On 10 February 2004, I sent the following  e-mail to polygrapher Jack L. Ogilvie of the Phoenix Police Department at j_ogilvie@hotmail.com:


Dear Mr. Ogilvie:

In a reply to an inquiry posted to the PolygraphPlace.com message board regarding whether a polygraph test can be beaten, you write, among other things:


Quote:

Just for the record, I will tell you that the chances of beating a Polygraph given by a competent professional examiner with all the information, is slim and none. A person who is trying to beat a test might be able to produce charts that are hard to read but a competent examiner will no [sic] something is going on.

As you are no doubt aware, however, there are no book chapters or articles in the polygraph literature explaining how a polygraph operator can reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect such countermeasures. Moreover, the available peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect such countermeasures. And in its recent report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, the National Academy of Sciences concluded (at p. 214) that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."

This being the case, I challenge you to publicly support your publicly made claim that "the chances of beating a Polygraph given by a competent professional examiner with all the information, is slim and none." On what basis do you make this claim? Why should anyone believe you instead of the National Academy of Sciences?

If you genuinely believe what you wrote, and if you consider yourself to be "a competent examiner with all the information," then why not accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge? Before turning down this challenge with the excuse that you cannot reveal your methodology, note that this challenge does not require that you disclose how you detect countermeasures, merely that you demonstrate your ability to detect them. This challenge has thus far gone 743 days without takers. Are you willing to be the first?

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

PS: This public challenge in response to your publicly made claim will be posted on the AntiPolygraph.org message board. You are welcome to reply there.

--

A photograph of Mr. Ogilvie is available on PolygraphPlace.com here:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/images/aappjacko.jpg

George,

There is no way in hell that Ogilvie or any other polygraph examiner out there is going to accept Dr. Richardson's countermeasure challenge.  Better to live in denial and make claims that you can't or won't back up, than face public humiliation and career suicide.  What examiner in the polygraph community wants to be known forever as the guy that "made us look bad, and ruined our reputation?"  

Thanks for issuing the challenge to Mr. Ogilvie George, unfortunately it's just not gonna happen.

Kona

Kona, I agree 110%.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  The number of people who are privy to the perjury of polygraph testing, is growing by the day.  It's only a matter of time until it becomes a thing of the past.

I note that more than a month has passed since I challenged Jack Ogilvie of the Phoenix Police Department to publicly support his publicly made claim that "the chances of beating a Polygraph given by a competent professional examiner with all the information, is slim and none."

Mr. Ogilivie has not responded here, nor have I received any response to the e-mail I sent him notifiying him of this challenge.

:(