The following message has been sent to polygrapher Dee Moody by e-mail to dmoody7@cs.com and copied to reporter Erin Sherbert at esherbert@angnewspapers.com.


Dear Ms. Moody:

In an interview with San Mateo [County] Times staff writer Erin Sherbert published today (10 March 2003) under the title
"The telling truth about polygraphs," you claimed that polygraphers can detect countermeasures:


Quote:

There are also countermeasures. With the Internet today, all you have to do is type in 'beat the polygraph' and you can find books for $100 on how to beat the polygraph. But polygraph examiners know about those books, and if they come in and use countermeasures, then we know it.

I am not aware of any books on how to beat the polygraph that cost anything near $100. Could you tell me specifically which book you had in mind when you said that?

In any event, AntiPolygraph.org offers a free book (The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) that, among other things, includes a detailed discussion of polygraph countermeasures. This book has been downloaded over 60,000 times and is probably the most widely read book on polygraph countermeasures (and indeed, about polygraphy in general).

You say that polygraph examiners will "know it" if a subject comes in and uses countermeasures. But the available peer reviewed research on the subject suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels. Indeed, the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its 32-year history, has yet to publish a single article setting forth a reliable methodology for the detection of the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Indeed, Polygraph recently published an article by Paul M. Menges, an instructor at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, arguing that it is unethical (and perhaps even seditious or treasonous) to make information about countermeasures available to the public, and suggesting that it should be outlawed. (See my "Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public.")

So, I challenge you to either publicly support your claim that polygraph examiners will "know it" if countermeasures are used, or publicly retract it.

An ideal way for you to demonstrate your confidence in your claimed ability to detect countermeasures would be for you to accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, which as of today has gone 406 days without any taker.

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

Excellent letter George, particularly cc'ing it to the reporter!

I take it that none of these polygraphers peddling to the public via the press or TV shows have replied to you? I wouldn't be surprised if the recent uptake in the public spotlight of polygraphy is not entirely coincidental..

George,

If the polygraph kept a guy like you OUT of law enforcement then I say it is a priceless tool.

As far as your free "Lie Behind The Lie Detector" guide, your own suckers tell the best story! Go to the Ed Gelb story and look at the success one of your clients had(see post # 55 on page two).

Yes George, you did this moron a great service. Keep up the good work!

Honest people have nothing to hide and do not need a service such as yours. However, as long as we have liars and cheats in our society, people like you George will always have something to do.

I did enjoy reading some of the historical data on you site. I did not know that Sen. Kennedy was one of the co-sponsors of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. I am also not suprised that the very thought of having to take a polygraph would scare the crap out of anyone in the Kennedy family!

Guest, nothing in your post supports Dee Moody's claim that polygraph examiners will "know it" if countermeasures are used.

Guest,

Your comments are not only boorish and lacking any substantive points, they are misplaced unless you believe there is some meaningful connection to the Dee Moody challenge.  You actually reference the Ed Gelb thread, although you do little to clear up the focus of that thread, i.e., the matter of whether his Ph.D. degree is actually from a discredited diploma mill.  Perhaps you might see if you could do a better job next time...

"So, I challenge you to either publicly support your claim that polygraph examiners will 'know it' if countermeasures are used, or publicly retract it."

My George, aren't you the arrogant one.  Who are you to tell anyone to publicly retract anything?  You act as though this were some personal insult to you.

All this crap about people's lives being ruined by polygraph is getting boorish.  You know who recently had a life ruined?  Try that young girl who had the wrong blood type organs transplanted into her body.  SHE'S DEAD!  Now that's a life that has been ruined.  Why don't you attack the medical profession you twit?  They screwed up royally.  That girl died because of their screw-up.  Her parents are grieving because of their screw-up.  Why aren't you getting on your great white steed and attacking them George?  Their errors cost people lives.  I would think you would consider that a far greater slight against mankind than someone wrongly failing a polygraph.  Polygraph examiners don't cut the wrong arteries.  They don't amputate the wrong limbs.  They don't prescribe the wrong medicines.  They don't put the wrong organs in a patient’s body; hell they don't even leave their tools in the body.  

