Quote:


Yes, I see your point. This issue was a hot one during a cource I recently took on Criminal Procedure & Evidence. I think most in the LE field would agree that it is extremely foolhardy to rely soley on one piece of evidence when investigating a crime. While DNA and possibly even a polygraph (utilizing a GTK) might point in the direction of one suspect, it is very important that other investigative leads are aggressively pursued to ensure that there is other evidence to conclusively link the suspect to the crime. The reliability and accuracy of any procedure and evidence comes into play when we get into the area that you talked about.

I'm sure we'll all agree DNA evidence is extremely accurate, although not 100%. However, like you've pointed out, it cannot tells us whether or not someone committed a crime, only that they were present. So, once you have a positive DNA match, it is important to take into account several other factors. Did the suspect admit to being there prior to finding out the results of the DNA test? Did the suspect provide a reasonable explanation along with that admission? Or did the suspect lie and claim s/he was never there? If the latter most option is the case, now you have to figure out why the suspect lied, (i.e. afraid of getting caught, afraid of being falsely linked with the crime, etc). However, what you do have is conclusive evidence that they were there. There can be no denying that. Now it's time to figure out why they were there, and either investigate deeper or move on to other suspects.

With the polygraph, coming up with a DI chart is not conclusive evidence that they were there, or had anything to do with a crime, since as Saidme showed us, and the Molly Bish case demonstrates, the polygraph does not have an accuracy rate high enough to make that claim. As an interrogation tool, it is probably excellent for getting confessions out of the guilty, but absent a confession, I would not direct any investigation of mine in a certain direction based on the results of a polygraph test.

I'd also like to address the flip side of what you said, which is, a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene. I would not like to think that LE agencies are relying too heavily on DNA evidence to solve their crimes, even though DNA is extremely valuable in proving certain things. However, police have been solving crimes long before DNA evidence and polygraphs have been around, so a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene in no way exonerates a suspect from a crime. It probably just means they were either very careful or very lucky. 

Quote:


I think the poly is much more dangerous than DNA, because it is not nearly as accurate in establishing a connection to the crime. Like I said, while a DNA match will establish someone was at a crime scene, it will not establish they committed the crime. Certain kinds of DNA evidence are more helpful than others, e.g., skin under fingernails, victim's hair in the trunk of a car, blood on a pant leg or shoe, etc., while others just prove contact with the victim occured, e.g., semen traces found in the victim. 

Both the polygraph and DNA can be misused and detrimental to any investigation when utilized by an incompetent examiner, but I do not believe even a competent examiner can use a polygraph to conclusively link a suspect to a crime. 

Okay, here's the result.  My hubby met with his attorney this week. He did fail the test, even though the questions they asked relating to my crime were ones that he had no knowledge of at the time I was doing it, but does have knowledge of it now.  "Did you know your
wife was stealing money?" ...........he did not at the time I was
doing it, but it well aware now.   
No report was issued to us or the attorney, just the verbal from the
FBI.

Public Servant,

You write, in part:

Quote:


The reason polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in a court of law is not that it is less than 100%, but rather that it doesn't meet the judicial Daubert standard (or the previous Frye standard) for scientific evidence. See DaubertOnTheWeb.com.

In some cases, DI polygraph results have indeed been a key piece of "evidence" leading to conviction. For example, Floyd Fay was wrongly convicted of murder in Ohio in large part because he failed a stipulated polygraph examination. You'll find his case documented in the 2nd edition of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. More recently, an inconclusive polygraph outcome and the Kafaesque interrogations that followed led to a navy cryptologist's wrongly being locked up for more than a year in pre-trial confinement before all charges were dropped. See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of the case of Daniel M. King.

WOW!  When I said attack at will, I never thought there'd be two more pages.  I think the discussion has run it's course (and perhaps degraded), so let me apologize if I did not respond to anyone's questions.  All seems to be covered.

I did want to comment on something sXe said
Quote:


I'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence.   But this does not prove the person committed the crime.  If a man has sex with a woman then departs;  then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect?  The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body.  Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him.  DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted.  And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.

Because polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court.  Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly.  DI alone never put anyone in jail.  

Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used?  Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove.  Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.

Saidme wrote on Jul 18^th, 2003 at 10:46pm:


Why would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever). 

Quote:


Why would you ascertain the truthfulness of an examinee by first giving them a test you yourself just demonstrated is not accurate? 

Quote:


Only if they confess though, right?

Quote:


I can only speak for myself here, but I find it somewhat comical. I also think Saidme's attacks on other posters, and blatant unwillingness to address issues that would no doubt damage the reputation of his little box reflects poorly on the polygraph community. If I were just beginning to research polygraphy, and I came upon this board, seeing some polygrapher verbally attacking others, dodging reasonable questions, and outright dismissing the importance of scientific validity would certainly push me into the camp opposed to polygraphy. 

So I guess I he is doing us a favor. 

