I appreciate the replies, better late than never.  Anyway since my last posting I took another test about a month later (at no cost) allowed one makeup test. Again I got an inconclusive.  Took the test again five months later and once again another inconclusive.  The polygrapher was a little upset with me and said this result affects her percentages and recommended I wait as long as possible before retaking.                                       
I took the test at the end of June and nobody (PO) has  said anything about it since.  One person that responded said time was added for inconclusive. I'm curious if that is a case by case thing.  And as far as my not being familiar with the polygraph, I wouldn't be here if I was.
  For what its worth I take wellbutrin-sr 150mg. and lexapro 20mg. 
   I'm not going to bother again until my next six month is up.   
  Thanks again for all the replies   

Underlyingtruth:

Thanx for the info.

Have a grea day.

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:51pm:


Yes, in my state it is legal.  I also verified this with my attny before I did it.

According to the Penal Code: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

A compiled list of the states that do and do not allow this can be found at: http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:51pm:


I am certain.  I will try to find some sources.

Cesium:

Other than the fact you are comparing the results of a polygrpah exam  to a finding of guilt or innocence in a court room I agree with your basic premise.

Cesium:

You metion a poygrapher lying unde oath.  What to hell are you talking about?

Jeffery:

I dont get the conneciton between a polygrapher giving an exam and lying under oath. Please clarify.

Underlyingtruth:

I have stated here a couple of times that I am very much for vdieo/audio taping the enitre polygraph exam. 

P.S. Are you sure your State allows the audio taping of another  without that person's  knowledge? I am from Pa. and that is not allowed. Just curious.

nonombre wrote on Aug 13^th, 2006 at 7:36pm:


Ad hominem, retcopper.  I am especially nitpicky on my Latin, and hominum is a genitive plural; it would make the phrase "toward of the men", rather than "toward the man", as ad hominem is.

With that, there was no such attack here.  A rhetorical question was asked, and a good one:

-Is it worse to record a conversation illegally...
-or be victimized by a polygrapher who lies under oath?

Unless the insinuation is obviously directed at you, nonombre, that's a values question.

Now, back on thread, I hope:

If anything, one should score an inconclusive as a pass. As long as this polybox is around, rules of fairness and evidence should still apply.  If there exist a reasonable doubt in court as to guilt, the accused is not guilty; they get the benefit of the doubt.

With an INC, if you can't say the person is being deceptive according to the rules of the APA or whatever (not that one can divine the truth from all this, anyhow), then you have an "NDI".  How else to reason it?  Deception was not indicated (you don't have a "DI" result), as it could not be found.  This fact by definition says that No Deception was Indicated.  Pretty easy, in my book.  Otherwise, you're making the questionee prove his truthfulness, and that is not how things are supposed to work here.  He should walk in under the assumption that he is honest...

But then, polygraphers don't seem to see it that way...

DippityShurff wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 3:00am:


If Mr. Gelb's Ph.d is not from an accredited university, he should not advertise himself as such.  I hold a M.S. degree from a fully accredited state university and I have several good friends who have worked very hard to earn doctorate degrees from properly accredited schools.  In short, I resent anyone who holds themselves out to be something they are not...

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre,

I guess I must ask you as a polygrapher.  What do you think of this Ed Gelb business.  If true, it sure seems slimy

Jeffery wrote on Aug 12^th, 2006 at 1:54pm:
  I am a polygrapher.  I have never lied under oath..

Oh, I get it.  That was one of those "ad hominum" attacks...

retcopper wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 9:19pm:


In your state, what is worse - a citizen recording a conversation to protect their rights or a polygrapher lieing under oath to infringe the citizens rights?

Uh, yeah... that's what I said to do, "1. Get a good attorney and file a motion with the court to be released from probation.  This will be your best course or action. "

In my state, it is perfectly legal to record a conversation, as long as one of the parties involved is aware.  I know the thought of having somebody record your polygraph sessions scares you... it should!
(And if you're Bush, you can do it regardless of what the law says).

Freedom:

Don't listen to underminingtruth.  Ask him why he takes so many polygraphs. Get an attorney and do what he says.  In my state it is a violation of  the wire tap laws to tape record someone's  voice without their knowledge.

freedom777 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 11:07am:


Polygraphers will refuse to retest you unless some factor of the test changes.  They are unwilling to test against themselves, which is exactly what they would do if all circumstances were unchanged.  Running the same test under the same conditions might render different results and that would show the fallacy of the polygraph machine.  True scientists do this on purpose in order to prove and verify the validity of results.  Polygraphers never will.  In fact, I have yet to find a polygraph that actually has a REAL science degree.

Quote:


It is very typical for polygraphers to exclude information from their reports that might call into question the validity of their testing.  I have had them flat-out lie about statements they made to me.  That is why I now secretly record my polygraph sessions and I have caught them in a bald-faced lie.  If I ever have to take it to court, they are screwed.

don wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 6:52am:


Everytime I read someone stating "(no need for CMs)" I realize that they have no idea how the polygraph works.

Polygraphs are not accurate.   

1. Get a good attorney and file a motion with the court to be released from probation.  This will be your best course or action. 
2. Download and read the free book from this site, "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" and READ it.
3. As a last resort, take another polygraph and use CMs. If it comes to this, try to negotiate with the court to be released upon a "Pass" result.

