EJohnson wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 3:27am:


So then, name just one.

Larry,

please name one thing I have been deceptive about!  I do not mean your perception of lying based on your fanatical quest to misrepresent the truth; but, just one thing that we can all agree with, by evidence on this board, that I have purposefully misled, withheld or lied about.  That is, if you can handle a simple request from an examiner?

Furthermore, when did I go and whine to George?  I can handle my own battles.  I simply believe it is unfair to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed man.  YOU, being "that man...Cuz, It seems that it is YOU, not I, who are one conducting the 

                         "POOR ME - PITY PARTY."

You are exactly the personality type that should be excluded from law enforcement and/or government service. Or, as they say in some circles, "you got issues, bro!"

Sackett

Do you actually have something to say, or are you just yelling to get it off your chest?


Yes, your pattern of posting on this board indicates deception.

You seem not to want to answer my question.  Why are you holding back the truth?  Persistent refusal to answer a simple question is a sign of "deception".

Of course, you are under no obligation to answer.   

Have you ever falsely accused somebody you tested of being untruthful?

just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me.

No you just go crying to george because I called you a name.  Which is your right, of course.  Sorry!

Larry

Larry,

just to prove I'm not as thin skinned as some have suggested, I'm not going to address your personal attack on me.  I would request, though, you find something a little more original to use as your ammunition.

Do you actually have something to say, or are you just yelling to get it off your chest?

Please advise,

Sackett

P.S.  Did you actually author both of the preceding "Larry" posts?

Mr. Johnson,

You're pattern of posting on this board indicates that you are a polygrapher.  Probably from Canada.   

Yet you continue to lie!

Can you prove otherwise?

We want to help you, but we can't if you continue to withhold information.  Come clean and we can get through this together.

As it stands now, though, you are showing a "pattern of deception".

Now you are being racist against Asians eh? Nice.

Have you done any more side jobs for foreign agencies? Nothing like maken a lil extra lettuce for a rainy day, eh?

Mister Johnson,

I can tell you from experience, because I lie on test and passing the test.
Mr. Ames, he pass test, but he lying!

I think you lie.  You no polygrapher?  Prove it!

You no can prove, then you must be liar!

Larry

I don't draw a paycheck from polygraph at all.

No lies.

No arrogance.

Just plain ol' horse sense. 

I don't have to "believe in the test" like it is some form of religion. Polygraph does quite well with or without the belief of both it's detractors and it's boosters. In peer-reviewed studies, the polygraph does very well in detecting lies, and even more so in detecting hidden knowledge. Your statements over the last couple of weeks regarding "belief in" polygraph suggest serious mental disorder. 

I honestly don't care about turncoats and espionage-----any more than the average citizen. All of your ranting about a super-spy being able to beat polygraph tests is nothing new-------such legends have abounded for decades---that is, super-polygraph-beating-monsters. You seem to be very excited over this concept. Write a congressman, do some jogging----whatever. Just please know that to continue a repetetive rant such as yours is .....well......a few pancakes short of a stack.

Ejohnson,

How does it make you feel that Ames spied his ass off yet passed all his polygraphs with flying colors?  Yet you still defend the test.

A little old fashion detective work would have caught him sooner, but, hey, the man passed his polygraphs, so they probably figured he was an okay guy.

Do you still believe in the test?  Tell the truth.  We are sick of your lies and arrogance.  Come clean!

Just because you draw a pay check by engaging in this con game is no excuse!

Cliff, I know what I am talking about alright.

Perhaps it's time to retire Al's persona mate. You have shown your literary prowess with him enough. The only thing you didn't count on is that no American from the intel biz would use such a name-----we Americans aren't so ironical----at least not as much as the Anglo-Africans.

The only exception being the American band "The Dead Kennedy's"---but they were a punk band, not former rank and file patriotic intel workers.

Ejohnson

How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know.

I don't think you know what the hell your talking about.

I would expect such a lame-ass, arrogant answer like that from some hack polygrapher!

Maybe you're just afraid to admit the polygraph has no scientific basis.

Who should  we believe you and sackashit, or the scientific community?

"Dr" Lethe,

do you have an accusation, specific to an examiner, or are you simply "blowing smoke" to support your own propaganda...? 

Sackett

Donna.Taylor wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 12:20am:


Donna, the APA Standards of Practice (Effective 01/20/2007) states, in part:

Quote:


You seem to be implying that a polygrapher who doesn't follow the standards, which include audio/video recording all exams and keeping those records for at least one year, would lose APA membership and thus not be able to conduct exams in Utah.  If this is so, then we could logically conclude that all exams performed under the auspices of the State of Utah are audio and video recorded and that those recordings are kept for at least one year.  Is this, in fact, the case?

If not, then the State of Utah does not require its polygraphers to fully comply with APA standards.

Dr. Lethe

EJohnson wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 3:27am:


https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1147180134

nopolycop wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 2:01am:


How do you know this? The APA Board of Directors are supposed to handle matters of non-third party victim discipline with secrecy, very much like employers do. With some exceptions, I doubt you care to have your law enforcement disciplinary actions put on Front Street. You continue to speak of which you don't know. 

