I was under investigation earlier this year for a crime I did not commit.  My attorney had me take a polygraph test with a private individual who is very well respected in the field.  He was the head of a large police departments polygraph dept and trains many people throughout the country.  He now has his own private practice. My attorney sends his clients there before he sends them to the sherrifs dept for the real one.  If his clients fail the private one he doesn't send them to the real one.  Anyway, I passed the private one.  My attorney has never had someone pass the private one and fail the sherriff.  In fact the private polygrapher trained the current county sherriff polygrapher.  So when i took the polygraph test with the sherriff my attorney did not have me take the post test.  He never has his clients do this and said it is common.  The county polygrapher said this was unusual and said the prosecution really wanted me to take the post test.  He told me I could walk out after the actual testing was done but he wouldn't sign anything that pre-approved me not taking the post test.  So that is what i did.  I took the test and when that part was done I said "Is this when I should leave?" and he said "yes."  He told me he would be out in a minute to tell my attny and myself the results.  He came out about 45 mins later and said "I know the results of your private test and these were a little different.  There were indicators that showed signs of deception.  I'd really like to get you back in for the post test."  To which my attorney said, no way and asked for specifics.  "Well there were just some indicators that showed deception."  And he would not give specifics.  He then told us he would have the results to us the next day or the day after.  that was in April and we have not been shown the results and have not been able to get a hold of them.  It was understood that if I pass that polygraph the criminal charges that had not been brought forth yet would be dropped.  If I failed they were going to go after me with 1st degree in my case.  About three weeks after the test I was offered a plea for 4th degree, which is a misdimeanor.  We actually had a third party, "impartial party" hired by a judge to investigate some of the background of my whole case and they have access to all documents.  They have a legal right to everything under the sun.  The third party tried through the prosecution and the sherriffs department to get the results and could not get them.  She told us she has never had this problem before.  The prosecution throughout the discussions would say that I failed the polygraph test, but when we asked for results they would not give them to us.  

What are my rights to seeing my results of that test?  I mean all the detail.  This has been one small piece of the nightmare my family and myself have been going through and would really like to get the raw data from that test.  Does anyone know where I would start?  

Thanks a lot.  

mattwings,

It certainly sounds like the prosecution and sheriff's department have something to hide. There can be no legitimate reason for them not to disclose the record of your polygraph examination. I'm not a lawyer, but applicable laws might include your state's rules of evidence and public information access law.

Anyone having criminal problems always state their crime unless it is a sex offense.   So mattwings, did you try  countermeasures on the second test?

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 6:56pm:

Anyone having criminal problems always state their crime unless it is a sex offense.

And you know this...how? In any event mattwings stated up front that he/she did not commit the crime for which he/she was under investigation.


Quote:

So mattwings, did you try countermeasures on the second test?

That's not relevant to mattwings' question, which is about obtaining his/her polygraph records. Can you (or any other polygrapher here) offer a good faith reason for not releasing the polygraph records so that they may be independently reviewed?

George, I asked a legitimate question.  Mattwings, did you use countermeasures on your second test.

BTW, this is relevant.  If he used countermeasures, that could have been the problem and others here should know about it.

BTW, I didn't say mattwings was guilty or not.  In fact, I implied the exact opposite.  If he used CM's the CM's screwed him over since he passed the first polygraph.  And for how I know when people don't mention their crimes it is usually a sex offense....I either am currently or retired from LE.  

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 7:11pm:

George, I asked a legitimate question.  Mattwings, did you use countermeasures on your second test. BTW, this is relevant.  If he used countermeasures, that could have been the problem and others here should know about it.

You asked mattwings a question the answer to which is really none of your or anyone else's business, and which is of no relevance to his/her posted question.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 7:18pm:

BTW, I didn't say mattwings was guilty or not.  In fact, I implied the exact opposite.  If he used CM's the CM's screwed him over since he passed the first polygraph.  And for how I know when people don't mention their crimes it is usually a sex offense....I either am currently or retired from LE.

Well, you wrote, "Anyone having criminal problems always state their crime unless it is a sex offense." I think that clearly implies guilt. An innocent person doesn't have "criminal problems." And I don't think any amount of law enforcement experience qualifies one to make such a sweeping generalization as you did. In any event, the nature of the crime for which mattwings was investigated is irrelevant to the question he/she posted.

George, unlike you I know people get investigated for crimes...hello, it is an investigation and if he has an attorney he has criminal problems, regardless if his is guilty or innocent.  You my man are trying to deflect the true question of if he used countermeasures on the second exam.  I don't care if he wants the records.  

The point is you tell everyone to use CM's .....ta da, I'm off to save the world.    When in fact, CM'S don't work in the manner you think.  

I for one would like to know if he used CM's on the second test!

Wonder Woman,

Thank you for explaining what you meant by "criminal problems," and I'm glad to know that by that expression, you did not mean to imply that mattwings is guilty of whatever crime he/she was investigated for.

