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
Change Text Color
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 10 post(s).
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Aug 3rd, 2011 at 12:29pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

The drug question was likely used as a probable lie comparison, did the examiner accuse you of the theft as well?
Posted by: Gail Becker
Posted on: Aug 3rd, 2011 at 1:47am
  Mark & Quote
Dear Dr. Phil:

I just watched a re-run of, "Did he or didn't he" on OWN. I would like to say; when I watched this show, I immediately put on my Psychology skilled hat. Although I am not a psychologist, I did earn a Psychology degree as well as a  minor in Forensic Psychology and Legal Studies. 

Therefore, I do like watching shows of this nature in order to keep up my skills. With that being said, after only watching this episode a few minutes, I knew Steve, Jr. was telling the truth. Moreover, after a terrible situation regarding a person performing a lie detector test on me many years ago, when I was a very young woman, I have lost all faith in lie detector tests. I remember working at a store where someone stole money from the safe; everyone had to take a lie detector test. Well, the person giving the test told me I was lying about ever having taken drugs as well as being on drugs at that moment. That was when I lost faith in the system because not only did I know, but anyone who knew me also knew what a health freak I was (and still am) and would never take drugs as I do not even take over the counter drugs.

As a child and adult who were abused, I can tell you that young man was telling you the truth. Furthermore, I did not believe the two women at all; their responses to your answers were ambiguous. 

In culmination, I believe the older daughter, Tiffany, coerced the younger girls to say what they did for whatever reason. After hearing Steve, Sr. say he couldn't believe anything she said due to two lies she told on two different men, and then recanted her stories gave it away for me. I work with kids every day, and I have actually witnessed girls blatantly making up lies on male teachers just because they did not want to work, if the teacher was strict, and when they were failing. These are only a few of MANY lies told on male teachers where I had to get involve and find out the truth. I will never forget the day my little girl told me, (at eight years old); her father coerced her to lie on me in order to get custody of her. When she refused to lie, she said her father's attorney told her if she did not say what they wanted her to say she would see to it that she is placed in a foster home and she would never see her mother (me) ever again. My little cried and cried because she thought she was going to hell for lying on her mother. Children are mendacious and will lie if they are compelled, impelled, and/or propelled to do so.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 11th, 2007 at 7:53am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Jack Trimarco told Dr. Phil that, vigilant for countermeasures, he "was looking for the feet." But look at the following still frame:

Not to suggest that the examinee employed countermeasures (no evidence was presented that he did), but how well do you think Jack Trimarco could see this subject's feet? Even if he had an unobstructed view, studies by Charles Honts and others (see citations and abstracts in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) suggest that polygraph examiners are unable, through visual observation, to detect examinees pressing their toes to the floor as a countermeasure, and Trimarco's polygraph instrument is not equipped with a strain gauge or sensor pad that might alert him to such activity.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 8th, 2007 at 5:51am
  Mark & Quote
If the brightness and contrast of one's monitor is appropriately set, it is clear from the first of the two still frames showing polygraph charts that Jack Trimarco is using a four-pen polygraph instrument. It appears to be a Lafayette Instruments Diplomat I (Model Model #761-76LE). Note that it has no channel for a strain gauge or seat pad.

In the second still frame showing a polygraph chart, the upper pneumo pen is outside the field of view. Also, it appears that the lower pneumo and electrodermal channels were disconnected.

Note that Jack Trimarco did not state that the results were "inconclusive." Rather, it is his contention that the charts were "unreadable."

In any event, there is no evidence that four-pen polygraph instruments lead polygraphers to more accurate determinations of truth versus deception than do three-pen instruments. In either case, the underlying methodology has no scientific basis.
Posted by: Administrator
Posted on: Apr 8th, 2007 at 5:05am
  Mark & Quote has received by fax the following anonymous commentary:

CAN YOU COUNT TRIMARCO'S PENS?: The Doctor Phil TV program

Count the tracings/pens in the photos posted earlier. If 4, OK. But if only 3, as it clearly appears to be, then the instrument is an obsolete model from about 40 years ago.

Three tracings on the paper instead of four would mean that only one pneumo was used; that would explain why the accused kiddie-pervert received an INCONCLUSIVE on his one chart shown. Smoe persons show a reaction on upper breathing, some on lower breathing, some both. Leave off one pneumo and not enough data is collected.

If only 3 pens, then he also violates APA's Standards Of Practice: " Respiration patterns recorded by pneumograph components. Thoracic and abdominal patterns are required to be recorded separately, using two pneumograph components".