You've chosen the polygraph community as your target only because you failed one, and you don't think it was fair.  You have admitted this.  I once asked what you would be doing if you had not failed your polygraph exam, and you stated you'd be employed by either the FBI or the Agency, whichever one or ones it was that you applied to.  So this great crusade of yours would never have taken place if you had passed, if you had gotten into the system.

Oh, you're such a crusader George.  Such a seeker of what's right, a real protector of the people.  Well, you ain't no Ralph Nader, and you sure as hell aren't Ghandi.  You're just a schmuck who couldn't break into the good old boy gang and now you're pissed.  

Go after a profession that really means something George.  Attack something that really is a wrong.  Get the balls to go after the really big fish, the ones that when they ruin a life, they really ruin it!

Batman

Sorry everyone, Official Batman Strawman Argument coming through, make way, make way......................

Bumpersticker recently seen on the Batmobile:

Have you dodged your profession's responsibilities today?

Well, well, well,

If it isn't George's little lap dog Beech Trees.  Can always count on this loyal little poodle to come to George's defense and try to piss on the legs of his detractors.

Well George, why don't you kick that little puppy off your lap and lower yourself to respond to the likes of me.  If you don't stop him from humping the legs of your visitors he may get kicked in the nuts.  

So, for fear of repeating myself,

All this crap about people's lives being ruined by polygraph is getting boorish.  You know who recently had a life ruined?  Try that young girl who had the wrong blood type organs transplanted into her body.  SHE'S DEAD!  Now that's a life that has been ruined.  Why don't you attack the medical profession you twit?  They screwed up royally.  That girl died because of their screw-up.  Her parents are grieving because of their screw-up.  Why aren't you getting on your great white steed and attacking them George?  Their errors cost people lives.  I would think you would consider that a far greater slight against mankind than someone wrongly failing a polygraph.  Polygraph examiners don't cut the wrong arteries.  They don't amputate the wrong limbs.  They don't prescribe the wrong medicines.  They don't put the wrong organs in a patient’s body; hell they don't even leave their tools in the body.  

You've chosen the polygraph community as your target only because you failed one, and you don't think it was fair.  You have admitted this.  I once asked what you would be doing if you had not failed your polygraph exam, and you stated you'd be employed by either the FBI or the Agency, whichever one or ones it was that you applied to.  So this great crusade of yours would never have taken place if you had passed, if you had gotten into the system.

Oh, you're such a crusader George.  Such a seeker of what's right, a real protector of the people.  Well, you ain't no Ralph Nader, and you sure as hell aren't Ghandi.  You're just a schmuck who couldn't break into the good old boy gang and now you're pissed.  

Go after a profession that really means something George.  Attack something that really is a wrong.  Get the balls to go after the really big fish, the ones that when they ruin a life, they really ruin it!


Batman

...will someone please get boy George a job???  He is in desparate need for something to occupy his time in a productive manner!!!

Batman, it is sad that you would take advantage of that poor girl's death to advance your own cause. Just shows us all what you're made of. Those doctors and nurses did screw up, badly. But guess what. THEY KNOW IT AND ADMIT IT. You polygraphers, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge that your system is severely flawed, and you think you NEVER score an exam wrong. I know people who are living a life of hell because of polygraph tests that were scored wrong. People who went to prison because of it. And some people have KILLED themselves because of it. I myself could have gone to prison for 7 years because of one, were it not for me having a judge who has serious doubts about polygraphs. And for the record, a "challenge" is exactly that. A dare,  or a strongly worded suggestion. George did not "tell" anyone to do anything.

Damn Batman,

Was all that really necessary? This website [message board] don’t upset you that badly does it crusader?

I know that you don’t think or believe that the information outlined in “TLBTLD” is accurate now do you?

After all, you particularly like to assert the “gift” of detecting polygraph countermeasures immediately, and with great ease… so I can’t help but wonder,

What am I truly missing here, please help me out…

I for one would never doubt your true super-powers enabling you to detect polygraph countermeasures. Superman can see through walls. It’s possible, that some people still believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and perhaps even the Tooth fairy.