I'd like to clarify that I don't, however, "tell everyone" to use polygraph countermeasures. AntiPolygraph.org's advice to those suspected of committing a crime has always been and remains to refuse the polygraph. As used by law enforcement agencies, it is often little more than a pretext for interrogating a suspect in the absence of legal counsel. Those suspected of a crime have little or nothing to gain from submitting to this pseudoscientific procedure, and potentially much to lose. Again, our advice to anyone suspected of a crime is to refuse the polygraph and not speak with investigators without a lawyer.

Quote:

I'd like to clarify that I don't, however, "tell everyone" to use polygraph countermeasures. AntiPolygraph.org's advice to those suspected of committing a crime has always been and remains to refuse the polygraph. A

George, are you that conscienceless???

Don't take the polygraph, but he're a free book on how to pass (or beat - if you are guilty of some crime or abuse).

You cannot delete your culpability anymore than the folks who provided firearms to Kleibold and Harris. But hey, they didn't tell those kids to go shoot up a school, any more than you advise people to sabotage their polygraph, and trash their career opportunities (or attempt to defeat the efforts of a criminal investigation).

As always,

Just damn proud to be here.

l

So the question is still out there.  Did Mattwings use countermeasures?  Regardless of if you told him specifically to use CM's or if he just read YOUR material and decided to use CM's on his own.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 8:13pm:

So the question is still out there.  Did Mattwings use countermeasures?  Regardless of if you told him specifically to use CM's or if he just read YOUR material and decided to use CM's on his own.

Indeed, your question is out there, and mattwings may or may not choose to answer it. But for now, and back to the original topic of this discussion thread, can you (or any other polygrapher here) offer a good faith reason for not releasing the polygraph records so that they may be independently reviewed?

I think the cop shop should release a report of some kind. But I am not sure they are obligated to do so. I suspect that the cop suspects countermeasures and the whole process has been cluster f'd. Telling people that innocent folks should use countermeasures is not a great idea-----and I should know as I am a real live, breathing Polygraph Examiner, not a near east linguist, nor am I a  3rd rate poet. :-[


just my 2 cents

I would allow another polygraph examiner to independantly review my records.  However, depending on who ran the examination, their agency may have requirements that prohit releasing investigative information.  I would also like to restate for this population, the POLYGRAPH will not convict this man of a crime.  The investigators will take this information and investigate further.

George, I also agree with Ludovico.  Even if you didn't personally tell someone to use CM's you are culpable if they receive this information from your site.

Quote:

can you (or any other polygrapher here) offer a good faith reason for not releasing the polygraph records so that they may be independently reviewed?

No.

Processes like QC, peer review, and second opinions exist in all professions. What's the trouble here? I have requested and reviewed polygraph data from police agencies. Police agencies and prosecutors have requested and reviewed my examination data.  


Quote:

Those suspected of a crime have little or nothing to gain ... <snip>

There you are wrong. I've worked on a few cases, as recently as the past few days, in which a case was not filed (dismissed) after reviewing polygraph data with the prosecutors and investigators.  

At times the subject cannot pass the test, and those results might not be released due to privilege. (Like it or not, even the guilty have a right to a defense, and we probably wouldn't want it any other way.) Even those results are helpful, because the attorney can sometimes better redirect a very costly impulse to fight an unwinable fight - that is often a cruel and punishing experience for the victim of the crime. Offenders sometimes need help, just not legal help. Accused persons are sometimes guilty. In the case of sexual deviancy, my personal opinion is that most people  are not proud (in fact deeply embarassed and disturbed) by their unmanageable urges. Those folks are better off figuring out how to get themselves connected with a supervision and treatment system that will help them be better people - or lock them up if they will not do so. There are, of course a few people who are quite happy with what they are doing, and those are the folks we like to ID correctly and remove from your neighborhoods.

No-body thinks the legal system works perfectly, but we sure wouldn't want to throw the whole thing away.

This site is an example of a one-dimensional ethical process - so embroiled in personal experience and personal concern as a basis for sweeping social recommendations that it can't even navigate the ethical dilemmas with any articulate recognition of all of the issues.

Its not a discussion here, its really just a circus. But this did seem important.

Ludovico

"Offenders sometimes need help, just not legal help. Accused persons are sometimes guilty. In the case of sexual deviancy, my personal opinion is that most people  are not proud (in fact deeply embarassed and disturbed) by their unmanageable urges. Those folks are better off figuring out how to get themselves connected with a supervision and treatment system that will help them be better people - or lock them up if they will not do so. There are, of course a few people who are quite happy with what they are doing, and those are the folks we like to ID correctly and remove from your neighborhoods".  

This is practically what I posted a while back. Therefore I am in total agreement with you. I am sure you will agree there are some who are so messed up in the head that they belong in a mental or correctional system and never be on the streets. If a program works, I am all for it. However, offenses that harm another person, especiall a child, does not deserve a second chance at rehabilition.

I am glad to see your intelligent post.

Quote:

This is practically what I posted a while back. Therefore I am in total agreement with you. I am sure you will agree there are some who are so messed up in the head that they belong in a mental or correctional system and never be on the streets. If a program works, I am all for it. However, offenses that harm another person, especiall a child, does not deserve a second chance at rehabilition.

Agreed.

I'll look for your post.

