Today's (Sunday, 25 November 2007) New York Times includes a feature article about Jeffrey Mark Deskovic. See, "Vindicated by DNA, but a Lost Man on the Outside" by Fernanda Santos.

Jeffrey Deskovic now has a website with articles that he's written and a discussion forum:

http://www.JeffreyDeskovicSpeaks.org

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 2:15am:


Its still summer in my mind! but....
Einstein? how did you know my name wow you ARE good  and no.. i took my meds already! wait.. NO i dont take meds orrr do I

''tbld'' aka ''einstein''

Summertime ended September 22nd Einstein. Time for meds?

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 1:36am:



WW: Its still summer time why would Sarge have a coat let alone tails 

''tbld''

tbld: Are you still riding Sarge's coat tail?   

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:28am:

 


Sarge said it best btw.....

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 12:55am:


First its ''polygraph'' not polgaph( you think you would know how to spell it since you are a pg...you are arent you?)    Someone needs a nap oh cranky crankifier...Got to love the ''quotations'' i know i ''do'' and what happened to buck-o? 
Regards 
''tbld''

tbld wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 12:40am:


This site extends beyond criticisms and lampooning of polygraph (corrected type-o)examiners. This site is one great big ad hom attack on every examiner who seeks to conduct fair tests in order to insure safer streets---and once more this site empowers sex offenders to disengage from their treatment and supervision protocol under false pretense. So, my question  to you oh "tbld" activist against polygraph----is, why are you reminded of a kid? Do you like "little kids" Woody? 

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 2:33am:


so have lawyers and many other professions....grow up no need for the ''ad hom'' attacks. you remind me of the little kid who doesnt get his way and takes his ball and goes home. go home.... PD go home...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:


Ludovico,

I did no such thing, I know these facts from carefully reading the Winchester county report on the false conviction:

https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Attachments/Jeffrey_Deskovic_Comm_Rpt.pdf

and Matt Elweig's article on the issue:

http://adowntownreporter.blogspot.com/2006/11/someone-elses-time-jeff-deskovic-s...

They were both posted by George on this thread some time ago. As the case report states that the polygraph examer, Investigator Stephens, proceeded with the "avowed purpose of which was to elecit a confession" [pg 14].  I mentioned the report in passing because I had assumed everyone knew what I was referring too, and had read the material for themselves. It is rediculous to argue that post test interviews occured in isolation of the polygraph test. Obtaining confessions has always been an important selling point of the polygraph profession; and they're dangerously effective. 

I still remember Angela's name, Ludovico. I mention it sparringly out of respect for her family. Unlike certain individuals who would call them into public eye over and over again while ostensibly posing as there self-proclaimed protector. If you really cared about comforting her family, I would suggest leaving them out of this debate. You seem very informed about how people ought to behave. However, I do not see the direct connection between saying that Jeffrey's false confession was caused by a polygraph, and causing pain and suffering for the Angela's family. 

Also, I do not accuse the investigors responsible for this case of being evil... sigh.

So Gino,

Would you cite this case as an example of the need to ban police investigators from obtaining confessions? Or, would you suppose this is an example of the need for better oversight and protocol?

Quote:


He likely knew this because the police used a polygraph in the case--for the same reason it is almost always used.

They had a weak case that had no chance of a successful prosecution without a home-run confession.

Brettski: Quote:


Tell how you know these intimate details. This seems like self-serving embellishment.

Quote:


Yes you do. Her name was Angela Correa. She was 15 years old. She had a family that missed her. She was rapped and strangled and beaten and killed. 

This young man's name is Jeffrey Deskovic. He is now known to be a victim or casualty of a faulty investigation and faulty legal proceedings.

Unless you think them inherently evil, the investigators and courts were attempting to solve a murder.

Quote:


No problem there.

Quote:


Beliefs are fine, but they are just beliefs. Its not the polygraph test that got the false confession. Its the interrogation that followed. 

If that interrogation was as flawed as has been presented, its quite possible the investigator would have pursued that matter with or without the polygraph.

Please honor the fact that these are people's lives, and stop with the self-serving embellishment. Its not at all compassionate or humane.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:41am:


I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a step in the wrong direction is a step in the wrong direction.

