fraud, Giovanni di Stefano.



JEREMY BAMBER LIE DETECTOR TEST RESULTS

19 April 2007:

1. Did you shoot your family on August 7, 1985? NO

2. Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? NO

3. Were you present inside the house when your family was shot with an
Anshutz rifle? NO

4. Did you shoot your father Neville? NO

5. Did you shoot your mother June? NO

6. Did you shoot your sister Sheila Caffell? NO

7. Did you shoot your twin nephews Daniel and Nicholas? NO

8. Did you hide a rifle silencer in a cupboard after shooting your family? NO

9. Did you climb out of a window of your parent’s home after shooting them? NO

10. Did you shoot your family in your father’s home? NO

11. Did PC Berry radio in a report of seeing someone in an upstairs window around 4am on the morning of the shooting? YES

12. Did you pay a professional hit man to shoot your family? NO

Those twelve questions were the subject of the polygraph test taken by Jeremy Bamber today at HMP Full Sutton. Those were the answers. The person who performed the test Terry Mullins has confirmed that Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth. Has told the truth. Is no killer. He has passed conclusively the lie detector test. He has been in jail 7872 today of what can only be modestly described as ‘unlawful custody’.

The equipment used was a £10,000 Lafayette LX 4000 polygraph machine and they are conclusive results. I know from the case of Joseph Steele a similar machine was used, a similar test taken and the Scottish Home Secretary in short made sure Mr Steele was freed. He also had two appeals turned down. He even applied superglue to himself to the railing of Buckingham Palace to protest his innocence. Jeremy Bamber is innocent. I know because I have seen the set of papers permitted and those that were not disclosed. The photograph of Sheila’s throat oozing with blood should have been enough for the pathologist to have estimated time of death at being within two maximum three hours the photo taken. That alone would and should have cleared Jeremy Bamber. But not so. In England the State prefers innocent men to remain in jail and refuse to admit a mistake because as one judge (off the record) told me: “it’s not good for business”. Anyone that has supported Jeremy has been subject to attacks. I for one but I don’t give a flying F—K. The State can go for me all they want. But for those like Andrew Hunter MP for 38 years who should today be sitting in the House of Lords was ‘taken off the list by Peter Hain’ because of his Parliamentary support of Jeremy. I can also confirm that on that day in the House of Commons I was there. After Andrew had given his speech two ‘gentlemen’ went over to see him and told him to ‘let the Bamber case go’ and made sure that if he didn’t it would have consequences! No House of Lords for a man who if ever deserved being a Lord after 38 years of service it was he! Damn you MI5/MI6! This is not what you are supposed to be doing interfering with justice but you do when it suits.

You can well imagine how angry I am. When it is so clear a man is innocent and he is still in jail I consider that crime worse than the crime the person in jail was convicted. The State is not supposed to do that. It is not what we elect a government for! Maybe the USA is correct in allowing citizens the right to carry arms and it’s embedded in its Constitution. Why? It is to ensure that the citizen is on equal terms with an oppressive government and if the government is oppressive the citizens can challenge that government on equal terms. I don’t like firearms but boy when I see the case of Jeremy Bamber and the number of oppressive governments during his 22 years in prison it makes one wonder!

Will the Home Secretary now take heed? He had better. The polygraph test is used now for benefit applications, paedophiles, for the police cadets, MI5/MI6/SAS/SBS and on occasion with the HMCR. If they are reliable for those then they are reliable for whether a person butchered his entire family. You cannot fool a machine. The machine has no alliances, no allegiances, and simply records and produces results. 12 key questions were asked and he passed the test. Jeremy Bamber is no killer and rather than wait for any further absurd delays the Home Secretary should through the Parole Board offer Mr Bamber parole until a proper review of this case is completed and a public enquiry. I will be making submissions to the Home Secretary to refer the case to the parole Board for an immediate review. Jeremy Bamber did not kill his family. He could not and would not. If the Prosecution had been ‘fair’ then the matter may have not been so grave. But with 600,000 pieces of evidence not disclosed and the appalling lack of honesty and clarity by the Essex Police makes this scandal the worst ever. Had the pathologist given an estimated time of death which is normal in all cases then that also would have alerted the Court and the Jury which remember was undecided but relied upon a 10-2 majority.

The Home Secretary must now do his duty as a Man and Minister and the Guardian of Justice and free Jeremy Bamber for the simple reason- it wasn’t him, he didn’t do it!