Greetings!    
I am posting tonight in hopes of gaining insight into the world of inconclusives.  I have been on probation for 10 1/2 years now with the last 1 1/2 added on for having 3 consecutive inconclusive tests after having past 18.  A year or so prior to my first inconclusive test I was in an auto accident the result of another driver.  I continued to experience massive neck pain and migraines which I managed with Aleve and Caffiene.  I was tested by a Poly guy who was using a motion detector and he concluded it was inconclusive as I was cheating.  I immeadiately asked him to test me again and he refused.  I reported to my PO and requested another test from another couple who did Polygraph's.  This time I was told it was inconclusive and that I should seek medical attention immediately for heart issue's which turned out to be validated by physician.  I found out a month later that both he and his wife were practicing under the first guy who accused me of cheating and now I was being accused again (funny that the medical interpretation was conveniently dropped from all paperwork) of cheating the poly.  I then was "allowed to take a third test with a Polygrapher out of town who determined I was inconclusive but could not speak to past accusations of cheating , only that there was no evidence of cheating on this one. Probations just days before my release told me I had less than 6 hours to either sign a 5 year extension or they would arrest me, and take me into court requesting I be revoked and sent to prison for as long as possible.   
Does anyone have any thoughts, feedback and recommendations I could take under advisement?
I recently contacted the ACLU and they are asking for a detailed written accoount to determine if they would get involved....any thoughts here?

retcopper

I forgot to thank you for answering my question and it's good to know that you wouldn't poly a subject that's on mind altering meds. This tells me that you know they have an effect on the results. Too many think they can test around these meds. Also, I don't know of a doctor that would discontinue these meds long enough not to be a factor in the poly results. If this would ever happen to me, I assure you I would have another doctor that same day.

retcopper

I have stated many times on these boards that I am not an attorney. I only handle cases, pro se, for me and my family.

I am a gold miner and have been for about 30 years. Hence the study of federal mining law. I am 75 years young. Hence the study of federal ADA law. This was brought on when my oldest sister entered a nursing home and a by-polar friend was abused in a mental institution. I have gone against a top mining lawyer and won.

I do not give legal advice. I do tell people to sue when I think they have an actionable case. I do enjoy researching Constitutional Case Law. 

As I told you, I am an armchair lawyer. I haven't done too bad of a job from my rocker.

Polyfool:

There is a myriad of reasons behind an inconclusive test, one of which might be the fault of the examiner.  In my opininon the poster tried to imply that the only reason was because the examiner was at fault. In any event some reasons might be lack of psychological set, fauulty equipment and or environment, counter measures and the wrong type of test given, and MY biggest reason for calling inconlusives is to give the subject the benefit of the doubt.

Twoblock:

Mea culpa.  If you are an attorney,"archair lawyer" was not directed to you. And, I aree with you.  I woud not  give a test to someone who was taking anxiety medicine.

Good luck in you law practice.

Drew Richardson

Again, it would be the physician, not an examiner, that would determine if the prescribed drug on the selected individual would cause any trouble with polygraph examinations.  Polygraph examiners are not physicians and should consult with a physician prior to making a decision to test or not test for pharmalogical reasons.  You last statement in the text is your true statement.

"these tests have precious little to no diagnostic validity in the absence of any drug effects. " 

retcopper wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2006 at 10:31pm:


retcopper,

No one is debating that an inconclusive result is determined when the examiner cannot score the charts to form an opinion as to  DI or NDI.  But, how are such results EXPLAINED by the polygraph community?   

Detector1012000,

You write:
Quote:
.

Although psychotropic drugs can have a variety of effects (usually secondary to the central nervous effects for which they are known) on the autonomic nervous system, there are drugs that would theoretically be of more concern in a polygraph situation, i.e., those that have a more pure autonomic influence.  An example would be the antimuscurinic drug scopolamine that would likely completely shut down the electrodermal (sweating) channel.  Although this drug can be readily obtained (present in anti-motion medications) and although the electrodermal channel is heavily weighted in the minds and scoring algorithms of most polygraphers, its (the drug’s) effect, if and when used in isolation (not in conjunction with other countermeasures), would likely be less than totally effective because it would affect relevant and control question responses alike, theoretically making an inconclusive (not a non-deceptive) result more likely. And although there are several drug/polygraph studies in the literature (and if memory serves correctly an early one suggesting a negative effect for meprobamate on polygraph accuracy) the same considerations (making pharmacological countermeasures ineffective in isolation) would likely come into play for most if not all chosen drugs.

And again although the same considerations hold true for any unintended autonomic effects stemming from properly prescribed medications, and although one in theory might delay a polygraph examination if such effects were suspected or known to likely be in play, before one gets lost in the machinations of such considerations, that same one should take time to take a reality test and realize that these tests have precious little to no diagnostic validity in the absence of any drug effects. 

The proper term is Psycotrophic Drugs.  Dependant upon the drug, how long it has been used, and the affect of the drug on the individual determines if use of that particular drug would effect the outcome of a polygraph.  There are numerous studies on this which you can access I am sure.  Broad sweeping statements are generally incorrect.