As for isolating the polygraph's impact on the psyche from the less sophistacated means of confession extraction. I would once again point out that Jeffrey was interrogated on several occasions, with all the usual intimidation tactics being employed. There was a extremely hostile interrogation on both Jan 10th and Jan 25th if memory of the case report serves me. On both occasions, the investigator pushed HARD for that elusive confession,  but on the 10th, all he got was a map of the crime scene [a.k.a. "the pit"]. The interagator knew that he needed a confession to make a case against the kid. So he asked Jeffrey to take a little polygraph test, but the report makes a direct point that this test was arranged for the "sole purpose of obtaining a confession." The examiner graded Jeffrey as inconclusive, so the investigator decided to make a little white lie, and tell Jeffrey that he had failed. Things then got very confrontational, and jeffrey confessed. In a sense, they repeated the same interrogation keeping all things constant except for the polygraph. How do you explain why Jeffrey was vehemently protesting his innocence on Jan 10th, but gave into oppresion and confessed on Jan 25th? All the same dirty tactics were used in both cases. Only one thing changed at the end of the day. Furthermore, if the investigator had no other intention other than to get a confession out of that kid, why did he go to trouble of getting a polygrapher. What was he hoping to achieve with the polygraph if not the classifaction of guilt or innocence? The report made it quite clear that there was no doubt in the investigator's mind that Jeffrey was guilty well into December.

We all understand that a girl died in this tragedy; I don't need a patronizing reminder. There's nothing shameful about trying to prevent it from happening again. I believe the polygraph caused an innocent person to be convicted by playing a direct and prominent role in inducing a false confession. I don't have a personal incentive or financial motive to end the polygraph profession, so I don't at all feel selfish by arguing my opinion to anyone who will listen. I feel it is my responsibility, as a free citizen, to do nothing less.

P.S. Sorry if that last part was a little patronizing.

The name calling stems from the fact that for many years now our ranks have been dragged through the mud over and over and over and over----and again. When you ask so incredulously "why all the name calling" you remind me of an American white man asking foolishly "why do black folks seem so angry?" Incidentally, I am proud of much of the restraint of my brethren, considering that many of the ranks around here disrespect their life's work and their want for safer streets. No brutality, just strictures mind you.

Agreed Serg i notice a lot of that coming from the pgs whats up with all of the name calling...

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:28am:


Granted, I was being flippent over the gross victimization of the ranks who compare the (albeit unpleasent) 3 hour polygraph test with smoke, soft drink, and bathroom breaks---compared with an 8 hour accusation fest, where the suspect is a pinata while the ego-smashing barbs from the mouths of detectives berate and echo repeated abuse.
To rephrase, only a self victimizing weakling would compare the relative "face slap" (poly test)to a piano falling on the head (marathon torture session.) Thanks for correcting me "Sarge", I must have had a headache when I wrote that.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 4:20pm:

When you resort to name calling it does not indicate you are debating from a position of strength.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 5:20pm:


ParaDiddle,
 
You strike me as being grandiose with your treatment of subjects. Deflect and redirect as you may  ...... 

The debate is most enjoyable. 

Regards .....

Again you strike me as being grandiose with your treatment of the subject of polygraph. Your psuedo-passionate martyrdom reeks.

ParaDiddle,

Different rules for the same game. A smoker who needs a nicotine fix can not focus, someone with the need to use the bathroom cannot  focus or function until relief happens, breaks allow the subjects more time to do introspection before returning to the polysuite, adding to the effects desired. Each part of your process has a designed purpose. You minimalize the polygraph test, while knowing full well its capabilities are to be just as brutal to the human mind as any torture device. Except it leaves no external marks. Internal well thats another discussion.

Regards .....

Same reason that the interrogations at Abu Graibe and Gitmo were/are not at the hands of polygraph examiners. A big difference is that our examinees get smoke breaks and bathroom breaks and tests are not endless whereas generalized interrogaters are far less self-restricted and/or accomodating with their subjects. Ask the Taliban or any Gangsta Disciple. Get over your decompartmentalization.....only a pussy would compare a mere polygraph examination to a generalized lengthy interrogation.

ParaDiddle,

And the polygraph is a tool used in interrogations, the polygrapher is an interrogator, thus using this tool to extract confessions. SHow me where the connection breaks.


Regards .....

I vehemently disagree. This was not a polygraph issue, this was an interrogation issue. The polygraph was the best scapegoat, and you know it George.