Fortunately, and optimistically, I believe the number of persons who are truly irredeemable to be small. That is in part a personal choice, on my part, to believe that - having heard detailed descriptions of just about every imaginable offense and against both children and adults, and having spent countless hours with victims of severe (life-altering) abuse. It does no good to give up on human decency. The real challenge is for professionals to get good at telling the difference between folk who want to do better, and those who don't care or cannot do better. None of the tools available to professionals in the social sciences is perfect - we all know that - including all personality, intelligence and risk assessment measures. What we also know is that professionals make better professional decisions when they are trained to use data from good, even if imperfect, tools. That's called "incremental validity" for you would-be scientists out there.

No good comes from simple moralizing. We have to learn what to do. Part of that there learning what to do means learning to use professional authority and professional tools carefully.

In this case, it would be interesting to know whether Mattwings was attempting to alter the test result, of either test. It would be interesting to see the data from both examinations. It would be very rare, in my experience, for there to be no identifiable reason for test results to come out that way. There is a reason - we simply may not yet know what those reasons are. Maybe someone wants to know. Maybe someone doesn't want us to know. If not, then you do have to wonder why not.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 12:36am:

Snip... None of the tools available to professionals in the social sciences is perfect - we all know that - including all personality, intelligence and risk assessment measures. What we also know is that professionals make better professional decisions when they are trained to use data from good, even if imperfect, tools. That's called "incremental validity" for you would-be scientists out there. snip...

Care to also educate us on:

a) internal validity - does the polygraph test eliminate confounding variables that might influence its outcome?
b) construct validity - does the polygraph test measure deception?
c) content validity - does the the polygraph test measure the representative behaviors of deception that it is trying to measure?
d) ecological validity - is the polygraph test extendable to all populations?

Just an FYI before you answer, the National Academy of Science concluded that the CQT polygraph lacked all these despite nearly a century of research...

So you can harp all you want about incremental validity, if a psychometric test does not have internal, construct, content, and ecological validity then it is simply pseudoscience...

You askin', or tellin' boss?

c'mon - you gotta chime in with the intellectual bully BS - wouldn't want to feel left out now, would ya, smartie.

If my memory serves me the NRC/NAS concluded the polygraph differentiates truth-tellers from deceivers at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Translates to "Duh!"

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 1:42am:

You askin', or tellin' boss? c'mon - you gotta chime in with the intellectual bully BS - wouldn't want to feel left out now, would ya, smartie. If my memory serves me the NRC/NAS concluded the polygraph differentiates truth-tellers from deceivers at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Translates to "Duh!"

You guys really have nothing more than ad hominem attacks and quote mining, do you?

You always leave out the fact that the "well above chance" quote was about specific incident polygraphs which are closely related to the cognitively-based guilty knowledge test. The GKT is based on sound science unlike the emotionally-based CQT. For screening applications, the CQT polygraph does not have any validity whatsoever...

And I apologize if you feel intellectually intimidated. It's been my experience that that additional education helps with that...

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 1:42am:

You askin', or tellin' boss? c'mon - you gotta chime in with the intellectual bully BS - wouldn't want to feel left out now, would ya, smartie. If my memory serves me the NRC/NAS concluded the polygraph differentiates truth-tellers from deceivers at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Translates to "Duh!"

I believe the quote you are referring to in the NAS report referred only to specific incident testing, and only to test subjects who were untrained in countermeasures.


Quote:

Notwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

Since the successful use of countermeasures is, by definition, undetectable, it seems impossible to determine if the subject is trained in countermeasures.  If that determination cannot be made with certainty, the "well above chance" accuracy rate is moot.

Quote:

And I apologize if you feel intellectually intimidated. It's been my experience that that additional education helps with that...

Well. Golly gee, boss. Someday I gotta get me one-a them there edumacations.

You didn't seriously come here for me to educate you did you? You came here to flex some mathematical muscle or sompin' - or to get me to behave (if all else fails I'll get mod-slapped again - that'll teach me).

You and I have both read the report.

I seem to recall something else they said about countermeasures not working... and perhaps even increasing the likelihood of not passing...

Hey!

You left your fly open, and your dribbling on your pants. Zip it up in public, huh pal.

(you checked. didn't you)

Even if you didn't yet, you might. Or, through sheer will power and stubbornness you won't. Just to prove your superiority. But you'll check later, won't you. Or, next time you zip or check you'll think of me. You're welcome.

Now try this.

You take polygraphs? (Or anyone that does.)

Next time you have to take one, don't bother to be honest. Plus, before your polygraphs, don't bother to adhere to your security guidelines or probation rules. The polygraph doesn't work right. No worries. Right? You already branded it with the great big rubber stamp of "psuedo...

Feel good now?

Good.

If you seriously want to have a real conversation about this you gotta let us know sometime. This ain't it. This is just a poly-bashing circus for some disgruntled folks (and cheap entertainment for others). But you did a good job putting me in my place with all those tough questions about science. Yessiree.