And if only 3 pens, his previous clients (and the opposing sides) should be immediately notified that he was using substandard equipment that was lacking 1/4 of the needed recording equipment, possibly altering the results by at least 25%; those prior tests should be considered inaccurate and be voided.

Posted by: Drew Richardson
Posted on: Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Are any polygraph examiners following this thread?  I can't tell with any certainty because the relevant tracings are not clearly shown together on the video stills, but anyone notice that that the major movements of Jack's explosive cardio seem to be roughly paralleling the pneumo tracings?  If actually so, do you believe this to be coincidental, physiological, or polygraph artifact/examiner error? I'd also be interested in your opinion of Jack's concept of "consistent internal disruption." Regards...
Posted by: EosJupiter
Posted on: Apr 6th, 2007 at 5:14pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

I watched this yesterday, and I too found it highly humorous that Trimarco would use a sad excuse, to say the 
results were inconclusive. I do believe that he worries about the reaction from this website. Better to do nothing with an
inconclusive than actually prove just how much bunk his polygraph is. And he knows we are watching intently, one of these 
days the mistake will be made on national TV, and it is going to sting.  I have patience and faith on this. And as far as Dr. Phil, just another talk show opportunist trying to make his ad rates and rating go up. 

Regards ....
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:50am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What a tour de force for the polygraph in general and Trimarco in particular.  How can anyone doubt the utility of the polygraph after such a demonstration?

After the whole dog-and-pony show is complete, we are left with the examiner's unwillingness to "stick his neck out" despite his "good feeling."  Gee, now I feel kind of foolish for calling polygraphy a pseudoscience in the past.  How much more scientific can a 'test" be than one that yields a "good feeling" at the end?

I am sure glad they didn't try that with a less experienced examiner, or with a plain old trained interviewer but no polygraph.  It might not have been as illuminating.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 6th, 2007 at 11:02am
  Mark & Quote
Here is an unofficial transcript of the polygraph portion of the Dr. Phil episode, "Did He or Didn't He?" that aired on 4 April 2007, along with some frame grabs:

---begin transcript---

Dr. Phil: Steven Junior wants to prove his innocence to his family once and for all. He suggested to us that he take a lie detector test, so we set it up for him. We're going to find out what happened when wecome back.

Dr. Phil: Steven Junior is being accused by Pam, his step-mother, and Tashika, his step-sister, of inappropriately touching Julia, Tashika's then three-year-old daughter. It supposedly happened five years ago, and it has ripped this family apart since that time. He says he is 100% innocent and wants to prove it. He suggested -- he volunteered -- to take a lie detector test to clear his name. So yesterday, former FBI agent and polygraph examiner Jack Trimarco administered a lie detector test to Steven for nearly two hours to try and uncover the truth.

Steven (to the camera): I had volunteered actually to take the polygraph. I am looking forward to proving to Pam and Tashika that I did not touch Julia inappropriately.

Jack Trimarco: So you're here to take a polygraph test.

Steven: Yes I am.

Trimarco: All right! One hundred percent truth?

Steve: Yes.

100% truth? But the polygraph "test" itself depends
on the unspoken assumption that even an innocent examinee will be
less than 100% truthful when answering the "control" questions.

Trimarco: All right.

[video montage of beginning of polygraph sequence, Trimarco connects polygraph attachments]

Trimarco: Palm up, and here we go.

Trimarco: Regarding if you ever touched Julia for sexual purposes, do you intend to be completely truthful with me about that?

Steven: Yes.

The "test" begins...

Trimarco: Are you sometimes known as Steven?

Steven: Yes.

Cardio reactions visible at bottom of chart

Trimarco: Have you ever touched Julia for sexual purposes?

Steven: No.

Another glimpse of a chart with cardio reactions...

(End of polygraph sequence)

Trimarco (to camera): I've never seen anything like it. I would say in twenty-seven hundred tests both with the FBI and in the private sector, I've never seen a cardio wave form that is so dramatically explosive.

Jack Trimarco mystified by "explosive" reactions. Was the examinee farting?

(Back in the studio)

Dr. Phil: Were you truthful?

Steven: Yes, I was.

Dr. Phil: Did you ... try to beat the test, deceive the test in any way?

Steven: No.

Dr. Phil: Do you think you were fairly treated by the examiner?

Steven: Yes.

Dr. Phil: Jack, you've been doing this for how many years?