Donna.Taylor wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 12:20am:


The APA doesn't even kick out members who falsify their credentials.  I wouldn't hold  your breath.

Lethe wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 8:04am:


Utah rules state:
1.      A potential examiner must graduate from a course of instruction in deception detection that is approved by the APA.   
2.      Post Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT) intern examiners must be supervised by an examiner that is PCSOT certified.   
3.      Also if an examiner conducts PCSOT without holding a current certification from APA they could be disciplined (including revocation of license).


I believe the bigger picture is that APA members/examiners should follow rules and guidelines of the APA to retain their membership in this association.  If they are an APA member and the APA standards are greater than their state rules - the examiner should be held accountable to the APA best practices or loose their membership.   

APA and AAPP are valuable entities to examiners. I believe memberships with these entities should be held at the highest regard by examiners.  Taylor

Question for polygraphers: Which states, if any, actually have laws that require polygraph exams done by all state agencies to fully comply with APA guidelines and standards?

It's great if you can talk about how awesome APA standards are.  But if no one is actually following them, they may as well not even exist.  We all know that federal agencies pretty much do whatever the hell they want.  Pretty much every competent polygrapher I've ever seen comment on the subject has said that all exams should at least be audio recorded and that video recording would also be a good idea.  I believe the APA itself has said that all exams should be recorded.  But, hey, if that gets in the way of doing what you want, why do it?  Truly it is written that those who have power do what they want and those who don't suffer what they must.

So, which states, if any, actually require all polygraph exams done under their auspices to comply with APA rules?  We've got polygraphers from all over the country here, I'm sure we can come up with a pretty good, if not 100% exhaustive and authoritative list.

thank you for some of the comments now i just realized i forgot some info. i was mentioning the state of maine and it's criminal justice academy. in the state law that establishes the academy it does not mention a polygraph as part of the entrance requirements, the polygraph requirement is the requirement of the board of trustees. the only law on the books is for sex offenders, the licensing of examiners and where it can be used. so if the academy requires it why isn't it part of the law that establishes the entrance requirements? and they say they follow the apa's policy but i haven't written proof from the director that says otherwise. any opinions?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 9:02am:


Sarge:

Regarding the first, if that chief ever applies for another job which requires a poly, the issue will become more personal for him.  I've seen it happen in my neck of the woods.

Secondly, the above is right on.  I recently had a discussion with my departments polygrapher, and I point blank confronted him about the issue, saying "you can't really tell if a person is lying or telling the truth, can you?"  He sheepishly said "no, not really".  And this guy is WELL RESPECTED in the poly community, and as served as president of the statewide poly association.   At least he was honest with me, likley because he knew that I knew.

Donna.Taylor wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 4:11am:

I have already discussed this at length with the Chief in my department.

The problem as I see is not that specific-issue follow-up testing is not being done, it is that neither the polygraph nor its operator is able to determine truth or deception.  As I have mentioned before, as far as I can tell the examiner takes a wild guess and hopes for the best.  There is no reason for me to believe that false positives are any less numerous than false negatives, so follow-up testing would hardly be a suitable resolution.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2008 at 3:33am:


Sarge, I don't see polygraphs going away until there is a better tool available.  During the Myth Busters segment the Polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3 - the MRI didn't correctly identify the individuals. 

If the problem you state exists in Connecticut - instead of venting at AP, why don’t you do something to get your state rules changed to require specific issue (follow-up) exams on DI calls on a multi-issue w/o admissions?  At the very least, you could send a letter to the Chief’s with your concern and attach a copy of the APA policy.

thebigmainer wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:


In Connecticut an applicant has to pass, not just take, a polygraph in order to attend the POST academy.  

Although I haven't taken a polygraph in a while, when I last did there were never any follow up tests conducted if you failed, even when the examiner claimed you only failed on one question.  You passed and continued with the application process, or you failed and that was it.  It is my understanding that such is still the way pre-employment polygraphs are conducted here.

From polygraph examiners' comments on this board it seems the conventional wisdom is to administer specific incident testing if a police applicant fails the polygraph.  I don't know if that is or is not a rule with the APA, but either way it is not how pre-employment polygraphs are conducted in Connecticut.

thebigmainer wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:


An agency must follow state law, (federal law if it is federal agency) and it's own policies and procedures regarding poly tests.  If state law or it's own policies and procedures reference the APA policy, then yes, they must follow that policy.

As far as your second question, since I don't feel the poly is a good tool to be used in LE screening because of the plethora of false positives, I would obviously answer that question in the negative.

does a hiring agency or law enforcement academy that requires a polygraph have to follow the APA's rules on polygraphs? for example on their site the APA says that a polygraph shouldn't be used as the only tool in the hiring process. do agency's have to follow this? or can they say if you don't pass one, even with a clean background you still can't attend the police academy. and is it good practice to do so?