Saidme,
This is what I'm talking about:
Quote:
Why not? Surely if these people you have polygraphed and obtained confessions from are real, they are now members of the prison population. And their criminal records are a matter of public record. So why can't you disclose that info?

And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:
Quote:
To which Saidme replied that same day:
Quote:
(Emphasis added)
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.

Sadime,

I have always been on the anti poly side when it comes to preemployment screening.

What are your stats if you don't mind me asking?

You must only be able to determine your efficacy with corraborating confessions.  Or do maintain that indicated deception on the charts is without a doubt undisputed and proven indication of deception?

In the context of using a poly when it comes to a criminal investigation I can't see your deparment wasting valuable dollars on a poly when you have irrefutable evidence proving ones guilt.  Irrefutable evidence of ones guilt would be the only other way, I see, that you could use to test your efficacy.  

So..

What is your ratio for obtained DI's to confessions?

Saidme,

So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?

How many polygraphs have you given?

CC

You've taken sides!  You should take your own advice.  I truly believe polygraph's detect deception (through physiological changes brought about by psychological consequences).  Why?  Because I see it work everyday. The confession happens to be a bi-product of the polygraph which I see as an added bonus.  For all you non-believers, I don't interrogate NDI suspects.   

Why are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?

I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans.  I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.

Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.   

Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?

Earth to Orolan

What are you talking about?

xes

If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.

No serious, accuracy is everything.  That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first.  That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.   

s-X-e,
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.

Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?

Saidme wrote on Jul 18^th, 2003 at 8:42pm:


But that's not what I mean....

Quote:


Yes, but what you described reflects an accuracy rate well below 100%. In the case of Molly Bish, I am reluctant to believe that 11 people had something to do with her murder. 

Would I be correct in assuming that accuracy is just as useless as scientific validity, so long as you get some guilty people to confess?  

Orolan

Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me.  Maybe George has got a spell on me.  Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it.  As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway).  I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand.  As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.   

SEX (put it like you mean it)

Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear.  Blah Blah Blah

Saidme wrote on Jul 17^th, 2003 at 9:16pm:


Aren't you showcasing here the flaws in polygraphy? After all, the goal here is to resolve which one person stole the $100 from 7-11. If no one out of the 9 DIs admits to doing it, do you mark them all as DI? That would not seem fair, since the purpose of this particular test would be to locate a single perpetrator. The 8 examinees who answer "no" to the question "did you take the $100," should, regardless of "bleed over," not be marked deceptive since they are in fact telling the truth. What you've said is that an issue not directly related to the matter at hand can screw you up on your test. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.

Saidme,
It disturbs me that you would believe all 11 of these people who failed are guilty of either complicity in the crime or of a similar crime as yet undiscovered or unsolved. Interestingly enough, none of the 11 cracked under their post-test interrogation. As one who claims a near 100% success rate in gaining admissions, don't you find it odd that not one of these 11 offered anything? Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they didn't because they had nothing to offer?

Your 7-11 analogy seems plausible for that specific incident. I would not consider it uncommon for 7-11 clerks to occasionally drink a soda without paying for it, or take a few bucks out of the drawer when they shorted the last customer. In your analogy, however, you have "loaded the dice" so the results support your conclusions. How would you explain the same scenario using 3 employees and 8 random people off the street, and 9 of the 11 are DI?

How is it possible to be DI on a specific-incident polygraph when one has no involvement in the specific incident? Aren't they supposed to be more accurate than the fishing expeditions called pre-employment screening? Doesn't look like it to me.

The fact is the polygraph is junk, you know it is junk, and you don't care that it is junk. It is nothing but a prop, but one that works well on people stealing $100.00 at the 7-11. And I get the feeling most of your "successful" examinations are of this ilk. 

Your comments regarding the Molly Bish case lead me to believe you have never been involved in polygraphing people in a capital crime investigation, particularly one involving the probable rape and murder of a teenage girl. And if you have, it was a case with plenty of physical evidence, 1 suspect, and the DA just wanted a confession to force a plea.

Saidme,

With regard to your commentary regarding the Molly Bish matter, you offer an initial ridiculous suggestion for what might have taken place to produce what is highly likely to be a series of  wrong polygraph results.  Once again (although this time as opposed to the NAS study you admit it in advance), you offer commentary without reading or otherwise becoming familiar with the easily obtainable and publicly available information.  When that information is forced on you (the nature of the crime is given to you), you seek cover by raising a serious of possible but improbable explanations for the results.  It is apparent to anyone with any common sense that the only of several possible explanations that explains the totality of the results includeis a massive polygraph screw-up.  And this result is not the outcome of a view bad days in the polygraph suite (malpractice on the part of the examiner(s) involved to be reasonably followed by the, “If only I or my colleagues had conducted these exams…” typical explanation), but just one more example of when employed in a multi-suspect matter, the CQT polygraph technique itself is revealed to be completely flawed (quackery).  Although your recent, series of one word "yes" and "no" answers to various thread posts serves to hide the fact that you don't even pretend to make yourself knowledgeable about that which you comment upon, it offers little and is not nearly as cute as your attached emoticons would indicate or you think it to be.  Perhaps you might want to give some serious attention to this post and the probabilities associated with the straw man scenarios you offered to us before in this matter.

