Add Poll
Options: Text Color Split Pie
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
Topic Summary - Displaying 8 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2002 at 10:53am
  Mark & Quote

I read the article you speak of. It is disturbing that the department involved apparently decided to conduct a polygraph dragnet rather than a serious investigation, and actually relied on the polygraph to exculpate those who "passed."

As you're no doubt aware, anyone can beat a polygraph "test," and to rely on it to include or exclude suspects is just plain stupid. Similarly, no adverse inference should be inferred against those who refuse to submit to such nonsense.

Perhaps we could work together to help more people to learn the truth about polygraphs, especially in your home town, where your reputation is on the line. For example, I'd be happy to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper that published the article (and also to the reporter who wrote it). And I'd be happy to speak about polygraph issues with any print, radio, or television reporters who contact you about this matter. (Check your private messages, where you'll find my phone number.)

One thing you can do to help protect your reputation is to refer those who might question your refusal to be polygraphed (for example, members of your city council, and the officers of your department) to this website. In particular, they should see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which exposes polygraphy for the fraud that it is. (You might want to print out a few copies; if you put the PDF file on a floppy disk and take it to a copy shop like Kinko's, they can print it out double-sided and put a spiral binding on it.) Those who have read it should understand why a truthful person would refuse to submit to one of these asinine "tests."

In addition, if you would like to make a formal public statement about your polygraph experience (that is, the consequences of refusing to be polygraphed), we'd be happy to publish it on the Personal Statements page. See, as an example, former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah's statement.
Posted by: damaged
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2002 at 2:13am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Let me start by telling you I am a serving Chief of Police. Before taking this position 4 years ago, I worked for a police department that experienced a theft of a large sum of cash from evidence. I did not steal the money, but because of my past experience with unreliable results from polygraphs, in cases I have investigated and personal principles, I refused the test. Once I refused, the investigation came to a stop and the set-up began. Just last week, after 5 years, the front page headline on Sunday read "Stealing From The Police" Chief of Police focus of unsloved theft. ----was the only person asked that refused to take the lie detector. It only got worse from there. I am surviving this character assassination attempt, but it would sure be nice if more people knew the truth about polygraphs. The little girl reporter who wrote the story believed everything the nice Polygraph Examiner told her about how accurate the test is. Bla Bla Bla
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 31st, 2002 at 12:06am
  Mark & Quote

Check with your lawyer, but I believe that polygraph "evidence" is only admissible in Ohio in cases where both the defendant and the prosecution stipulate to its admissibility. A common ploy used by prosecutors who don't have a case is to invite a suspect to take a polygraph test. The suspect is told that if he passes, no charges will be filed. As a "minor detail," the suspect is told that before the polygraph test, he must sign an agreement stipulating that the results of the test (the polygrapher's opinion) will be admissible as evidence in court.

Innocent suspects, hoping to clear themselves of suspicion, have agreed to such terms, only to find themselves falsely accused of deception. One such person was Floyd "Buzz" Fay of Perrysburg, OH. Based largely on polygraph "evidence," he was wrongly convicted of a murder he did not commit, and was sentenced to life in prison. Only because of the diligence of his public defender, Adrian Cimerman, who solved the crime and obtained a confession from the getaway car driver, did Mr. Fay regain his freedom after serving two years of his life sentence. You'll find more about this case at pages 264-267 of David Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd edition, Plenum Trade, 1998).

In Ohio, you also have at least one judge who seems to believe in polygraphy and would like to expand the admissibility of polygraph "evidence." See my 30 Sep. 2000 letter to Judge Robert S. Kraft of the Hamilton Co. Court of Common Pleas. (I received no reply from Judge Kraft.)

One way you can help to put an end to polygraphy is to tell everyone you can about the information you've learned on this website. Polygraphy depends on public ignorance for its survival. When enough people come to realize that it's a fraud, the polygraph house of cards will collapse.
Posted by: Bnickell
Posted on: Aug 30th, 2002 at 11:12am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I also want to help in any way I can to STOP the LIE.

Where would I look to find the current laws on Polygrahps in Ohio, I am in Columbus.

Also I need info on anything anyone has on Computer logs from chat channels

My Neice had many conversations with people in sex chat rooms using my MIRC chat program. What she did not realize is that when I had a chat channel last year I had to LOG individual conversations and the chat option was left on.

She has logs from Jan 2001 up to Jun 2001 asking people for advice on how she can get me to LOOK at her THAT was.

get this   The detective I talked to had her call me on the phone, he was trying to get her to ask me questions about the things she as alleged happened. I was surprized to find this out and he told me he did it and that the only thing he heard in the conversation was that I sounded like a CONCERNED FATHER,  what else would he hear of an inocent man.

bnickell in Ohio
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 10th, 2002 at 11:39am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

As I recall, you cheerily embraced the tradition of public restroom graffiti in another message thread.

Posted by: Batman (Guest)
Posted on: Aug 10th, 2002 at 11:01am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Wait a minute, didn't we already try this out house wall writing campaign a few weeks ago?  This posting seems very similar to one that suggested the same high level tactic regarding vandalising of public facilities.  We have got to come up with something better.  How about a massive air-drop of fliers over major cities, or hiring one of those planes that pull signs, like the ones that fly over beeches in the summer, or better yet, a sky writer!  One last ditch effort could be a publicity stunt, how about Beech Trees going over Niagara Falls in a rubber life raft while reading his original copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Dectector!  I'd even pay to see that one.

Posted by: chicbette
Posted on: Aug 10th, 2002 at 2:02am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

I too want to become active in helping to educate an unaware public about the abuses of the so-called lie detector.  I love your idea about the fliers, HOWEVER, I strongly urge you NOT to encourage people to write on public restroom stalls.

This is a serious debate.  The writings and research are difficult reading for even an educated mind to make its way through.  To try to create awareness of an issue through petty vandalism only demeans the absolute validity of the argument.
Posted by: MissionPoly-ban
Posted on: Apr 27th, 2002 at 2:16am
  Mark & Quote
I ask that anyone who has been disqualified from a PD testing process (or anyone else who is willing)--based on polygraph results--keep track of upcoming PD orientation meetings,  and do the following:

Create a professional message about ","
explaining the fraud involved in polygraphs, and how future examinees should learn to protect themselves.  Make sure you mention,  and the dowloadable The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. 

After creating this professionaly typed message,   make quite a few copies, go to the next orientation that you are aware of,  arrive in the middle of the orientation meeting time,  and place one ad under a windshield wiper for each car that you see in the lot. 

Also,  carry a magic marker with you every where you go.  In each public bathroom that you visit,  Write (in a stall or two)
"Discover the truth about Lie Detectors:  Visit"

Its time to make things happen people.  I'm going to throw Police commissioners around here a curve ball that just keeps curving.  I hope there are others out there that are strong enough and willing enough to do the same.