I actually believe, that you believe, you can truly perform this great feat. I do not dispute you. I’m sincerely convinced that you actually believe in your own chart-gazing ability. Seriously, you wouldn’t refute the fact that your talent is nothing short of a God given gift now would you Batman?  I’m serious; you are truly gifted…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people believing in their individual fantasy. You just happen to believe that you can gaze upon a set of polygraph charts, (otherwise known as “chart-gazing” to the lay person) and detect countermeasures…


Having said that…


If polygraph countermeasures are rendered defenseless and futile against polygraph “chart-gazing” as you would like to have us all believe, then George is not posing harm to anyone, correct? If that’s your sincere position, then George is not placing anyone at risk, or in harms way. Remember, you claim that countermeasures are easily detected.

If that is your “beef” with George, then where is the harm in his cause?  

If countermeasures are so easily detected, then why all the hubbub…??

“Knowledge is power”

Would you have us believe that ignorance is superior to knowledge in any sense, regardless of the materiel under review?


Triple x

X X X,


wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 5:43am:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people believing in their individual fantasy. You just happen to believe that you can gaze upon a set of polygraph charts, (otherwise known as “chart-gazing” to the lay person) and detect countermeasures…

Well,  XXX, I gather based on your later suppositions, it doesn't much matter to batman whether he can detect countermeasures - only that he persuade as many readers of this site as possible of his countermeasure omniscience.  ;)

-Marty

Batman wrote on Mar 11^th, 2003 at 11:37pm:

Well, well, well, If it isn't George's little lap dog Beech Trees.  Can always count on this loyal little poodle to come to George's defense and try to piss on the legs of his detractors. Well George, why don't you kick that little puppy off your lap and lower yourself to respond to the likes of me.  If you don't stop him from humping the legs of your visitors he may get kicked in the nuts.

I wonder why George won't respond to such purile material.  It truly is a mystery.

Tell you what, "Batman" -- until you start acting just a tiny bit civil, you can count me in the ranks of those who have sworn you off, as well.  Just because you're evidently pissed at the world is no reason to treat others as you do.

You, sir, have some growing up to do.

Skeptic

Who in the hell is George anyway?  Is he a polygraph examiner?  Has he actually given any polygraph tests? (Experience) Has he gone to polygraph school? (Training)  Or is he just another pseudointellectual who thinks he can hide his ignorance behind a degree?

Marty,

You are absolutely correct, Batman's extraordinary super powers known as "chart-gazing" to the lay person, is nothing short of remarkable...

I guarantee you; if 60 minutes II reporter, Mike Wallace knew of Batman’s incredible capability, they would be chasing him around for a demonstration, comments, etc., etc.

George is certainly no match or threat to Batman's chart-gazing abilities. Any such polygraph countermeasure ploy against Batman, while connected to the “spirit-box” [polygraph machine to the lay person] would prove senseless, trivial and futile against the vast complex scribbling(s) interpreted unquestionably by Batman…



Skeptic, well said.


Regards,
xxx

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 7:18am:

Who in the hell is George anyway?  Is he a polygraph examiner?  Has he actually given any polygraph tests? (Experience) Has he gone to polygraph school? (Training)  Or is he just another pseudointellectual who thinks he can hide his ignorance behind a degree?

Mr. public,
Might I suggest you download his book, read it, follow up on the references and judge for yourself the quality of his argument.  You might also compare it with the recently-released National Academy of Sciences report on the polygraph.

Skeptic

So, i see that George is neither a polygraph examiner nor has he gone to polygraph school.  I guess some book is more important than real-life genuine knowledge.  No wonder people scoff at academics.

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 7:18am:

Who in the hell is George anyway?

Dear "The Public",

I don't really know "Who in the hell is George?".  I do not really care who the individual is in my case.  I do know that this is the only website where you can ask "Who in the hell is George?" and not get censored, deleted, hyphened-out, or kicked-out.  You might not agree with "George" and you might say many negative comments about "George", and "George" will not use any of his "powers" or "influence" to silence your opinion which might disagree with his.  Think about that.  Think about Mr. Franklin as he reported his views on the Constitution of the United States.   Censorship of any kind is the most direct afront to the Constitution of the United States.  The "Right to Disagree" and voicing of that right is the cornerstone of freedom.  The fear of "freedom of ideas" is what many dictators preached as they quelched any opposition to their ideas.

Regards.

Well,  nice way to evade the issue.  We weren't talking about freedom of speech.  We were talking about the extent of George's ignorance.

