Sarge, I don't think anyone here has argued against Miranda while in custody - all COPS are aware of Miranda.  Now back to to this thread Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph.

Paradiddle wrote the following:
Quote:


It seems to me that an easy way to prove the polygraph is an interrogation is that Miranda is required before you can polygraph any suspect in custody.  My questioning in this regard was reasonable and on point.

Whether you wish to call it interviewing, questioning, or interrogation, if you have a suspect in custody and are going to ask questions or do anything likely to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda is required.  That includes the polygraph.  It logically follows that the polygraph falls under the category of interrogation.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 9:22pm:


Sarge, MM is right.  If you were or are a cop, you wouldn't be discussing the difference between interview vs interrogation.   Now back to Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph.  BTW, besides seeing a picture of Drew, I would love to read his disertation...

Sarge,

I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.

Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.

Take care,

MM

IN CUSTODY is the key word.  As far as a polygraph being an interrogation, it turns into an interrigation after a call of deception is given and questioning starts regarding the suspected deception.  It is an interview prior to that.  Miranda is required if the individual is restricted and cannot leave, that is IN CUSTODY.

Sarge,

Its just that your so eminently attackable...

Miranda is a matter of SOP.

That does not itself define anything in the epistemological sense.

The way you write, its sounds like you'd disagree that police should even question people. 

This is like Plato allegory of the cave - its a bunch of people sitting around blowing smoke up each others a%^, about something ya'll seem to feel rather desperate about.

Remember this thread is about Drewie's fabricated expertise regarding the polygraph.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 6:38pm:

If you could explain to me how the polygraph is not an interrogation, but still cannot be administered to suspects in custody without Miranda I would certainly be willing to listen.

If you could do it without the pointless ad hom attacks it might give you a bit more credibility.

Sarge,

(if you are a sarge, 'cause most sergeants don't whine about their tough experiences at every opportunity) 

and D-Head (if you know anything about science and empirical matters)

This thread is not about whether the polygraph is an interrogation. By your broad definitions a job interview is an interrogation.

The thread is about the fact that Drew Richardson and the users of this board have grossly exaggerated his credentials and "expertise" as a polygraph examiner. It seems he's hardly qualified at all.

And now, there is speculation about whether he even exists.

Drewie = Lt. Kije ???????

 

Sergeant,
 
You wrote:

"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".

Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.

Get a life,

MM

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 3:20pm:

I have already expressed the idea contained in the highlighted text above.  You are exhibiting classic troll behavior.


The text of Miranda v. Arizona uses the terms "questioning" and "interrogation" synonymously.

Quote:


In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court defined "interrogation" as as "express questioning or its functional equivalent."  The court went on to write that the functional equivalent of interrogation consists of "words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation.  If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights.  You could also ignore the Edwards Rule and polygraph a suspect in custody after he states he wants to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions.  In reality, you can do neither.  

Sergeant,

Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.

Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!

Regards,

MM

Quote:


Drew Richardson was an FBI chemical specialist who went to DODPI, and according to classmates, Barely graduated and didn't recieve his certification. Drew was defaulted to the poly lab at DODPI where he was reputted to be very disagreeable and perhaps unhappy with the FBI's demotion/ displacement. After emerging from DODPI, he testified before congress and the NAS that polygraph was not a valid tool for detecting deception---despite going on record of saying that polygraph GKT was a valid test. Since his testimony, he has challenged the polygraph community to detect his countermeasures in a mock crime lab setting. The challenge is poorly conceived via psychological construct, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone challenges Drew to a likewise empty countermeasure challenge involving his fMRI booby-tube. I would like to know how being a simple physiologist while analysizing neurological and neuro-linguistic activity is connected. I do however wish him luck and if he pioneers his field, I will praise his new work, but I will always lampoon his "reluctant activism," evident poor performance at DODPI,  and subsequent fanboy indulgences. I submit that Drew's expertise in polygraph mirrors G W Bush's expertise in Ranching.

Quote:


My apologies to all . Drew Richardson was clearly a spectacular examiner and theorist and was meritous of "superior expert witness" regarding polygraph methodology. GMAFB! No one squeezes out little brown stink-cakes like you folks-----no one. 

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm:


Actually, Mark Johnson in his statement did not characterize Dr. Richardson as "the single worst polygraph student" he had "ever seen," nor did he state that Dr. Richardson "lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures." Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson's performance is limited to the following two paragraphs of his statement:

Quote:


Note that Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson appears to be based on his observation of only one polygraph examination. While Johnson characterizes Dr. Richardson's polygraph examination as "the worst polygraph examination [he had] ever witnessed," he offers no specific criticism of it, which makes any rebuttal problematic. As for Johnson's only specific claim -- that Dr. Richardson canceled "five to seven" polygraph examinations that he (Johnson) was to supervise -- Dr. Richardson promptly addressed it, stating that "(w)ith regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me."

It is again worth noting that Mark Johnson's gross mischaracterization of statements made by former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah in such a serious national security matter as an espionage investigation calls his objectivity into question.

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, Dr. Richardson fully responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely addressed your mockingly sarcastic follow-up questions. Despite your and your fellow polygraphers' ongoing histrionics, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials, nor (as alluded to by digithead) have you in any way impeached Dr. Richardson's credibility with regard to any matter on which he has testified.

I am going to assume from the frantic re-direction attempts by Paradiddle that no one is going to continue to falsely claim that a suspect in custody need not be Mirandized prior to being polygraphed.

