NoNombre,

I found much humor in your post. I snorted coffee out my nose and dam near fell out of my chair laughing on your last comment. thanks  !!! 

Regards

EosJupiter wrote on Mar 30^th, 2006 at 8:30am:


Eos,

Good question but the situation would probably not unfold that way. What would probably happen if the examiner found my kid deceptive, he would interrogate before any opposing interest reviewed the charts.  The defense polygraph expert is generally not present during the original exam.

If my kid was not guilty and if the examiner had actually made a mistake, that would come out later.

Would I be worried that one of my kids would be browbeat into a "false confession?"..

Hmmm...

Naw, the little monsters don't even confess to the things they ARE guilty of...

Regards,

Nonombre

Bill:

I guess we will have to bite the bullet until something else better comes along. (I know that is going to piss a lot of people off.) Like any other profession we continually  have to improve training and upgrade standards.  I respectfully disagree with you about the numbers of people who post here who say they have been wronged. While neither one of us can prove our point  I would bet that many who complain here are not telling the "whole story" concerning their polygraph experiences. I am not defending any bad or renegade polygraphists.  I know they exist. But, by the same token your side has to use commn sense when defending every anti poly story that appears here.

retcopper,

I don't think anyone on even this board would say that the polygraph cannot aid in getting people to confess to things. WHat we are mostly saying is that while your anecdotal evidence is compelling for explaining why you find the polygraph a useful tool, the truth is you have no idea how many people over the years perhaps were judged falsely or got away with lying. 

I suppose we could find a case for every one of your stories that would show where an innocent person was ravaged by police for failing a polygraph. You could find many links to such events on these forums. Many of us are angered by the notion that polygraphists are OK with this collateral damage.

NoNombre,

Your post is most impressive, But the post presents an opportunity for some research. If you QC'd the charts on your kid, and you saw that they showed no deception, but the polygrapher who gave the test started into interrogation saying that the kid was deceptive. What is your recourse ? Can you intervene ?
Interesting supposition to answer ? Your reply should be most interesting ? 

Regards  ...

Sergeant,

Of course you are right.  My original answer was definately "tongue in cheek."

I would in fact advise my teenage child to undergo the polygraph examination.  But in all fairness, I would advise him/her to take the advice of several of the folks who have posted on this site.

First of all, I would have my attorney monitor the examination.  I have conducted MANY polygraph examinations with a defense attorney watching me from behind a two-way mirror.  This has NEVER bothered me, for I am an ETHICAL polygraph examiner.

Since I record all my polygraph examinations, I would expect my child's examination to be recorded.

Next, if I could not QC the polygraph exam myself (I would after all be the father of the suspect) I would ask for an independent QC of the charts.  Once again, I have provided my charts to defense experts on many occasions.  This has also never bothered me.  The only thing I ask is that the examiner reviewing my work by properly licensed in the state and have all current training and certifications.  If like so many other forensic sciences the situation deteriorates into a "battle of the experts," in court or other hearing, I can accept that.

Lastly, I would tell my child that if he fails, I would expect him to come clean with the examiner, the attorney, and me.  After all, in the end, we all must take responsibility for our actions.

You might not believe what I said in my last paragraph, and that is of course your right, but I meant everything I just said.

Regards,

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Mar 24^th, 2006 at 3:46am:

Nonombre,

I believe the intent of the question was to determine if you would allow your child to undergo a polygraph examination if there were negative consequences should he or she fail.

Suppose, for example, you had a college-age child who attended school in a different state from where you live.  For whatever reason, he or she became a suspect for a serious crime.  The local police agency, with which you are completely unfamiliar, wants to polygraph your child during the course of their investigation.

Your child has told you they have absolutely nothing to do with this crime, and you fully believe them.  Do you think you would unhesitatingly tell them to take the polygraph, knowing that as long as they tell the truth they will be eliminated as a suspect?

I don’t see how an ethical polygraph examiner who truly believes in the accuracy of the polygraph process could give any advice other than, “Take the polygraph and tell the truth.  If you do that you will be instantly exonerated and you can go on with your life.”

retcopper wrote on Mar 24^th, 2006 at 9:44pm:


Many people never get this opportunity.

retcopper wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2006 at 8:51pm:


Grow up. I never said I was an expert nor have I ever implied such. However, I know enough about polygraphs to know they don't work. Of course, I've never given a polygraph. Why would I? I have a job that I can be proud of. 

You do very well recognizing cm's? Yeah, that's what they all say. 

BTW, I won't respond to any more of your posts as they are nothing but a total waste of my time.

