John wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2001 at 3:21am:


'Needs'. Nice choice of word. It reminds me of the rubber hose treatment. Sorry John, I'm out of your reach, thank God.

A note to everyone else: Can you imagine what a powerful tool for the defense Joh(m)n's posts on this forum would be in successfully appealing or suing over a false positive in a polygraph test administered by him? Joh(m)n, would you say that your attitude is typical of your ilk?

Beech_trees,

Read my mind.  Maybe you're the only one who needs to be polygraphed.

Quote:


It reads as if you don't even NEED the polygraph, Johm. You have done the investigative work without even hooking anyone up to your machine. You have, over the internet mind you, read the minds of 25 employees  whom you have never even met and dismissed all but two or three of them as potential suspects. Tell me, can you read my mind now? Guess what *I'm* thinking, Johm?

bwwwaaaahhaaaahaaahaaaaa

Quote:


John,

You are obviously a polygrapher and normally I respect opinions of those who do believe in what they do.

However, You have to answer the fundamental question "how can a polygraph be deemed a useful and reliable "tool" when there is no scientific basis for the readings and that its "accuracy" has NEVER been proven by scientific method. 

You call everyone who fails the poly a "liar" and that they should blame themselves. What is your explanation on how Aldrich Ames, a convicted spy, PASSED a polygraph "test" given by the "cream of the crop" polygraphers of the FBI and CIA? How can you explain why the police officers who post on this site and have successfully passed polygraphs in the past and who are seeking employment in other departments have their integrity and honesty compromised by someones interpretation of "readings" that are calling them "deceptive" or their results called "inconclusive?

You should read the stories of Captain Jones, Mark Mallah, False+ and the others who have had their careers ruined by someone who basically flips a coin based on "readings" of normal body functions. If the polygraph was as "accurate" and "reliable" as you would like everyone to believe it is, why is it relegated to such remedial functions as preemployment and convincing unsophisticated criminals that they all are guilty based on what you have "read"

John, the polygraph has no value to those who know the truth and have educated themselves to 
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector


Fred F.

Of course, it would be absurd to polygraph all 25 employee's.  This would be what I call abuse of the polygraph instrument. The polygraph instrument wasn't intended to be, and shouldn't be used as an elimination tool.  I will guarantee you that 22 out of the 25 employee's, if interviewed properly, will be eliminated right off the bat as suspects.  You might find that one of the employee' was probably on vacation when this incident occurred.  If the investigator who is assigned this case does what he or she should do, then at the most, only two or three employees should be polygraphed.  The polygraph instrument is a great and reliable investigative tool, that's right, investigative tool, if used properly.  So stop bashing the polygraph and support it.  All of you who have taken polygraphs and failed, blame yourselves.  Let the truth be known, you got caught lying.  End of story

Mike,

Please re-post your question in a new message thread on the CVSA forum:

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=cvsa 

That way, it will be more noticed than it will hidden here in an unrelated message thread.

Can anyone provide me with information regarding the validity of CVSA testing? I am currently the subject of an investigation where a vindictive Inspector conducted CVSA's on three fellow employees who have worked under my supervision at one time or another. They all passed even though I KNOW they are lying. The examiner is his fellow Inspector within the same agency. 6 months ago, A nurse alleged that I beat and choked an inmate and passed a CVSA. A videotape surfaced which captured the entire incident on tape and showed I did nothing like she alleged. How can she pass such a "reliable" test? Please help.

The Caller Times article notes that the County Clerk is asking only those employees in the collections and treasury sections to submit to polygraphic interrogation. (It is not clear whether Mr. Briones counts himself among those whom he thinks should be polygraphed.)

Gee, polygraph 25 employees over a missing $4,700.00. Presuming the average cost of a polygraph is $300.00 (and I've read as high as $600.00), that means that they will spend $7,500.00 of the taxpayer's money on a useless test to determine how $4,700.00 went missing.

Must be New Math!

The Corpus Christi Caller Times reports today (http://www.caller.com/2001/july/19/today/localnew/5683.html) that the Nueces County Clerk is "asking" employees to submit to polygraph "testing" in connection with missing funds. The entire article is reproduced below:
Quote:


As noted on the AntiPolygraph.org Polygraph News page, Nueces County Clerk Ernest M. Briones is giving employees a devil's choice between agreeing to have their honesty assessed based on a pseudoscientific trial by ordeal or refusing and appearing to have something to hide. You can help set him straight on polygraph testing by sending a note through his office's web-based feedback form:



or by e-mail to countyclerk@nueces.esc2.net or by phone at (361) 888-0580 or by fax at (361) 888-0329.

I used the web form above to send the following note:

Quote:


I encourage others to send Mr. Briones a note. It is to be hoped that he will take heed and abandon his plans for a polygraph dragnet. But if he goes through with it, he won't be able to later claim that he was never warned.