For now, go spin that propeller on yer hat for a while. But check your fly before you go out.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Well. Golly gee, boss. Someday I gotta get me one-a them there edumacations. You didn't seriously come here for me to educate me did you? You came here to flex some mathematical muscle or sompin' - or to get me to behave (if all else fails I'll get mod-slapped again - that'll teach me).

Call it a character flaw but I think that everyone is capable of learning, even those steeped in their own delusions...

As for getting mod-slapped, I can't help it if you weren't properly socialized enough to play nice in the sandbox with the other kids...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

You and I have both read the report. I seem to recall something else they said about countermeasures not working... and perhaps even increasing the likelihood of not passing...

I think you need to go back and reread it again. You're mixing Honts' recent work with it, which itself has enough holes to drive a truck through...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Hey! You left your fly open, and your dribbling on your pants. Zip it up in public, huh pal. (you checked. didn't you)

Nope, I'm wearing sweatpants...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Even if you didn't yet, you might. Or, through sheer will power and stubbornness you won't. Just to prove your superiority. But you'll check later, won't you. Or, next time you zip or check you'll think of me. You're welcome.

Nope...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Now try this. You take polygraphs? (Or anyone that does.)

I've never taken a polygraph in my life. However, I do research and program evaluations of sex offender treatment. Hence my interest in polygraphs..


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Next time you have to take one, don't bother to be honest. Plus, before your polygraphs, don't bother to adhere to your security guidelines or probation rules. The polygraph doesn't work right. No worries. Right? You already branded it with the great big rubber stamp of "psuedo...

Find anything in my postings here that encourages dishonesty and criminality...

And yes, it is pseudoscience but I didn't brand it as such. The NAS and others (Lykken, Iacono) did. I also think there is pretty compelling evidence that reliance on it is a threat to the community...


Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 2:35am:

Feel good now? Good. If you seriously want to have a real conversation about this you gotta let us know sometime. This ain't it. This is just a poly-bashing circus for some disgruntled folks (and cheap entertainment for others). But you did a good job putting me in my place with all those tough questions about science. Yessiree. For now, go spin that propeller on yer hat for a while. But check your fly before you go out.

What's so sad about this is that I know that most people who work in sex offender treatment, even the polygraphers, are truly earnest in their efforts to prevent relapse and reoffending. I'm sorry that you feel the need to denigrate science and scientific inquiry because it happens to demostrate that your career choice is a sham...  

Rather than continuing your invective and vitriol against me, how about engaging in real dialogue and debate on the scientific evidence for and against the polygraph? Perhaps I could learn something from you and the same might happen for you...

Otherwise, you're the only one providing cheap entertainment...

Quote:

Nope, I'm wearing sweatpants...

Smart. No worries then.


Quote:

However, I do research and program evaluations of sex offender treatment.

Really. (You seem like nothing more than an apologist for the anti-polygraph crowd.)

You and I have similar interests then.


Quote:

I think you need to go back and reread it again. You're mixing Honts' recent work with it, which itself has enough holes to drive a truck through...

Is this incorrect, O great rubber-stamper of the adequacy of other people's research?

“Because it is possible that countermeasures can increase “failure” rates, among nondeceptive examinees and because a judgement that an examinee is using countermeasures can have the same practical effect as the judgement that the test indicates deception, their use by innocent individuals may be misguided.”

(National Academy of Sciences, 2003) [p.146]

how about this?

“... claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.”

(National Academy of Sciences, 2003) [p.147]


Quote:

Rather than continuing your invective and vitriol against me, how about engaging in real dialogue and debate on the scientific evidence for and against the polygraph? Perhaps I could learn something from you and the same might happen for you... Otherwise, you're the only one providing cheap entertainment...

Sorry, I thought you were the propeller-headed ogre they keep in the cave, to be invited out for special moments when some pesky wise-acre needs to be chewed up and put in his place.

'twas all fun though

niters,

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 4:08am:

Is this incorrect, O great rubber-stamper of the adequacy of other people's research? “Because it is possible that countermeasures can increase “failure” rates, among nondeceptive examinees and because a judgement that an examinee is using countermeasures can have the same practical effect as the judgement that the test indicates deception, their use by innocent individuals may be misguided.” (National Academy of Sciences, 2003) [p.146]

The NAS made this statement with reference to a study by Honts and Amato of the use of spontaneous (that is, untrained) countermeasures. See, Honts, C.R., S.L. Amato, and A.K. Gordon, "Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test." Polygraph Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, pp. 1-9.

In this study, the "countermeasures" were things that subjects ignorant of polygraph procedure did on their own in the belief that it might help them pass the polygraph. Such countermeasures are not comparable to those suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

There are no studies indicating that the use of sophisticated countermeasures leads to increased polygraph failure rates. On  the contrary, the available research evidence suggests the opposite.


Quote:

how about this? “... claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible.” (National Academy of Sciences, 2003) [p.147]

The existing peer-reviewed research (by Charles Honts and others, see citations and article abstracts in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) shows that half of programmed guilty subjects passed the polygraph after receiving no more than 30 minutes of training. Those facing polygraphic interrogation in the real world typically have considerably more time and greater motivation to learn countermeasures.