Antrella:

I agree preemployments are less accurate than specific tests and a thorough background check should always attempt to resolve any contested issues. I disageree with the firing of emplyees who fail periodic polys.  These should aslo be backed up by some other evidence.  But, this is only my opinion. I think the feds probably use  more periodic testing than the city, county or state agencies. I would think that they have some other evidence in addition to the poly before they dismiss someone.

Could not connect to your link at bottom of your page.

retcopper wrote on Mar 24^th, 2006 at 4:35pm:


Listen - few reasonable people would question the effectiveness of the polygraph as an interrogative tool. I agree it can be tremendously useful when used as part (not all) of an investigation - particularly on ignorant thugs who couldn't tell the difference between an fMRI and a colander (see below). 

No question: the polygraph community has successfully built up this unflappable mythos that polygraphs somehow transcend the human mind to get to the truth. We all know that's not the case. The polygraph works best when the party being polygraphed believes it works best. If the examiners who browse this site disagree with that, you're either fools or facetious. 

That said, I agree the polygraph has a place in society. I'm realistic enough to realize that the polygraph community, top to bottom, is a multimillion dollar one - from the equipment, to the schools, to the lucrative government work. This profession, like any other, puts food in mouths, and is a source of pride for the many folks who practice it. 

But it's important to make sure that the poly's role in society is a limited one - one where 1) its use is "incident-specific" - for example, crimes where the GKT (which is less flawed than the CQT) can be used. And where 2) the benefit of passing is equal in weight to the potential harm of failing. In the criminal context, this is generally the case: if you pass, you're not exactly exonerated - the investigation continues if you're a suspect. If you fail, the information is inadmissible. 

Use of the polygraph in a pre-employment screening situation is a gross misjudgment on the part of the government, however. Passing means the background check continues - you gain little of value other than continuing in the security screening. Failing, however, in many cases means a lifetime ban from reapplying with the agency (often incongruous with the agency's own screening policies), and sometimes a compete ban from sensitive gov't work. This is also the case for current gov't employees. You pass, you keep your job. Fail, and your career is effectively over.

 
1. Polygraphed a subject who denied shaking an infant and killing him.  He failed my poly and gave me a confession. Hold up man shot and killed two customers, failed my exam and gave a confession and two other homicides are solved.

2. I've taken 2 exams.

3. Would test my kids to see if they smoke.  I'll let you have fun with this one and let you decide if my nose is growing. 

4. What difference does that make.

5. I still do polys. I vist this site to be amused by people  like you and to talk to mature  people who have a genuine interest in poly.

Name calling, such as allegedliar's calling nonombre "Nobrain," "a dumbass," and "a creep" is inappropriate and a violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy. Nonombre's  reply to you was also inappropriate, but it did not come without provocation.

All are requested to keep it civil. Strong disagreement and vigorous debate are welcome; personal attacks are not.

Geez,

Somebody PLEASE tell me what rock this slug crawled out from under...

Hi,

Nobody asked you, but since you butted in, Nobrain ...

#1 So, you're telling me that with all that evidence from the crime itself, you are that crappy of a cop that you still had to rely on a polygraph to crack a case? You must totally suck. Failed your appeal to the heartstrings.

#2 In your poly, you were in fact telling the truth then when you responded affirmatively that you are a dumbass who would faithfully rely on the polygraph to prosecute people, rather than physical evidence.

#3 And so polygraphy is child's play? You're a sick father figure and I'd never let my kids near you. If you parent by deception and intimidation, you're doing your children a real disservice, you creep.

#4 Ah, this question is the clincher -- and I think it's why Retcopper will not reply, at least honestly if he ever does. He knows what's up. So, retcopper, which coast do you live on? And don't lie now ...

nolehce wrote on Mar 24^th, 2006 at 12:19am:


Wow, can I play?

May answers to your questions:

#1,  18 month old girl, raped and beaten so savagely, her legs were both dislocated at the hip.  She died from internal bleeding.  I took a confession from a neighbor after a failed polygraph examination.  BTW, he said it happened because the girl "came onto him."

#2,  I have taken two polygraph examinations.  One to get on the police department and the other when I was selected to attend polygraph school.

#3,  Absolutely.  You know when you have two small kids and they get into a fight, each blaming the other?  Well, I just threaten them both with having to take daddy's polygraph test and the actual guilty party always fesses up.  Every parent should be issued a polygraph instrument.

#4,  Hmmm, good question.  I really don't know if the examiners are better on one coast or the other.  I do think the women are prettier on the west coast (but don't tell my wife)  

Regards,

Nonombre

Rectalcopper,

You sound like a real kewl dude. Since you're such an expert on lying, why don't you edumacate us all about your experience with the poly?

- For instance, what's the biggest case you ever cracked with the poly?

