Batman wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 8:23pm:

First to Skeptic: I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph.  Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?  Maybe I simply take offense to amatures making ignorant comments and assumptions regarding how a confession is obtained.  If Beech Trees is capable of presenting his credentials then let him do so.  Until then he should base his comments on fact not speculation and or assumptions.

Even though the above paragraph was directed towards 'Skeptic', since you used it as an opportunity to make snide comments towards me, I'll respond. Are you actually trying to assert here that coercion is not a metier of a police interrogator, or any interrogator for that matter?

What possible business is it of yours what my credentials are? If you don't like the message, defend your position and I will always consider changing my opinion. Labeling me an 'amature' is a blindingly transparent tactic from your side of the polygraph argument. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of your arguments. Logic is not your metier. Blind religious faith in a pseudo-scientific fraud is, however.


Quote:

Now to Beech Trees: Simply answer the question if you can.  What is your first hand experience with polygraph and interviews/interrogations? Are you basing your comments about illegally obtained confessions on actual experience or are you simply speculating?

 

Excuse me? When did I ever mention 'illegally obtained confessions'?


Quote:

What exposure have you actually had with the utilization of the polygraph technique?

I have repeatedly stated my polygraph experiences on this board. As an aside, how many times would I have to be electrocuted for me to be an expert with the knowledge that it's painful?


Quote:

Again, you speak with such authority when you are advising people on matters that may impact their lives, I think it is a fair question as to what experience or exposure you have in either the field of law or law enforcement.

You really seem to take issue with my writing style. I'm sorry that you perceive me as a hostile authority figure, or that your own feelings of authority over others seems threatened by what I have to say.


Quote:

To answer your question, you are getting to me only in that you seem so willing and eager to attack a whole profession (law enforcement) but you base these attacks on what?

To my knowledge my only castigations of the law enforcement community on this board are related to the uses and abuses of polygraphy. If I have made other negative remarks I wish you would point them out becuase I don't recall them.


Quote:

A bad experience with a particular investigative technique that you happened to be subjected to?  On what do you base your comments about illegally obtained confessions?  Please do not split hairs as to your exact terminology.  You used the word coerced.  A coerced confession is an illegally obtained confession.  You made the comment to PolyCop that he coerced a confession from someone.  Again, what do you base this on?

Coercion is the threat of or the actual use of force. See my cut and paste of the definition above. Police routinely threaten harsher charges and more strident prosecution when facing a recalcitrant suspect. THAT is the threat of force.

The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. ``Coactus volui'' (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion.

I am not talking about beating suspects.