Trimarco: Uh, since 1990, Dr. Phil.

Dr. Phil: You said you saw an "explosive" cardio measure on the chart. Tell me what you saw.

Dr. Phil suspects countermeasures...

Trimarco: Well, the responsibility of Steven or any examinee is to breathe normally and try not to move. If there's any type of movement during the exam, it'll show up on the charts as distortion. Now that doesn't impact the test, we just continue on. However, what I saw with Steven was consistent internal disruption. In other words, there was a major muscle group, or several, at play which was causing those charts to be unreadable.

Dr. Phil: So he was moving.

Trimarco: He was moving, but it was an internal movement, because I was watching him. I was looking for the feet. I was looking at his hands. I was looking at all his externals, and there was no movement apparent. But on those charts, it was very apparent.

Dr. Phil: So are you telling me that the test is compromised?

Trimarco: The test is --

Dr. Phil: It has artifacts -- it has artifact [sic] in it that make the charts unreadable.

Trimarco: Consistent artifact [sic] -- anomalies... It just couldn't be read. No determination of truth or deception could be made.

Dr. Phil: All right. Now you've been doing this for a long time, and you and I both know that people come in, and they try to beat a polygraph test. In your professional opinion, is that what was going on here? Was he trying to defeat this test?

Trimarco: No, I don't believe so. I believe that physiologically Steven has a condition and, of course I can't diagnose one -- I'm not a doctor -- but as a polygraph examiner, based on those charts and what I was seeing, he's got a physiological condition which will cause this issue to not be solved by polygraph testing. Not just by me, but by any polygraph examiner.

Is Steven Junior an explosively reactive physiological freak?

Or is Jack Trimarco playing it safe by declining to make a pass/fail call, or to accuse
Steven Junior of using countermeasures, when his gut tells him that he's innocent?

Dr. Phil: When we come back, I'm going to ask Jack his opinion of the guilt or innocence of Steven Junior, and I'm going to ask him because this man is a skilled interrogator. He has done this for years and years. He's talked to those that are guilty. He's talked to those that are innocent. We don't have a polygraph chart, but I am going to get an opinion. I'm also going to say very soon what I think's going on here. We'll be right back.

Dr. Phil: For the past five years, Pam and her husband Steve have been battling over whether or not Steve's son molested Pamela's then three-year-old granddaughter Julia. Steven Junior volunteered to take a polygraph and showed up willingly at the test, but they weren't able to obtain results of any guilt or innocence because of a disruptive internal reaction that negated the test. (Addressing Steven Junior) Now, did you try and beat this test?

Steven: No, I did not.

Dr. Phil (addressing Jack Trimarco): You say that when you ask him to -- you said he kind of was fidgety and nervous -- when you asked him to be still, he did so.

Trimarco: He did.

Dr. Phil: But yet the disruption continued, which causes you -- it was not something you'd physically see -- you think it's something internal.

Trimarco: Internal.

Dr. Phil: Physiological.

Trimarco: Physiological, perhaps neurological, perhaps with major muscle groups, or perhaps behavioral. In other words, there is a possibility that he was causing these things. However, again, I don't think that that was the case. I think he's got a physiological condition.

Dr. Phil: What's your gut tell you about this young man?

Trimarco: In that context, with a child's safety on the line, I won't stick my neck out that way. But I will say, when I spoke with Steven, he answered my questions directly, and spontaneously, which would lend [sic] me to believe that he was preparing to tell the truth. He didn't hesitate, and he didn't in any way equivocate about Julia, about the testing. That always gives me a good feeling.

Dr. Phil: You, you've done tests before with people that have attempted to defeat the test.

Trimarco: Oh, absolutely.

Dr. Phil: And you didn't see that conduct or behavior here.

Trimarco: This was just too much. If a person's going to try to compromise the polygraph test, they're going to try nuances, they're going to try subtleties. They're going to try to make me believe that they're telling the truth when in fact they're lying. This was just a -- an explosive polygraph chart that negated the test, so there was never a question of truth or innocence. It was just "Can we continue with this? Will it clear up?" And of course, it never did.

---end transcript---
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 4th, 2007 at 11:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
In today's (4 April 2007) episode of the Dr. Phil Show, a lie detector "test" is again used to assess accusations of child molestation:

Dr. Phil McGraw has again contracted retired FBI polygrapher Jack Trimarco to perform the service. Trimarco performed a similar service for the Dr. Phil show in an episode that aired late last year. (See, Yet Another Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode (17Nov06)).