- How many times have you taken one yourself?

- Would you let your son or daughter take one?

- Do you think examiners are better or worse on the east coast or west coast?

- Why do you spend your retirement fighting these tired old battles? If you had any faith in the poly, wouldn't you be confident enough to let posts by the nonbelievers here go unaddressed by you?

Like you add substance.  You never gave a poly test in your life and now you are an expert.  BTW  I do very well recognizing counter measures.

retcopper wrote on Mar 21^st, 2006 at 3:41pm:


retcopper,

I'm not going to let your antagonistic postings aimed at me get under my skin. It would be easy to jab back with nasty digs, but I'll refrain. I believe in respecting elders even those with misguided views such as your own.

I think I 've made myself clear in terms of the reasons I gave "perplexed" the advice that I did. I won't repeat it again, despite your inability to comprehend. You know good and damn well that examiners can only GUESS that cm's are being used when they're done correctly, which is the reason why they falsely accuse examinees of using them who don't even know what they are. 

A word of advice. You might try and add some substance to the board instead of just trying to put words in the mouths of others.      

Polyfool:

So what you are saying is he might be under suspicion and he will be watched more closely so now is not the time to use cms becaue he will get caught. Very good. I knew you guys would come around.

retcopper wrote on Mar 20^th, 2006 at 4:31pm:


retcopper,

If you were a little quicker on the uptake, you'd have fully grasped the reasons why I recommended against countermeasure use for perplexed. Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. He's already mentioned to the examiner that he's researched polygraphy online, expressed skepticism about it and is INC on national security. It's almost certain he'll be under suspicious before he walks in the door. NOT because examiners can easily recognize cm's--they can't.  If they could, they wouldn't accuse examinees of using them who don't even know what they are. Explain that one wise a$$.

retcopper - I wouldn't get my pneumograph tubes in a tangle over this highly case-specific advice. perplexed's situation is different from the average, first-time polygraph taker's situation. that said, countermeasures certainly have a time and place.

Polyfool:

Now George and his followers are warning against using counter measures because the examiners might see them.  Very good advice and very interesting.

perplexed,

Detector says "you seem to be getting advice to use countermeasures." If he'd read the thread a little closer, he'd see that at least two posters, myself included, recommended against countermeasure use. Not because they don't work, but because you will already be under suspicion before you even walk in the door and they'll be looking for them. It's quite possible you'll be accused of such without even using them. You may have already gotten on the bad side of you examiner for expressing doubt about the poly without even knowing it. 

I do agree with detector that Cm's are not your best option. In my opinion, your best option would be to withdraw your application and walk away with an INC--better than a DI, no doubt.

Although Detector has a great deal of faith in FBI poly examiners, based on my experience, I must respectfully disagree with him as I'm sure many posters on this board  would concur. Again, from my experience, they're not professional, caring and sensitive as detector would have you believe. My best advice would be not to trust them. My examiners didn't care about the truth and being open and honest with them got me an INC/DI on my permanent file. There was no value placed on that aspect, that's for sure.  Don't make the same mistake I did by trusting an FBI poly examiner--you may  get burned in the end. Trust me, you are playing a game that you can't win because the rules aren't fair. Even if you decide to take the test again and you pass, you will be subjected to future polys by the agency. It would be wise to think about whether that's a chance you're willing to take. You know the tests don't work and you would always be at the agency's whim if someone wanted rid of you. Personally, I would never want an agency or person to have that unfair advantage over me--things should be fair and square. I've seen the fear in the eyes of someone who has trouble with polys and is subjected to them as a condition of employment-- very unsettling. Personally, that is not a position I would want to be in. I feel very strongly that polys have no business in the pre-employment arena nor should they be relied upon for national security screening. Both huge mistakes with possibly devastating consequences. Not to mention a total waste of taxpayer money.   

Much to think about. Good luck with your deliberations.

Perplexed, 

My best advice is to retake the examination, explain to the examiner your thoughts on why your prior examination was a bad experience.  Be very honest regarding your experiences growing up and the manner in which you were treated by authority figures.  Examiners are sensitive to these issues and do know how to work with you rather than against you.  You seem to be getting advice to use coutermeasures, I don't believe that would be your best option. 

Even disussing the postings on this board with the examiner and the purpose of venting here and getting advice is being honest and giving 100% of yourself on this, your second examination makes you an honest and respectible individual.

I applaud your statements regarding total honesty and I believe your examiner will do the same, give him a chance to help you pass this examination without problems by being totally honest about your first experience and other life experiences.  FBI examiners are well trained and most are excellent examiners.   

I wish you the very best, and please, it you do take the step, and 2nd polygraph, report back to the board and tell what happened.