As I already wrote, since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that certainly indicates that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.


If you have a suspect in custody, and you advise him of his rights, and he invokes his right to counsel, does the Edwards Rule apply with regards to a polygraph exam?  Or are you going to try to claim that a suspect in custody who has asked for a lawyer can be polygraphed anyway since it is not an interrogation?

digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:59am:


You are right D-Head, for me to repeat that a sworn heresay declaration which was submitted to a triar of fact (Judge)contained the allegations that this web site's very own antipolygraph's sexiest man of the year (5 years running) Drew Richardson was the worst polygraph student ever witnessed by an auditing senior examiner, and furthermore the declaration states that Drew Richardson had the single worst lacking of grasp on the polygraph methodology and practical applications seen in a career of service with the United States Federal Governement----probably isn't going to change world hunger, but it is the right thing to do.

I was wrong D-Head, you should go to work for Big Oil and devalue the word "Pollute" to mean simply "dirt."  Soon we will all be saying "my kitchen floor has pollution" when we spill our soda. Your comment of "nice job" infers that to teach you a lesson in D-Head debate is a job rather than a pleasurable pastime. Good night D-Head, as I have to go get the pollution out of my hair in the shower before bed time.

niters

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:09am:


You know that repeating the same false assertions over and over again does not make them any less false...

You also should take Criminal Procedure 101 over so that you can see that affidavits are a type of hearsay evidence, especially those that pertain to character. A sworn affidavit is one that happens in front of someone (e.g., notary, judge, magistrate) authorized to say that what is contained in the affidavit is what the person presented, it does not speak to the truthfulness of what that person said. Additionally, it is up to the judge to decide whether to let them in or not...

And nice job, trying to reflect my criticisms of you guys back on me...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:05am:


And again, so what if there is a official sworn declaration that Dr. Richardson was the single worst examiner he's ever seen. How does this impeach his credibility on anything he's testified to? I know it really excites you polygraph people that you think you've found a "smoking gun" but all it really looks like is character assassination...

digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:48am:


Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information. 

Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly."

DHead, you can twist it anyway you want to make yourself feel better.  But deep down it that little soul of yours, you know there is a difference.   

Now back to the topic RE:there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government...and your man crush....copy cat

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:42am:


Nice ad hom! Attacked my character, intelligence, and personality with lightning precision. Well done!

Do guys have anything else going for you besides character assassination and logical fallacies? Since you can't seem to address any of my questions, it leads me to believe that you have a pathological need to attack those that question your profession and its methods. If you can't beat them with science and evidence, beat them with innuendo, ad hom, and name-calling...

You call Dr. Richardson names and accuse him of all sorts of intellectual impropriety, yet you provide no evidence that any of his testimony or research is wrong or false other than an affidavit that states someone's opinion...

The good thing is that most rational people can see right through your methods. I hate to break it to you but viciousness and vindictiveness get you nowhere...

Seriously, you got anything other than name-calling? I'd really like to engage in true debate. I'm holding out hope...

Lastly, how do you know what I've read or what I haven't read? Are you mind-reading now? I think it's just as scientific as CQT but I hear it's a lot more lucrative...

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am:


Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath... 

Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events...

So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished... 

Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation...

Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)...

Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...

I wrote; Quote:


Yes, you do have a man-crush on him as evidenced by your wholehearted embrace of a scientist who's doctorate you have not read, and whose work you are not aware of other than 2  speeches and a few posts. What exactly do you know of this fella D-Head? Prolly nada. Yet, you defend him simply because he called the polygraph CQT test "pseudoscience"----but he calls the GKT test a "strong and scientifically worthwhile test"---despite the fact that he cannot scientifically explain the precise mechanisms involved with the GKT test---"it just works." Gee, that's really scientific. Maybe he likes one test but not the other--not due to construct validity, but because one of the tests is more complicated to administer.....oh wait....he had no apparent psychological grasp on the CQT test. Oh but hey, he is a physiologist. Trust me D-Brain, I have met several physiologists that couldn't explain the first damn thing about behavioral mechanisms----fact is, they typically are so clueless, they can barely engage in human conversation. 
On self deception, no one has mastered such as you my little friend. The lights, the sparkle, and the fixtures may impress the simple onlookers, but you and I know that you have serious faux-logical issues and your engagement in bully-pseudo-epistemology is empty, fixated, and embarrassingly obvious cries for help. It's a test with some errors, but works well when used and understood correctly. Dr. Richardson didn't demonstrate that he really understood this peculier modality for detecting deception. I only hope he "grasps" fMRI and does his homework.

Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.  

Someone who speaks about something has an opinion.  It DOES NOT make them an expert.

Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i]  Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one.  A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol
 
[i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...   
 
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
 
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT.  Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’   Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over????  Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it!  GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
 
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me...   Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew.  Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’.   

This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’  YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either!   Now some information was pointed out about Drew being  the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.   

So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning...  Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...

Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed  (interrogates:1.  to question formally and systematically 2.  to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response).   Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.

 
So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures

Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF?  The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph.  Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney.   Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY!  So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible.  Give me a fkn break.    

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm:


That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience...

Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled...

Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...

If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... 

On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...

On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me...

So I'm going have to go with the evidence that Dr. Richardson is qualified to talk about the polygraph and its validity until I am presented with more compelling evidence than a deposition of someone stating his views...
 
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm:


So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... 

Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...