NoPoly,

I agree with you on that point. There have been many innocent men who have spent large amounts of their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. Kudos to Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project for proving these men were the victims of overzealous prosecution and poor police investigations.

Another point to consider is that the polygraph may have been involved in these cases too. Operator bias may be a key to the mens being found deceptive, simply because the polygrapher may have presumptions of guilt.  They don't want to be a "stand up" person for the "criminal element" who was actually guilty. It would be safe to assume that this is a minority of those who "work the box"

Fred F.

Fred F. wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 4:39am:


Don't forget the police and prosecution...  I have seen amazing lengths the police and prosecution will go to for the hopes of a conviction, only to have convicted the wrong individual.  DNA is clearing these victims of police/prosecutor misconduct daily.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 8:19am:


Sarge, Barry

That is why defense lawyers make so much money nowadays, They will twist, bend, manipulate, and retool evidence to mislead the jury. The right statement at the right time will make a difference.

Also a guilty verdict can be the result of poor defense too.(a little devils advocacy there)  


Fred F.

Actually he said "....a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly."

Hello?

Sarge,

Wake up and get with the program.  He said without a confession then a polygraph result of DI is only a possibility.  In other words, it's not a sure thing.  I said the same is true of a jury verdict of guilty without (and some would argue even with) is the same reasoning.  Hello!

Barry_C wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 11:29pm:

Without a confession a guilty verdict is only a possibility?

Are you serious?

In some cases that is true, but in many others it is not.  A blanket statement like that without any qualifiers attached is intentionally misleading.  It attempts to link the polygraph with the court system in order to gain credibility the polygraph simply does not have.

A polygraph result without a confession is ALWAYS merely a possibility.  Regardless of a confession or lack thereof, a guilty verdict in a trial is very often the result of incontrovertible physical evidence.

It would be far more accurate to compare the polygraph to a trial system where a jury of one spoke with the accused for an hour or two and then rendered a verdict, without a defense counsel, rules of evidence, witness statements, investigating officer's reports, or physical evidence.

Fred F. wrote on Dec 1^st, 2007 at 5:31pm:


Fred:

YOur statement about promotions is very logical.  Afterall, what chief wants to promote someone who knows all is secrets? 

Regarding education, perhaps there should be a college requirement for polygraphers, even so much as one must have a Masters in Polygraphy, much like Psychologists must have a Masters before engaging in their profession.  I suspect such a requirement would go a long way towards legitimizing the field of polygraphy.

nopolycop wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 10:24pm:


NoPoly,

Your statement is very valid at the local LE level. At the Federal level, The top agencies, the DEA, ATF, DOJ, and FBI, all require a 4 year college degree before applying. 

It is also safe to assume that many polygraphers have NO formal education beyond high school. This, in my opinion only, creates a feeling of inferiority. That may lead to operator bias.

While there surely is many educated polygraphers at the local level, Being a polygrapher may not be the path to promotion above rank and file. 

NoMeGusto,

Thanks for your candid insight, 

Fred F.

But normally it's hard to make an arrest stick with possible cause. JAJAJA... 
Sorry if I offended you. I thought it was funny... Have a great evening...

Quote:


So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.

Nopoly:
I'm not assuming good faith, I'm assuming professionalism. You can't go in there thinking the polygrapher is your friend, nor is he your enemy. 
On the contrary most investigators whom become polygraphers do have some sort of degree. I'll admit to being off on the psychological, but it was a guess on my part...

Nom:

I don't disagree with your comments, with the caveat that you are assuming good faith by all polygraphers.  I think this assumption would be naive.  For one example, refer to the thread about the ethics complaint against Louis Rovner...

Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.

