Gee willikers, no responses from the pro-polygraph APA elite?

I wonder why...

Could it be that "polygraph science" is all a manufactured illusion?

Say it ain't so!

It's funny...   Ray Nelson delights in the poo-pooing of polygraph expertise, but, at the end of the day, that's all there is.

There is absolutely *no* science behind any polygraph "test".

Isn't that right, Ray? 

You know it, I know it, and the courts know it.

Dear readers: Please, follow the money trail. Look at who owns the polygraph schools, who -- and what entities, such as federal gummint subcontractors, as well as  PCSOT "solution providers" 
-- are connected to past and present  APA politicos.

It explains everything.

Bottom line: Polygraph testing isn't about truth, it's about MONEY.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I've only been in the polygraph racket since 2004. What the hell do I know...

Here are a few questions for polygraph apologists Ray Nelson, Don Krapohl, Skip Webb, quickfix, et al...

What's your take on the aforementioned Alaska Supreme Court decision?

Are the justices merely dunces who just don't "get" polygraph science as the APA has defined it? 

Where's the disconnect? 

What went wrong in this case? 

How much money did the APA pour into it?

Early on in my career as a "forensic psycho-physiologist," I was led to believe that Raskin was the APA establisment's golden boy. What happened?

By all means, please educate us.

[cue crickets]

Dan Mangan wrote on Nov 13^th, 2019 at 4:19pm:



A polygraph is not now, nor has it ever been, worthy of being admitted into evidence of anything other than the fact that the  person’s heart is beating, their hands are sweating and they are breathing. How we ended up relying on this witchcraft to protect our national security and the integrity of our criminal justice system is beyond me. But folks like Raymond Nelson and his ilk deserve a lot of the blame and are building up quite a lotta seriously bad karma by perpetrating this evil myth that the polygraph is  accurate and reliable as a lie detector.

Justia Opinion Summary

In three criminal cases consolidated for appeal, each defendant sought to introduce expert testimony by a polygraph examiner that the defendant was truthful when he made exculpatory statements relating to the charges against him during a polygraph examination conducted using the “comparison question technique” (CQT). In two of the cases, the superior courts found that testimony based on a CQT polygraph examination satisfied the requirements for scientific evidence under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Alaska v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999). In the third case, the superior court reached the opposite conclusion and found the evidence inadmissible. The issue these cases presented for the Alaska Supreme Court's review centered on the appellate standard of review for rulings on the admissibility of scientific evidence and to determine the admissibility of CQT polygraph evidence. The Court concluded that appellate review of Daubert/Coon determinations should be conducted under a hybrid standard: the superior court’s preliminary factual determinations should be reviewed for clear error; based on those findings and the evidence available, whether a particular scientific theory or technique has been shown to be “scientifically valid” under Daubert and Coon is a question of law to which the Court applies its independent judgment; and where proposed scientific evidence passes muster under that standard, the superior court’s case-specific determinations and further evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Applying this standard here, the Supreme Court concluded that CQT polygraph evidence had not been shown to be sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Daubert/Coon standard.


Read the entire decision here...

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2019/s-16191.html