You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
I have heard from Malcolm Nothling that the doctor in the disciplinary case whose alleged inappropriate behavior was "confirmed" by the polygraph was re-instated and that no polygrapher challenged his testimony.
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: Jan 1st, 2003 at 11:03pm
Malcolm Nothling's renunciation of polygraphy seem to have gotten at least one polygraph operator hot under the collar. See the following press release by Ben Lombaard of the South African Professional Polygraph Association:
Malcolm Nothling's renunciation of polygraphy seem to have gotten at least one polygraph operator hot under the collar. See the following press release by Ben Lombaard of the South African Professional Polygraph Association:
From Liz Clarke's article, "It's all lies" in the 12 October 2002 edition of the Sunday Tribune:
Quote:
In a landmark case in South Africa a leading polygrapher, Malcolm Nothling, has agreed to testify as an expert witness in a disciplinary hearing involving a doctor found guilty of inappropriate behaviour, an accusation supposedly "confirmed" by a lie detector test.
Although his testimony could ruin his career, Nothling said that he could no longer live with the "reality" that polygraph testing was "a profoundly flawed" procedure.
"It doesn't surprise me that a report of this nature [the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report] has been done. Although I have no scientific evidence, I have suspected for some time that the results of polygraph tests are not always accurate. In fact, I would go as far as to say they are biased more against the truthful person than they are against those who are lying."
Nothling said that the day he beat the test by using "certain techniques" available over the Internet was the day he realised it was no longer a reliable-enough tool to establish innocence or guilt. "I think it is playing Russian roulette with people's lives and careers," he said. "We all want a crime-free society, but not when criminals are getting away with their activities and the innocent are possibly being victimised."