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: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 31st, 2021 at 2:32pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
For an update on the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners Board's handling of the complaint I filed against James Kelly, see the blog post, Oklahoma Polygraph Board Absolves Lying Polygraph Operator of Wrongdoing.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 16th, 2021 at 1:58pm
  Mark & Quote
At the meeting of the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners' Board held on Friday, 15 October 2021, Assistant Attorney General Amanda Everett read a summary of the review panel's findings. The following is a transcription of her remarks:

I'm Assistant Attorney-General Amanda Everett. I'm going to recite the review panel recommendation. Just, before I begin, I will do this, um, I just want to confirm the case number. I've got the parties that you named, but I just want to make sure that we've got the correct case number on this recommendation. So it's 2021-02....

So by way of introduction, the complainant in this matter filed a complaint with the state Polygraph Examiners' Board on July 5th, 2021 regarding a licensee. On July 19th 2021, OSBI Special Agent and licensee of the board Jonathan Santiago was tasked with investigating the complaint. On September 15th 2021, the review panel, comprising of [sic] Special Agent Santiago, Special Agent Sean Ward, and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Schneider met and discussed Special Agent Santiago's investigation pursuant to Oklahoma Administrative Code Section 560 10-1-13.1 subsection g.

The review panel did not find any violations of the Polygraph Examiners Act or its rules and regulations found in Title 560 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code. Accordingly, the review panel recommends that the state Polygraph Examiners' Board dismiss the complaint without further action.

Complainant, an unlicensed person, alleges two violations against licensee. The first is a violation of OAC 560 10-1-7 (a)(1), which requires licensees to retain polygraph records for two years following an examination. Complainant also alleged the licensee destroyed such polygraph examination record in violation of the same rule.

Under the Polygraph Examiners Act, any person who is found to have violated any provision of the act or any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the act may be subject to a monetary penalty of not more than five thousand dollars for any related series of violations. And this is found in Oklahoma State Title 59, Section 1474. Licensees may also have their licenses suspended or revoked for, quote, willful disregard or violation of this act, or any regulation or rule issued pursuant thereto, end quote.

Special Agent Santiago's investigation revealed the following:

First, the licensee responded to the investigation by providing Special Agent Santiago all requested materials and proof that records were retained for longer than two years.

Number two, the licensee did provide records relating to the examination of the polygraph subject to the legal counsel or representative, and 

Number 3, complainant acknowledged receiving two written reports of the examination conducted by the licensee of the polygraph subject.

To the best of its knowledge, the review panel notes the complainant has never received formal training in conducting polygraph examinations, has never been licensed in any jurisdiction as a polygraph examiner, and has never participated in any continuing education related to conducting polygraph examinations.

In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the review panel unanimously recommends that the Polygraph Examiners' Board dismiss the above complaint against the licensee without further action.

Regrettably, the report Ms. Everett read does not state specifically what materials Special Agent Santiago requested and received from James Kelly.

Note also how the review panel takes a gratuitous swipe at me ("...the complainant has never received formal training in conducting polygraph examinations," etc.). The fact that I am not a polygraph operator is completely immaterial to the complaint.

The review panel's lack of specificity about the materials requested from and provided by James Kelly, and their denigratory comments about me, raise doubts about the integrity of the investigation.

It is also noteworthy that if James Kelly did in fact keep records of Benjamin Petty's polygraph examination including the computerized data and any audio or video recordings thereof, then he lied to Oklahoma Indigent Defense System investigator Kathy Karmid when he claimed that he "does not keep, and has no computerized data, notes, hand scoring of polygraph charts, no recordings of any kind, and no additional file." In that event, Kelly's lie to prevent discovery of information in a judicial proceeding involving polygraph examinations that he conducted might be considered obstruction of justice.

Under Title 21, Section 21-540 of the Oklahoma Statutes, "Any person who willfully delays or obstructs any public officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his office, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 15th, 2021 at 4:41pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I have been informed that the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners' Board ruled this morning that James R. Kelly did nothing wrong.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Oct 14th, 2021 at 7:34am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The complaint I filed against polygraph operator James R. Kelly is on the agenda (as item 7: "Review, discussion, and possible action regarding Complaint 2021-02") for the meeting of the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners Board to be held tomorrow, Friday the 15th of October, at 10:00 AM in Edmond:

Item 8 on the agenda also looks interesting and appears to have potential policy implications: "Review, discussion, and possible action concerning the State Polygraph Examiners Act, 59 O.S. §1451–1476, and the Board's rules under  Title 560 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

It may surprise you that although I have been publicly speaking on polygraph matters for more than two decades, I never previously filed a complaint against any polygraph operator with any state polygraph board.

In light of James Kelly's documented gross and willful violation of the Oklahoma Administrative Code, I trust that the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners Board, which is comprised of current and retired sworn law enforcement officers, will take its responsibility seriously.
Posted by: RobbieG
Posted on: Aug 6th, 2021 at 6:36am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hey George, based on your experience and observations over the years, how likely is it for a group of charlatans to hold a fellow charlatan accountable? Just looking at the group of people at that table, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 17th, 2021 at 2:01pm
  Mark & Quote

From left to right: Joel Franks, Eric Shawn Ward, David Otwell, Jason Holt, Lori Parks

The Oklahama Polygraph Examiners Board met in Norman on Friday, 16 June 2021 and discussed, among other things, my complaint against polygrapher James R. Kelly of Pauls Valley. The discussion was confined to procedural questions.

The committee will appoint an investigator to look into my complaint and should have a preliminary report prepared within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, which was received on 12 July. The investigator to be appointed must be a licensed polygrapher.

The investigator will be part of a 3-person complaint review panel that will also include board member Eric Shawn Ward, who is an investigator with the Oklahoma State Bureau of investigation, and an assistant attorney general.

The relevant portion of the board meeting may be viewed here:
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 15th, 2021 at 6:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
quickfix wrote on Jul 15th, 2021 at 6:24pm:
does Oklahoma require providing a copy of the files to the person examined if requested

Apparently not. The Oklahoma Polygraph Rules currently in effect are attached.
Posted by: quickfix
Posted on: Jul 15th, 2021 at 6:24pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I have to agree with your complaint;  polygraph files do not simply disappear;  the other question is, does Oklahoma require providing a copy of the files to the person examined if requested?
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 15th, 2021 at 1:37pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
On 5 July 2021, I filed a complaint (attached) against polygraph operator James R. Kelly with the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners' Board. This complaint is on the agenda for the board's next quarterly meeting, which is to be held tomorrow, Friday 16 July 2021 at 10:00 in Norman:

I would be interested to hear from any polygraphers reading this what action they think would be appropriate in this case.