REFLECTION REGARDING JEREMY BAMBER

19 April 2007: It was some weeks ago that I suggested to Jeremy Bomber to take the polygraph test better known as the ‘lie detector’. I have to say that I was astounded as to his reply. He immediately and without hesitation said he would gladly do it. In fact he said he had been asking since 1991 but it was always refused. I contacted the prison and asked if it was permitted. The reply was that it was not. So I said that if not I would be forced yet again at going to the High Court. A few days later the Governor called and said that he had changed his mind and that it could proceed. Frankly, I was even more astounded if not surprised but this time pleasantly. The Home Office had approved it and so away we would go. We then had a change of mind regarding the timing of the test. The CCRC were about to rule and we preferred the test to be taken after their preliminary decision in order that no one could say the results affected the decision of the CCRC. So today it happened. It should have been last week but it was cancelled at the last minute owing to staffing problems. Terry Mullins spent nearly 2 hours with Jeremy and of course there is no way in hell that Jeremy could be economical with the truth on this one not that he has ever been. Now I explained to Jeremy that the course of action was risky because if he fails then basically that would be the end of the road and his destiny was jail until he died even though his tariff is set at 25 years. No way was he getting out on this one. If he passes then it would open the door wide for release. But the question as a matter of ethics for me is different. What gives us lawyers the right to suggest a pathway which can either lead to freedom or to hell? Who am I to place Jeremy Bamber or anyone at such risk? Am I playing at God? If so regardless of the results I have no business doing so! Of course Jeremy would agree to a lie detector because it is a way to freedom if he is innocent. But if he is innocent and makes a mistake of nervousness he is condemned for eternity and I will be responsible for an innocent man remaining in jail. It is the thoughts that trouble me. You see the result is important for Jeremy as it will bring a kind of closure. But for me as his lawyer how dare I risk his future? What gives me the right to do so? Is it not bad enough that five people have been murdered in a most brutal fashion? Ok it is my job, it is my role but it is a heavy burden to bear and frankly I am not so certain that I really should be placing clients like Jeremy who has been in jail for 22 years in such a position. As I say that is regardless of the results. But we shall see. I hope for the best and hope my glass is full full instead of half empty.Its all about peace of mind. Do I have peace of mind having chosen this course for Jeremy? If there is no peace of mind then regardless of the result the lawyer has nothing which is how I feel at the moment! One thing however, I truly believe that Jeremy Bamber did not, could not, would not, have committed the murders and I believe so based upon documents and re tracing step by step the timetable of that awfull night.

JEREMY BAMBER

19 April 2007: I can confirm that Jeremy Bamber has indeed taken his polygraph test at HMP Full Sutton this morning. The results, either way, will be published late tonight when I receive them! I am grateful to the Director of HMP Full Sutton and the current Secretary of State for the Home Department in the UK for allowing this test to take place.It is without precedence and regardless of the results may well place clarity on the events of 7th August 1985!

[Mervyn]

>>extremely interesting stuff guys   >@@(*&)

>>you would think that if the 12 questions were so significant that they would still be visible on the official web site  >>makes you wonder if this has all gone horribly wrong???   >@@(*&)

[John]

>>extremely interesting stuff guys   >@@(*&)

>>you would think that if the 12 questions were so significant that they would still be visible on the official web site  >>makes you wonder if this has all gone horribly wrong???   >@@(*&)

Please introduce yourself at the new members sections at the top of the home page Mervyn.

Thanks 

[only me]

Mmmm.  Well, he sounds like a lovely, melodramatic fellow.

If they weren't going to be completely transparent with the results, then I don't see the point in bothering with it in the first place.  For all I know, he could have failed the other nine questions, in which case I couldn't care less about the three he did pass.  This is what happens when you put your faith in junk science!

[puglove]

There are many ways to "fool the machine". And you can bet that Bamber had learnt every one of them.

[Joanne]

I think if you tell yourself a lie for long enough you're going to believe it, so fooling a lie detector machine isn't going to be hard.
I can see Jeremy Bamber having a field day if the government goes forward with lie detectors for sex offenders. I've just read a report saying really the threat of a lie detector makes SOME peope 'fess up before hand, so it's hardly a result from a lie detector and I think people like surgeons, aircraft pilots who have to keep their cool in unpredictable circumstances might just pass because they have to be in control, so for a cold, psychopathic killer a lie detector test might be a walk in the park-we're talking five people dead like, it's not normal to kill one person.

[John]

There was talk of a statement by Terry Mullins after Jeremy passed the polygraph test on 19 April 2007 but all I can find is that letter which he wrote on 20 April referring to the three questions.

Has anyone seen such a statement?