No.

Saidme writes in part:

Quote:


The foregoing is precisely the kind of ad hoc hypothesis that polygraphers typically resort to to explain away the failures of the polygraph. Couldn't the eleven suspects have failed the polygraph in the Molly Bish case simply because CQT polygraphy is not a valid diagnostic test for deception?  

Saidme,   

I am troubled by your response to A.

Another conspiracy?

All the people who failed the polygraph test in the Bish case are guilty of murder/ kidnapping, even if their victim wasn't Molly Bish.   

That pool of 11 people would represent some kind of whopper anomaly for the statisticians. 

Lets just say 3 of the 11, conspired and killed the poor girl.  What your saying is that the 8 other people are also murderers?  They just murdered someone else than Molly Bish? 

A cult no doubt-  Maybe it was the NAS and DOE scientists on the loose!  They kill their victims with protractors and calculators no doubt!!

Saidme you are so full of it.

You can't for one minute entertain the idea that the poly has inherant flaws?  You still blindly maintain that the poly is so accurate that the other eight DI's must have commited some other potentially non-related crime?

You exude the typical "everyone is guitly of something" or "must be if I determined them DI" cop attitude.  Of course, you would have to interrogate them all.

BS.  You would label them all DI just to get the excuse to interrogate them all without representation.

You conducted polys in a similar case and found that most everyone of the employees had at one point in time stole from their employer?  All the people confessed?  You should go public.  You would be able to demand double the typical fees charged for polys.  Employers would be knocking down your door to solve all their unsolved theft and crimes with your amazing accuracy rating.

A

As I stated in my earlier post, I don't know the case facts they were discussing so I can't really comment on any specific case.  I can only try and explain to the uneducated how (in my experiences) truthful people can come up DI.  As I've stated in earlier discussions, polygraph is not 100%, nor is anything else.  Could there have been bad examinations conducted in the case, of course.  Could they have failed because they had committed other murders/kidnappings? Of course.  Could they have failed because they were involved?  Of course.  Could they have failed because they had knowledge of the perpetrator but didn't (for whatever reason) want to disclose it to authorities?  Of course.

Mark

I fully recognize internal turmoil amongst truthful (and deceptive) examinees.  Usually, if a truthful examinee will have any response, it will be in the early charts.  As the test progesses, DI's go DI, NDI's go NDI.

Saidme,

Not only is your theft analogy, i.e., if they didn't commit this robbery, they committed another, rather presumptuous, it becomes incredibly ridiculous when you extend it to the case at hand, e.g., kidnapping/murder, to suggest that if these roughly dozen examinees didn't murder/kidnap the young lady in question, they kidnapped/murdered someone else.  What kind of a half-brained notion is that?  Come on—get real… you can do better than that...hmmm.... or can you?

I think the polygraph examiners here are seriously discounting the internal turmoil occasioned by "fear of consequences", and the possibility that even the innocenct subject will focus on the relevant question more so than the comparison question.

I instinctually found that a direct question about whether or not I committed espionage piqued me much more so than some vague question about whether I had ever taken anything of value from an employer.

Look at the consequences.  So what if an examiner accused me of taking something of value before that I had not revealed during the pre-test.  What is he/she going to do with that?  Hardly anything.  It's so amorphous, especially when the purpose of the test is a COUNTERINTELLIGENCE screening.  It's even off-point.

But what about the espionage question?  Any suspicion of espionage must be followed by an investigation, possibly suspension and/or dismissal.  So it's easily the more important question.

Of course, not every subject sees it that way, but neither does every innocent subject automatically perceive the comparison question as the more important one.  Thus the premise of the CQT--that the innocent subject will focus on the comparison question--is flawed.   

Orolan

I don't know anything about the case you're discussing but I can provide you with some insight that might be helpful (but probably not).  Let's say you're going to polygraph a group of employees working at the 7-11 over the theft of $100.  You're going to polygraph them on that specific issue.  Let's say for arguments sake, only one in the group stole the money.  Let's say the group consists of 11 people (I'll use your number).  At the conclusion of the 11 polygraphs let's say 9 were DI.  Obviously, one person stole the money, why would 8 others go DI?  What might cause that is a little bleed over from other incidents.  Maybe the other 8 people stole money from the 7-11 in the recent past, but they didn't steal that $100.  That would explain why you had more than one DI.  Of course you would interrogate them all equally.  From an examiner's standpoint, not only might he/she solve the crime of the stolen $100, but could resolve many other thefts that went unreported.  I've seen this very scenario occur.   

I hope that's not too much for you to digest.  You can apply this same scenario to just about any crime.