Wonder Woman, Paradiddle, Ludovico,

I'm glad to see that we are all in evident agreement on the point that an agency should not object to having its polygraph examinations independently reviewed. I think that when an agency refuses to release such information, as has happened in mattwings' case, an unbiased observer is justified in drawing adverse inference.

With regard to your concerns about the ethics of publishing information on polygraph countermeasures, to be sure, I am not so naive as to think that some guilty/deceptive persons won't use the information provided by AntiPolygraph.org in an effort to avoid being held accountable for their actions. For more on this topic, see my "Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public."

Fact is that people get busted daily for fartin' around with their polygraphs as advised on this site. Some are in fact guilty. Others pay the price for your cause. Nice work huh?

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 12:52pm:

Fact is that people get busted daily for fartin' around with their polygraphs as advised on this site. Some are in fact guilty. Others pay the price for your cause. Nice work huh?

Fact is that some are not guilty but still pay your price so that you can add
another notch on your gun. Nice huh ?

Jeez-o-man,

You flip-flop more than a fish out of water. Are you arguing science or ethics. You switch back and forth rather conveniently.

Both are interesting conversations, but they are somewhat separate concerns.

Your expression  is a typical one-sided deontological conclusion, about the "evil" of polygraph because of its imperfection. Our judicial system is imperfect too, and sometimes not very scientific. Should we discard it as well, Boss?

The other side of the ethical discussion is a recognition of the fact that much about community building and much about our legal system is premised on more utilititarian ethical models. Neither is completely correct or incorrect. The real challenge is to develop an articulate awareness of each of these ethical paradigms, along with that of other folks like Aristotle, and begin to formulate an integrative understanding of what is right and what is wrong in terms of community safety decisions and individual liberties. Do you really want to discuss this, or do you simply need to be right?

One thing is for sure - Emanuel Kant should never become a polygraph examiner.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 3:58pm:

Jeez-o-man, You flip-flop more than a fish out of water. Are you arguing science or ethics. You switch back and forth rather conveniently.

I'm trying to keep up with you

[/quote]

Both are interesting conversations, but they are somewhat separate concerns.
Your expression  is a typical one-sided deontological conclusion, about the "evil" of polygraph because of its imperfection. Our judicial system is imperfect too, and sometimes not very scientific. Should we discard it as well, Boss? [/quote]

The old 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' BS

[/quote]

The other side of the ethical discussion is a recognition of the fact that much about community building and much about our legal system is premised on more utilititarian ethical models. Neither is completely correct or incorrect. The real challenge is to develop an articulate awareness of each of these ethical paradigms, along with that of other folks like Aristotle, and begin to formulate an integrative understanding of what is right and what is wrong in terms of community safety decisions and individual liberties. Do you really want to discuss this, or do you simply need to be right? [/quote]

Obfuscation regns supreme. Do you always waffle on like this, or is today a special instance?

[/quote]

One thing is for sure - Emanuel Kant should never become a polygraph examiner.

[/quote]

Why not? You're convinced that you and your ilk possess metaphysical prowess.

You should probably re-read Kant, 'lest you sound under-edumacated. Pay close attention, and ya just might find he rings consonant with some of your concerns.

Thanks for your advice Reggie Garrett.
I'll re-read Kant.
And a read for you: Jerry Stratten's book.
You may find yourself amongst the pages.

PS: He only wrote 1 - you will find it.

That was funny.

Thanks.

My Pleasure.
I prefer you when you keep it down to short sentences
and max three syllables.

Aint got me a good edumacashin.
;)

Wow.  I am away from my computer for a couple days and I miss a whole lot of interesting discussions.  Don't you guys watch football on the weekends?  

First of all, I don't know what countermeasures are.  I didn't use them and know nothing about them.  I didn't want to know anything about polygraph tests or tricks before I took my tests because I didn't want it screwing me up or having someone at somepoint check and see if I was researching polygraphs before I took them.  I didn't commit the crime I was being accused of and told the truth in both tests.  So no, I did not use countermeasures and literally don't even want to know what they are so don't go into them.  

Secondly, it was not a sex crime.  My wife would say that the way I perform in bed may be a crime, but you'll have to talk with her.  My investigation had nothing to do with sex or a sex crime.  

Any suggestions on a starting point to research where to begin??  

Thanks.  And all the posts made for good reading.  


Mattwings

Mattwings,

You are paying an attorney thousands of dollars to provide legal assistance and yet you come to this two bit POS site to get legal advice?

I know, why don't you fire your attorney and hire Dr. Drew Richardson. I heard that he is a polygraph expert!

MM

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 6:07pm:

You are paying an attorney thousands of dollars to provide legal assistance and yet you come to this two bit POS site to get legal advice?

It does rather beg the question that, if you feel this is a POS site, why are you here, reading messages and posting your opinions?

Why not go to one of the many non-POS sites on the Internet?

Personally, I don't have enough free time in my day to go to web sites I don't care for and post messages there.  

Sarge, I believe Meat was being flippent. This is a great site to view unscientifically validated countermeasures against scientifically validated tests. It is very much like Big Oil's scramble to explain global warming as caused only by cow farts and volcanos. This is comedy.