Nopoly: 
But the opinion comes with a lot of wieght and expierence my friend. Assuming the history of a LEO polygrapher. That person is a detective, or a an experienced Special Agent. More then likely with a degree in psychology and has a tremendous amount of expierence in interviewing and interrogation. He/She will use all of that knowledge and expierence to make the best decision possible. Will they make a mistake, sure. Hec, I've made them too. But I had probable cause to do the things I did. Was I wrong for the mistake. It just didn't work out that time. However the next officer that felt the same way I did got the goods (lucky bas*&^%). 
I've been fortunate to have skilled, and ecellent interrogators who polygraphed me. When I've talked to other VSA/Polygraphers, I get the same answer. They hate each other, but at the same time they won't make a determination until after reading the charts, looking at the video, and listening to the recording. Once they have the totality of the situation they'll make there judgement. Meaning you could use countermeasures during a polygraph. But those darn NVI's you can't mask can and will fail you. 
I've never gone through any type of polygraph training. Again, thats interview/interrogation 101. 
If a subject keeps telling me no no no, but his NVI's are showing me yes yes yes. Am I gonna stop asking? Will I believe his no's. I stated to painful the other day, I'm skeptical as soon as I hear I'm a religous person. So, are priests who committed sexual abuse on minors, or jihadists blowing things up. 
Am I synical? Nah... I have a job to do. 
I've heard that polygraphers are lying about how the machine detects lies. Well, no polygrapher has ever told me that. It shows your BP, respitory, and sweatiness etc etc. However again it's the totality of the situation that will dictate that a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly. For prescreeners unfortunatly that could be enough NOT to get a job (which is why I don't like them), but at the same time there are a literally thousands of LEA's throughout the country. If your a criminal, and you go tightlip afterwards, well I'd say thats a clue. I guarantee the investigators will be working harder to complete the job. 


Mr. Johnston: nice analagy... Please again as a polygrapher let me know if I'm not writing this impartially...

Although it didn't used to be the case, people who are drug- screened are now watched while they fill their specimen cups-----as it was eventually found out (among other countermeasures) that it was easy to render the tests as inconclusive by virtue of spitting in the samples. Such ease of countermeasures should in no way negate the use of drug tests---despite the relative ease of which people can render some of those tests as inconclusive. You don't have to be James Bond to spit in a cup.
Like other major retailers and or "advice givers"----this site has two products---the stated/virtual one, and the actual result....like this below ----

Nom:

Assuming you were responding to my post, I agree with what you say, it's not just the charts.  In fact, that is exactly my point.  If the charts could actually give the results, then that would be one thing, but a "pass" or "fail" is more than the recorded squiggly lines on a chart.  It is the OPINION of the trade school graduate known as a polygrapher.

Added then to this human opinion is the issue of whether or not countermeasures can or are effective.  The fact that polygraphers have started using butt pads, suggest that at least in the case of anal constriction, countermeasures can be effective.   

The fact that the result of a polygraph exam is mere opinion, and that opinion is based on squiggly lines on a chart that might be susceptable to the use of countermeasures, might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the results of any polygraph exam are suspect.

 

Thanks Mr. Johnson...


I saw the lafayette. so I was thinking of the history of the agency I work for.  It did get me a little confused. LOL

Just FYI 1904... I'm not a polygrapher, but a certified interviewer/interrogator and a written statement analyzer...

nome', 1904 asked you the question because he believes that anyone who is objective about polygraph must surely be an examiner. Let's just say he is an "out of towner"----coming from a (albeit beautiful) country that has more than its share of woes aside from polygraph.

I prefer Munroe 1904. 

Stay safe...

There's other circumstances concerning the polygraph. A. it's recorded. As far as I am concerned. If your a thorough polygrapher, your not determining the test just by the chart. It's going to be the totality of the situation. Your going to look for NVI's etc etc. I can tell without a polygraph if your sweating prefously during questioning by looking at a subjects shirt, or all of a sudden he's thirsty etc etc, and the room temp is 59 degrees. I honestly don't think there making a final decision just on a chart. As far as I am concerned, your prescreen interview will be a big make or break in any polygraph. Hell, if your doing so well on a prescreen, and a good written statement, will I even do the interrogation. Sometimes no. Polygraph as far as I am concerned is the same way. People are nervous. It happens. Some people can alter there breathing without realizing it, because of the conditioning in a stressful enviorement. It's life. But, it's not just the squiggly lines on a part, or computer graph. Thats interview/questioning 101... 