From the previous couple of comments, I can see that George really has no first-hand knowledge about the polygraph, just his own personal "academic" bias.

Long live logic and reason.

The Public,


wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 8:02am:

We were talking about the extent of George's ignorance. From the previous couple of comments, I can see that George really has no first-hand knowledge about the polygraph, just his own personal "academic" bias. Long live logic and reason.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with some members of a religious sect that I spent time with. They were quite disappointed that, after looking at their "literature" and talking to them I formed an opinion about their tactics and approach that proved accurate later.  I suppose I should have attended whatever seminary they had or study and be baptized since they felt that without that I would be "ignorant."   Like theirs, your argument fails.

-Marty

False +,

None of the polygraph operators I've challenged to publicly support dubious claims they've made to the media have done so. Beside Dee Moody, polygraphers who have misled the media include:

Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)

Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)

Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)

George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association)

Nick Savastano (polygraph operator for NBC "Meet My Folks" show)

Marty,

Is this what passes for intellect nowadays?  What you're saying is that reading, training and actual experience with the polygraph would have no effect on your opinion about polygraph testing.  It's bad just because you feel and say it's bad, and that's that.

Oh yes, let's not forget to compare it to a religious sect.  Very good.  Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.

George,

Why would Dee Moody or any of the others you mentioned want to spend time responding to you?  It's not like you're an important person or something.

If I were them, I wouldn't waste my time either.  Since they're out there giving tests and making a living at it, it looks like they're the successful ones and you're the whining loser.

Public,

You ask:


Quote:

Why would Dee Moody or any of the others you mentioned want to spend time responding to you?  It's not like you're an important person or something.

I don't claim to be "an important person or something." But the challenges I've put to Dee Moody and other polygraphers regarding the misrepresentations they've made to the media are important.


Quote:

If I were them, I wouldn't waste my time either.  Since they're out there giving tests and making a living at it, it looks like they're the successful ones and you're the whining loser.

Then why are you wasting your time posting ad hominem attacks? ;)

George,

Your challenges can't be all that important.  Frankly, nobody seems to care all that much.

Why am I wasting my time making ad hominem attacks?  You're certainly one to talk - you have created an entire website devoted to ad hominem attacks.

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 4:27pm:

George, Your challenges can't be all that important.  Frankly, nobody seems to care all that much. Why am I wasting my time making ad hominem attacks?  You're certainly one to talk - you have created an entire website devoted to ad hominem attacks.

So how long have you been a polygrapher, poster known as 'the public'?

Batman wrote on Mar 11^th, 2003 at 11:37pm:

Well, well, well, If it isn't George's little lap dog Beech Trees.  Can always count on this loyal little poodle to come to George's defense and try to piss on the legs of his detractors. Well George, why don't you kick that little puppy off your lap and lower yourself to respond to the likes of me.  If you don't stop him from humping the legs of your visitors he may get kicked in the nuts.

Batman,

Thanks, it's been entirely too long since you last anonymously threatened to kick my ass. Are you this tough-talking in real lfe, where you might actually be called upon to physically back up your threats of physical violence, or merely behind the keyboard, as you are now? Also, do you *always* fall back to threats and attempts at intimidation when your arguments lack merit, or just on this message board? Just wondering... have a nice day peace officer.... and please, if you carry anything away from this thread, remember what my man Thomas Paine once said:

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.

Dave

Note to self: buy huge cup at Sportmart in case Batman loses another argument.....

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 4:27pm:

George, Your challenges can't be all that important.  Frankly, nobody seems to care all that much.

You seemingly do. ;)


Quote:

Why am I wasting my time making ad hominem attacks?  You're certainly one to talk - you have created an entire website devoted to ad hominem attacks.

Actually, this website is devoted to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. I make every effort to avoid making ad hominem attacks. Pointing out misrepresentations publicly made by an individual does not constitute an ad hominem attack on said individual.

Ouch

Have you ever wondered why George Mashke posts his own picture on each of his postings? Do ya think the boy may have some rather severe psychological problems ? Hey-here's a new topic:

How many of you think George Maschke looks like a Gerbal wearing glasses?

a gerbal? what is a gerbal, bonehead?

A gerbal is an animal that looks like Maschke, only without the glasses.