OK Sarge, ya got me. I thought "POS" meant "Protecting Our Society". Apparently, this is not one of those sites.

On a serious note, think about Mr. Wings posts. Here he is paying a lawyer all that money to represent him, protect his rights and provide legal advise. Now Mr. Wings wants his polygraph charts and comes to this site to know what his legal rights are.

As a trained investigator Sarge, you should sense that something is not right in Mr. Wings house. His story smells like the docks at low tide.

Regards,

MM

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 7:59pm:

Sarge, I believe Meat was being flippent. This is a great site to view unscientifically validated countermeasures against scientifically validated tests. It is very much like Big Oil's scramble to explain global warming as caused only by cow farts and volcanos. This is comedy.

Sorry, but your own pro-polygraph PhDs (Honts, Raskin, etc.) have shown that countermeasures indeed do work. It also does not take a rocket scientist to understand that a person can manipulate their physiology to create the desired response if they know what the response is supposed to look like and when it is supposed to happen...

Additionally, it has been shown that the guilty knowledge test is the only scientifically valid form of polygraphy because it is based on cognitive response of which there is a unique or near unique physiological reaction. The others (CQT, DL, IR, etc.) are based on emotion and there is no unique physiological response for any emotion be it fear, anger, love, hate, grief, or sadness. This fact makes these tests unreliable, unstandardizable, and invalid because they cannot have internal, construct, or ecological validity...

D-Head!

Where you been? Oh, had to finish up the day job, huh?

Nice to hear from you.

Now, breathe buddy. Them's a mouthful of big fancy-pants words. Ecological validity, huh. Whew. Before we begin, relax a bit. Change out of the bow-tie, and back into the comfy sweats - yeah, the one's with the stain on the front, those are good. Ah, sweats. Comfy waistlines. Stretchability, and versatility. No need to loosen they old belt after dinner, eh Bud. They simply expand and expand with the gut. How long's it been since you seen the... oh sorry, that's getting personal.

Now. I don't seem to recall anyone ever determining a near unique physiological reaction for the GKT. Last I heard there is no single physiological phenomena that is uniquely associated with any human activity. That's what is fundamentally wrong with voice stres, in my ever so humble and ill-informed opinion; diagnosis requires multiple distinct correlated indices to achieve some useful level of aggregated correlation efficiency. A single physiological phenomena might provide an observable, though imperfect, and singularly unusable degree of correlation. Whatever.

Now a question. Cognitive response? Whom, pray tell, O great and powerful "D", determined that the GKT was purely cognitive?

It kinda sound like yer just throwin' yer weight around, Boss.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 8:37pm:

OK Sarge, ya got me. I thought "POS" meant "Protecting Our Society". Apparently, this is not one of those sites. On a serious note, think about Mr. Wings posts. Here he is paying a lawyer all that money to represent him, protect his rights and provide legal advise. Now Mr. Wings wants his polygraph charts and comes to this site to know what his legal rights are. As a trained investigator Sarge, you should sense that something is not right in Mr. Wings house. His story smells like the docks at low tide. Regards, MM

Hey mystery meat.  You've done nothing but give me crap, which is fine.  That is your right. I came to this site because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution or suggestion rather than the cute little responses you like to give.  They are darling.  Really they are.  Actually, I have three attorneys.  And they are all very very talented.  They are all also $300.00 per hour so even a phone call to one of them counts as a half hour which costs $150.00.  So to have one of them go through the research and try to get this info would probably be a few hours of billing at least.  I thought this might be a good quick way for me to get some advice from a forum that I figured would know.  From the responses on this board, there have been a couple guys who have actually tried to help me out, but in general, not a whole lot of help.  So it is probably worth it to me to go the attorney route and try to get the info.  

I just had a simple question to know what my rights are.   Thanks for the help.  

mattwings wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 11:51pm:

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 8:37pm: OK Sarge, ya got me. I thought "POS" meant "Protecting Our Society". Apparently, this is not one of those sites. On a serious note, think about Mr. Wings posts. Here he is paying a lawyer all that money to represent him, protect his rights and provide legal advise. Now Mr. Wings wants his polygraph charts and comes to this site to know what his legal rights are. As a trained investigator Sarge, you should sense that something is not right in Mr. Wings house. His story smells like the docks at low tide. Regards, MM Hey mystery meat.  You've done nothing but give me crap, which is fine.  That is your right. I came to this site because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution or suggestion rather than the cute little responses you like to give.  They are darling.  Really they are.  Actually, I have three attorneys.  And they are all very very talented.  They are all also $300.00 per hour so even a phone call to one of them counts as a half hour which costs $150.00.  So to have one of them go through the research and try to get this info would probably be a few hours of billing at least.  I thought this might be a good quick way for me to get some advice from a forum that I figured would know.  From the responses on this board, there have been a couple guys who have actually tried to help me out, but in general, not a whole lot of help.  So it is probably worth it to me to go the attorney route and try to get the info.   I just had a simple question to know what my rights are.   Thanks for the help.

