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.
The Peel Regional Police gag order to its media relations office is intriguing, considering that the Hamdani case now seems to be a common criminal case with no apparent national security ramifications.
If the polygraph interrogation of Hamdani was not done by the Peel police, then it might have been conducted by Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP website includes the following list of telephone numbers for Ontario:
The Peel Regional Police flatly and with extreme prejudice refused to discuss *any* aspect of Mr. Hamdani's polygraph interrogation. They would not confirm nor deny they were the interrogating agency.
The Media Relations Dept. was bluntly ordered to respond with nothing save 'No comment' to any questions posed to them, even by a legitimate journalist. They also mentioned that never before in their experience (the Media Relations Officer) had they ever been told not to comment in such fashion. Never.
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: Jan 9th, 2003 at 9:43am
Isn't it curious that the FBI is characterizing the Canadian-administered polygraph examination of Michael Hamdani as "seriously flawed?"
In July 2001, after Congressman Gary Condit passed a private polygraph examination administered by retired FBI polygrapher Barry Colvert regarding the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the FBI issued a statement declaring, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." (See the message thread, FBI Doubletalk on Condit's Polygraph Results for details.)
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 9:20pm
Here's a lead: the events leading to the abortive manhunt began with Hamdani's 31 October 2002 arrest on fraud charges by Peel, Ontario police. Phone numbers are listed here.
Posted by: beech trees Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 7:53pm
The popular perception that the polygraph is foolproof is so strong that a radio show in LA, while ridiculing the government's handling of this, plaintively said: "Why didn't they polygraph this guy before launching this manhunt."
Sigh.
You could rock the host's world if you called in and pointed out they did.
Skeptic
Posted by: Marty Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 7:26pm
The popular perception that the polygraph is foolproof is so strong that a radio show in LA, while ridiculing the government's handling of this, plaintively said: "Why didn't they polygraph this guy before launching this manhunt."
Sigh.
-Marty
Posted by: Skeptic Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 6:42pm
In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.
I don't suppose the FBI will be eager to supply the actual polygraph recordings any time soon for double-blind analysis?
Skeptic
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 2:37pm
The Hamdani case appears to be a prime example of investigatory misdirection resulting from misplaced reliance on polygraphy. Already, it appears that FBI "spin control" has swung into full gear, and that the Canadians are the designated fall guys. (Surely, "polygraph" could not have been in error!) The following commentary is from the Polygraph News page:
The FBI's nationwide dragnet for suspected terrorist infiltrators was based on an apparently bogus tip from accused Canadian forger Michael Hamdani. In a 3 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "F ake-ID Arrest Led to FBI Hunt," staff writer John Mintz reported that U.S. and Canadian investigators had questioned Hamdani extensively using polygraph machines. U.S. President George W. Bush authorized a nationwide manhunt for the putative terrorist infiltrators based on Hamdani's polygraph-confirmed information. But in an 8 January 2003 Washington Post article titled " Wanted: 5 Men -- The Terror Alert That Wasn't," Ruth Marcus and Dan Eggen report that the tip was bogus. Already, revisionists within the FBI have begun rationalizing the apparent false negative outcome of Hamdani's polygraph interrogation, assigning blame to the Canadians for a "seriously flawed" polygraph examination.
In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.
Posted by: Mark Mallah Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 3:52am
Just a clarification, I was quoting Mark Steyn, who, if anyone out there does not know of him, is an extraordinarily good columnist. He is at www.marksteyn.com.
Posted by: triple x Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 3:01am
Mark Mallah wrote: "the FBI should be a little less obvious about its cluelessness."
Mark, I personally couldn’t have said it better. However, you would think the same idea would apply towards the “coin toss accuracy” with respect to FBI polygraph testing.
The FBI should be a little less obvious with the voodoo science surrounding polygraph testing.
Anyone who actually believes in polygraph testing accuracy, (with any agency) is very naïve and gullible. The very same people probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as well.
x
Posted by: Mark Mallah Posted on: Jan 8th, 2003 at 12:57am
Oops, guess this little "success" won't be touted by the polygraph community.
The recent manhunt for five supposed terrorists appears to be a hoax yet the Washington Post reported a few days ago that the "plot" was confirned by intensive polygraph interrogation. Here's an excerpt:
[from WAPO] The source of the names and photos was Hamdani, who is facing charges of fraud and possession of instruments of forgery in Canada after his arrest in Canada. U.S. and Canadian investigators have questioned him extensively, using polygraph machines.