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 8:02am:

Well,  nice way to evade the issue.  We weren't talking about freedom of speech.  We were talking about the extent of George's ignorance. From the previous couple of comments, I can see that George really has no first-hand knowledge about the polygraph, just his own personal "academic" bias. Long live logic and reason.

Speaking of which...

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm


Two questions occur:
1) To what "academic" bias are you referring, and perhaps you'd care to give examples where that bias, rather than informed research, guide his position?

2) Why is it "illogical" or "unreasonable" that someone who has extensively researched the polygraph (but is not himself a polygrapher) should speak about the polygraph in an informed manner?

Best Regards,
Skeptic

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 3:24pm:

Marty, Is this what passes for intellect nowadays?  What you're saying is that reading, training and actual experience with the polygraph would have no effect on your opinion about polygraph testing.  It's bad just because you feel and say it's bad, and that's that. Oh yes, let's not forget to compare it to a religious sect.  Very good.  Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.

No, I was not comparing it to a religious cult, that is your interpretation. What I was doing was pointing out that there are numerous situations in which one does not have to practice particular things to become informed about them which is your assertion. That's simply an incorrect assertion. If one has not trained to be a phrenologist, can one not form an educated opinion about phrenology?   Does one have to be a communist (or member of the John Birch Society) to understand and form opinions of their philosophies?  I think not.

-Marty

wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 3:24pm:

Marty, What you're saying is that reading, training and actual experience with the polygraph would have no effect on your opinion about polygraph testing.

This is a straw man.  No one has said that such experience wouldn't change anyone's opinion.  It's certainly true, however, that it would not necessarily change opinions, either.  And really, that's beside the point: after all, when we criticize the polygraph we're talking scientific evidence, not anecdotal.  Once you understand the difference, the "experience" you're talking about is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Quote:

It's bad just because you feel and say it's bad, and that's that.

This statement is entirely counterfactual.  Again, I urge you to actually read George's arguments and research on the subject before you comment on such.  As it is, you're clearly guilty of the same charge you make against Mr. Maschke.

Skeptic

Perhaps it is unfair to discuss phrenology and polygraphy in the same post. I certainly wouldn't want to suggest any sort of guilt by association. They are quite different.

For one thing, phrenology doesn't maintain that secrecy of it's techniques must be maintained for the benefit of the public. For another, phrenology isn't portrayed in the media as a nearly perfect predictive tool.  At least it hasn't been portrayed that way for a very long time. No, they are quite different.

-Marty

All it takes is a little Batman input to get the fur flying.  You all have to admit, it FEELS GOOD!

Now back to my first post.  To whomever it was that said I was taking advantage of the death of that young lady at Duke University, and any others that feel the same way, YOU MISSED THE DAMN POINT!

I have no problem with George or any others on this site who want to slam polygraph.  Hell there have been a few days when I've slammed it too.  My issue is with the comments about ruined lives.  Put this shit in perspective folks.  People like George, Capt Whatever the Hell his Name Is, Beech Trees, Skeptic, Seeker, etc, have not had their lives ruined.  Maybe, in their eyes, thier reps have taken a little hit, but ruined lives?  Not hardly.  Think about it, seriously.  Make all the arguments you want about how polygraph does not work, or how countermeasures can not be readily detected, but don't refer to your lives as being ruined.  I'm off my soap-box.

Now as for detecting countermeasures, I don't think I have ever said that I could, unfailingly, detect countermeasures Triple X.  I will tell you that on more than one ocassion I have confronted examinees about the use of countermeasures and they have admitted same.  I'm just as sure that on ocassion I have been unable to detect them.  As I have said in numerous posts, polygraph is not a perfect tool.  As for being gifted, well I'm no John Holmes, but I was once compared favorably to a well hung horse.  Actually, the only gift I have that may apply to you Mr. X is the gift to know a true Bullshitter when I hear one.  You sir, are one of the best.  When I see one of your posts I immediatly get my feet up off the floor.

OK, who's next.  My man Septic.  You want me to be civil, well piss off.  How's that for civil?  Why should I be civil to the likes of Beech Trees.  That guy is a first class jerk-off.  He rips all the "pro's" just as hard as I rip the "anti's" (sounds like West Side Story) so why don't you jump his shit about being civil?