Mattwings,

I am not buying this either.  You came to this site 'because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution'.  You just indicated you must have been on this site before, thus, there is a great possibility you attempted to use CM'.  Other wise, how would you know there was so much hype and expertise you could find on an ANTI polygraph site.  BTW, check out the Drew Richardson post for more information on the EXPERTISE on this site.  

Although George tells you never to admit you used CM's, go ahead.  It won't hurt our feelings.

mattwings wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 5:21pm:

Wow.  I am away from my computer for a couple days and I miss a whole lot of interesting discussions.  Don't you guys watch football on the weekends?   First of all, I don't know what countermeasures are.  I didn't use them and know nothing about them.  I didn't want to know anything about polygraph tests or tricks before I took my tests because I didn't want it screwing me up or having someone at somepoint check and see if I was researching polygraphs before I took them.  I didn't commit the crime I was being accused of and told the truth in both tests.  So no, I did not use countermeasures and literally don't even want to know what they are so don't go into them.   Secondly, it was not a sex crime.  My wife would say that the way I perform in bed may be a crime, but you'll have to talk with her.  My investigation had nothing to do with sex or a sex crime.   Any suggestions on a starting point to research where to begin??   Thanks.  And all the posts made for good reading.   Mattwings

Once again, First of all, I don't know what countermeasures are.  I didn't use them and know nothing about them.   Yet I came to this site to ask the experts....lol

Mattwings, has it ever occurred to you to post your question on a polygraph examiners site---where some of the best examiners in the country address your issue. It is called polygraph place. Tell'em Paradiddle sent you---and they'll answer your questions quick, without the circus.


By the way D-Head, Palerider told me to tell you "hi"...and that he misses you, and that he "thought he saw you at the White Castle drive-thru giving out incorrect change the other day."
Palerider is kinda mean that way.

Mr. Wings,

If you have three attorney's representing you at 300 bucks an hour each, I suspect your problems are way out of misdemeanor land! To answer your original question, all any one of your three attorney's has to do is request the charts as part of the "discovery". It is a simple process and any attorney should know this. If you play your cards right, you may even be able to serve your time with OJ Simpson.

Regards,

MM

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:41am:

You just indicated you must have been on this site before, thus, there is a great possibility you attempted to use CM'.

The above quote certainly seems to indicate that you believe anyone who researches the polygraph does so with the intent of learning how use countermeasures in an attempt to beat the test.

I have heard similiar sentiments from other polygraph examiners on this site, as well as from polygraph examiners on other sites.

Doesn't that seem unfairly presumptuous?  

Do you, like other examiners, ask each subject if they have researched the polygraph before you start their exam?  If you do and they tell you they have, don't you worry that might be causing bias in your mind, since you will automatically assume they are going to try and use countermeasures?

If a police applicant is told he must pass a polygraph exam in order to be hired, and his only knowledge of the polygraph comes from fiction on TV and in movies, wouldn't it be perfectly normal for him to look it up on the Internet or in the library?

If a police applicant is told he must pass the "Cooper Standards" in order to get hired, and he has no idea what the "Cooper Standards" are other than that they involve the physical agility test, wouldn't it make sense for him to do some research?  Would that indicate to you that the applicant is planning to cheat on the sit ups, or on the run?

Ludovico wrote on Oct 1^st, 2007 at 10:36pm:

"... multiple distinct correlated indices; aggregated correlation efficiency; single physiological phenomena; observable, though imperfect, singularly unusable degree of correlation.."

Somebody Please Send This Clown A Nylock Gob-Zipper.

Sorry 1904,

I'll limit future posts to words you can find in Hooked on Phonics.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 4:26am:

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 12:41am: You just indicated you must have been on this site before, thus, there is a great possibility you attempted to use CM'. The above quote certainly seems to indicate that you believe anyone who researches the polygraph does so with the intent of learning how use countermeasures in an attempt to beat the test. I have heard similiar sentiments from other polygraph examiners on this site, as well as from polygraph examiners on other sites. Doesn't that seem unfairly presumptuous?   Do you, like other examiners, ask each subject if they have researched the polygraph before you start their exam?  If you do and they tell you they have, don't you worry that might be causing bias in your mind, since you will automatically assume they are going to try and use countermeasures? If a police applicant is told he must pass a polygraph exam in order to be hired, and his only knowledge of the polygraph comes from fiction on TV and in movies, wouldn't it be perfectly normal for him to look it up on the Internet or in the library? If a police applicant is told he must pass the "Cooper Standards" in order to get hired, and he has no idea what the "Cooper Standards" are other than that they involve the physical agility test, wouldn't it make sense for him to do some research?  Would that indicate to you that the applicant is planning to cheat on the sit ups, or on the run?

Sarge, your comments disappoint me.  First off, Mattwings has criminal issues (George I didn't use Probs).  Second, you have tried to switch this to a pre-employment issue.  If I recall you, or maybe it was EOS, have said, polygraphs are okay for sex offenders but not for pre-employment.  You guys are so selective.    I have said numerous times that I feel this site does more harm than good.  Yes I believe some people start looking for information about polygraphs before their exam.  However, if someone that has nothing to hide unfortunately visits this site, they get psyched up and believe they must try to use CM's to pass.  That examinee is then disqualified for employment or in a criminal case - it gives ammo to the prosecuation.  Sarge, if you really are a Sarge, you must know that if someone attempts to cheat or manipulate an exam, you would question thier character.   BTW Sarge, have you ever taken statement analysis classes.  If so, re-read Mattwings statements.