Polygraphers, please let me know if I am right or wrong? I don't want to overstep my boundry on this, since I'm not a polygrapher. I'm trying to write more on common sense then anything else...

Dear Nomegusto,

Which do you prefer; Lafayette or Axciton ?

Take care,

Nom:

Knowing what I know now, I cannot answer the question you pose to me, because every circumstance is different.  A lot would hinge on the emotional baggage that would come with the type of crime accused of.  Are you going to respond emotionally when asked about that type of crime?  Have you ever committed a similar crime under different circumstances, which you might react to?  These are just a couple of variables that would preclude me from answering your question.

But, I do know that I would be very distrustful of taking a poly where it was done at request of a detective, by an LEO examiner.  After all, the results are not subjective, but instead, the opinion of the examiner.  IN truth, one cannot subjectively pass or fail, but instead one is given an an objective opinion by someone who has attended a trade school.

EJohnson wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 4:57pm:


Hmmm. Eric, you've gained a few pounds.

Well Nopoly I'm no Gary Ridgeway, nor am I anyperson thats good at deceiving others. I know  personally, if I became under investigation for a felony crime. I'm NOT going to allow myself to take a poly. Again, as I stated on earlier posts a polygraph is part of a painting. 
For instance, when someone applies for law enforcement agency, and is subject to a polygraph does that person get hired afterward? Normally I'd say no. You have to go through the psychological, and then you have to (wait wait, are you sick of waiting yet? LOL) go through the Back Ground INVESTIGATION!!!! 
Grant it, I've read posts where we slam polygraph as a whole because a few bad apples were able to slip through the cracks. It happens, thats life. Innocent people are labled liars, and I apologize for that as well. But nothing is perfect. I don't like getting polygraphed. But I'm not at a level in my profession to tell the bosses to not polygraph for pre screening either. 
   Nopoly, knowing the information you know now. If per chance you were investigated for committing a crime, which you are innocent of. A detective, or criminal investigator asked to polygraph you, would you take the risk? If so, would you cheat, and risk being caught? I think if an investigator caught you using CM's, you'd be screwed. Especially if there were no other leads,  fruits of the crime, or instrumentality of the crime. 
   I wouldn't even need to use the machine as evidence. The fact that you were trying to delibratly alter a interrogation could be enough to make life miserable. 
   If that was me, I'm gonna lawyer up. Keep the mouth shut, and well most LEO's know what to do afterwards. 

EJ thanks...

So yah, what I said was exactly that. For good reason. Since the majority of individuals unfortunatly DON'T know there rights. 

nopolycop wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:


Ok, that last paragraph makes sense. But the first is rediculous. A close friend viewed the Ridgeway polygraph charts and noted an absolute lack of arousal response----like the polygrams of a piece of furniture. Many would make an Inconclusive call. So, your repeated referance to the killer is tired and narrow, but you definitely get an "A" for getting attention.

nomegusto wrote on Nov 29^th, 2007 at 5:15am:


WTF?

Nom, I find your posts full of common sense, but this one got me.  Maybe it was late, but it seems to me you said that if you are guilty of a crime and take a poly, you are a fool, and if you are innocent and take a polly, you are a fool.

I can think of a couple of instances where I would disagree with both of these.  If you are Gary Ridgway and want to take the suspicion off you for having killed 40 or so women, take a poly, pass it, and the cops look elsewhere.  it worked for him.

If you have been accused of a crime, but didn't do it, you might take a poly to clear your name, (but this is a VERY RISKY GAMBLE).  If one chooses to do this, do it privately, not with the LE polygrapher.