Orolan, here's a challange my dear sir.  You mentioned that you know of people who have gone to prison because of polygraph.  Please site the particular cases.  I am anxious to know under what circumstances someone went to prison as a result of taking a polygraph.  You also mentioned people killing themselves because of polygraph.  Can you provide any additional information about this claim?  If you can't meet the challange, I do not expect you to make a public retraction.

If I have left any of my friends off this post I sincerely apologize.  I'm sure we'll link up in the not too distant furure.  Now that's what I call being civil.

Batman

Batman wrote on Mar 12^th, 2003 at 9:57pm:

OK, who's next.  My man Septic.  You want me to be civil, well piss off.  How's that for civil?  Why should I be civil to the likes of Beech Trees.  That guy is a first class jerk-off.  He rips all the "pro's" just as hard as I rip the "anti's" (sounds like West Side Story) so why don't you jump his shit about being civil?

Batman,

I think my tone was quite civil when I just recently observed and asked of you:


Quote:

...it's been entirely too long since you last anonymously threatened to kick my ass. Are you this tough-talking in real lfe, where you might actually be called upon to physically back up your threats of physical violence, or merely behind the keyboard, as you are now? Also, do you *always* fall back to threats and attempts at intimidation when your arguments lack merit, or just on this message board?

I don't see how I could have phrased those questions any more politely, batman.

Also, you asked of another poster:


Quote:

Orolan, here's a challange my dear sir.  You mentioned that you know of people who have gone to prison because of polygraph.  Please site the particular cases.  I am anxious to know under what circumstances someone went to prison as a result of taking a polygraph.

See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada. I'd say fourteen years behind bars for a crime one did not commit would qualify, even in your world, as a 'ruined life'.

And you're quite correct-- my life wasn't ruined by my polygraph interrogation. Learning and understanding the deceit, fraud, and straight-up bullshit polygraphers like you get paid to spew on a daily basis served me well when I sat on my slightly-lower-than-my-polygraph-interrogator's-wheeled-chair and silently laughed at the popinjay before me for about 3 hours.

Thanks for the help there, beech trees. A sad case that one is. But this one is worse. This man, one of about 8 different suspects in a murder case, had a solid alibi. He made the tragic mistake of volunteering to take a polygraph to further prove his innocence. And he failed. For what reason, we don't know, other than the fact that the poly is not reliable. The prosecutor, knowing that he could not use this information in court, blurted out the fact that Freddie had failed a polygraph while cross-examining him. The judge quickly admonished the prosecutor, and instructed the jury to "disregard the remark". Amazingly, since he had thus far only brought out heresy evidence, conjecture, and the conflicting testimony of a few "street snitches", the prosecutor rested his case. The jury found Freddie guilty, and he is now serving a life sentence.
Freddie Eugene Casey #218207
Wallens Ridge Correctional Center
PO Box 759
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219

orolan,

More information about the case of Freddie Eugene Casey is available here:

http://www.justicedenied.org/eugenecasey.htm

Thanks George. I became aware of Freddie's plight while living in upper East Tennessee in the early nineties. I was not aware that it was on the web.

Quote:

So, i see that George is neither a polygraph examiner nor has he gone to polygraph school.  I guess some book is more important than real-life genuine knowledge.  No wonder people scoff at academics.

Not everyone is scoffing. Some, like Paul Menges of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, think that the information featured here is threatening enough that it should be banned.


Quote:

Go after a profession that really means something George.  Attack something that really is a wrong.  Get the balls to go after the really big fish, the ones that when they ruin a life, they really ruin it!

A "profession" often responsible for misdirection of prosecutorial efforts (sometimes to the point that innocent individuals are imprisoned) is worthy enough of our efforts. Still, we thank you for your suggestion.


Quote:

Why would Dee Moody or any of the others you mentioned want to spend time responding to you?  It's not like you're an important person or something. If I were them, I wouldn't waste my time either.  Since they're out there giving tests and making a living at it, it looks like they're the successful ones and you're the whining loser.

The National Academy of Sciences seemed to think that George was important enough when they invited him to be a speaker at one of their meetings. I don't think that a lack of relevance is the reason why no one is stepping up to the plate. Perhaps none of those George has challenged have replied because there is no way that they can defend their outrageous claims.