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:41am:

mattwings wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 11:51pm: Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 8:37pm: OK Sarge, ya got me. I thought "POS" meant "Protecting Our Society". Apparently, this is not one of those sites. On a serious note, think about Mr. Wings posts. Here he is paying a lawyer all that money to represent him, protect his rights and provide legal advise. Now Mr. Wings wants his polygraph charts and comes to this site to know what his legal rights are. As a trained investigator Sarge, you should sense that something is not right in Mr. Wings house. His story smells like the docks at low tide. Regards, MM Hey mystery meat.  You've done nothing but give me crap, which is fine.  That is your right. I came to this site because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution or suggestion rather than the cute little responses you like to give.  They are darling.  Really they are.  Actually, I have three attorneys.  And they are all very very talented.  They are all also $300.00 per hour so even a phone call to one of them counts as a half hour which costs $150.00.  So to have one of them go through the research and try to get this info would probably be a few hours of billing at least.  I thought this might be a good quick way for me to get some advice from a forum that I figured would know.  From the responses on this board, there have been a couple guys who have actually tried to help me out, but in general, not a whole lot of help.  So it is probably worth it to me to go the attorney route and try to get the info.   I just had a simple question to know what my rights are.   Thanks for the help.   Mattwings, I am not buying this either.  You came to this site 'because with all the different topics and knowlegde at this site, i thought someone might know or have a good solution'.  You just indicated you must have been on this site before, thus, there is a great possibility you attempted to use CM'.  Other wise, how would you know there was so much hype and expertise you could find on an ANTI polygraph site.  BTW, check out the Drew Richardson post for more information on the EXPERTISE on this site.   Although George tells you never to admit you used CM's, go ahead.  It won't hurt our feelings.

Jesus.  I come for some help on this and you just gang pile.  Quite frankly I don't care if you are buying it.  When I googled rights on polygraphs it brought up this site.  I saw all the different topics and thought this would be a good site.  

Apparently it is filled with a lot of douchebags like you.  Have a good life....loser.  

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:44am:

Mr. Wings, If you have three attorney's representing you at 300 bucks an hour each, I suspect your problems are way out of misdemeanor land! To answer your original question, all any one of your three attorney's has to do is request the charts as part of the "discovery". It is a simple process and any attorney should know this. If you play your cards right, you may even be able to serve your time with OJ Simpson. Regards, MM

My case is done and dismissed and I am trying to get this info for my self.  Thought this would be a good site.  I was wrong.  

Losers.

Good luck and stay out of trouble, will ya.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 12:44am:

Mattwings, has it ever occurred to you to post your question on a polygraph examiners site---where some of the best examiners in the country address your issue. It is called polygraph place. Tell'em Paradiddle sent you---and they'll answer your questions quick, without the circus. By the way D-Head, Palerider told me to tell you "hi"...and that he misses you, and that he "thought he saw you at the White Castle drive-thru giving out incorrect change the other day." Palerider is kinda mean that way.

Thanks for the good advice.  After this experience though, I'll probably just pass.  Been a long 10 months and the dildo's on this site remind me of a lot of people I have encountered along the way.  I appreciate the tip.  

Thanks.

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:56pm:

Good luck and stay out of trouble, will ya.

Yes I will.  Thanks for the help.  I appreciate it.  

Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2007 at 2:00pm:

Sarge, your comments disappoint me.  First off, Mattwings has criminal issues (George I didn't use Probs).  Second, you have tried to switch this to a pre-employment issue.  If I recall you, or maybe it was EOS, have said, polygraphs are okay for sex offenders but not for pre-employment.  You guys are so selective.    I have said numerous times that I feel this site does more harm than good.  Yes I believe some people start looking for information about polygraphs before their exam.  However, if someone that has nothing to hide unfortunately visits this site, they get psyched up and believe they must try to use CM's to pass.  That examinee is then disqualified for employment or in a criminal case - it gives ammo to the prosecuation.  Sarge, if you really are a Sarge, you must know that if someone attempts to cheat or manipulate an exam, you would question thier character.   BTW Sarge, have you ever taken statement analysis classes.  If so, re-read Mattwings statements.

Sorry to disappoint.  I'll try to keep up from now on.

Your written statement indicates that you believe anyone who researches the polygraph does so with the intent to cheat.  I think that was the only reasonable interpretation.  I asked you about that since it seems presumptuous and unfair.


Quote:

Sarge, if you really are a Sarge, you must know that if someone attempts to cheat or manipulate an exam, you would question thier character.

How polite of you, to question my veracity and condescend to me in the same sentence.  As far as I know, no one said they were attempting to cheat or manipulate an exam.  I asked why you automatically seem to assume that just because someone researches the polygraph.  

BTW, you should take great care if you use statement analysis on items like text messages and Internet forum posts.  But you already know that, don't you?