Pop psychologist and television talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw yet again promotes the myth of the lie detector in a two-part series that will air today (Monday, 6 November) and tomorrow:

http://www.drphil.com/shows/

An article published by the Rocky Mountain News this weekend indicates that the polygrapher featured on the Dr. Phil show will be retired FBI special agent Jack Trimarco (whom I personally know to have had at least one false positive during his career as an FBI polygrapher):

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=85

Regarding Dr. Phil's past use of polygraphs as a ratings stunt, see Dr. Phil Passes Off Polygraphy as Science and Emeritus Professor John J. Furedy's Letter to Dr. Phil McGraw on Polygraph Testing.

A blog has posted a blow-by-blow account of the 6 Nov. episode of the Dr. Phil Show, reporting that the polygrapher conducting the examinations was not Jack Trimarco, but rather one Howard Swabash, a former Michigan State Police polygraph:

http://applegobo.livejournal.com/54574.html

Another account is posted here:

http://jellybean73702.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!20615C873600B6DC!143.entry

I was deeply disturbed by the use of the polygraph on the episodes of the Dr.Phil show this week. I do not know if the father is guilty or not, but I do think the man should have had a lawyer. This is why in our country it is important to have legal representation. This man is far less educated and not a professional tv personality.

Dr. Phil is a very powerful, smart, cunning man. He presented polygraphs as "scientific proof", while it is merely reading physiological responses and then interpreted. I can imagine, that this man could have been very nervous and pressured, forced to take the test, and with cameras on him! I would be nervous and confused under those circumstances.

Frankly, i am not sure why this fellow agreed to come on his show, especially if he was guilty. Smells fishy.

It was this Dr. Phil show that piqued my interest in polygraph examinations.

In the past couple of days I have searched in vain to find any true double-blind study that validated "lie detecting".  Is there anyone out there that can refer me to such a study that has been done.

I can think of how I might set up such a controlled study, but I believe the only way to make it a true double-blind study would NECESSARILY violate all the "participant's" civil liberties.

ecchasta,

I'm afraid I know of no such studies to which to refer you. Perhaps Dr. Phil, who averred on national television, "I know that this test is 92 percent accurate," might be so kind as to explain how he knows this. You can ask him here:

http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9163

Mr. Maschke,

Could you please give your opinion on my post above, specifically, the ramifications of putting on a "guest" and accusing him of a felony, then "bullying" him into a lie detector test, all without a lawyer.

And would not a polygraph be (even more) inaccurate if someone was under pressure of being on national TV?

This is not how our legal system works in this country!

paris,

Dr. Phil is a showman, not a lawman, and his venue is a television studio, not a courtroom. I don't think he has broken any law, but by misrepresenting polygraphy as science, I think he violates the trust of guests and audience alike.

Yes, Dr. Phil did not break a law. But he was running a mock courthouse, putting the man on trial and badgering responses out of him. And wouldn't the lie detector test be inaccurate, as it were, due to the fact that he had all these tv cameras and pressure on him? (I do not know if this man is a child molester or not, but Dr. Phil is taking a role of judge, jury, prosecutor.)

ANSWER TO "TRUE DOUBLE BLIND STUDY" ISSUE

Polyg06nov      

  There is a logical answer to this question which is one that even lay people ask about pharmacological applications, but which psychologists and psychophysiologists fail to ask about purported applications of psychophysiology like biofeedback and the polygraph.

     Ron Heslegrave and I wrote a rather technical account of the reason why the “specific effects” logic needs to be applied to the polygraph (and biofeedback) as it is applied to pharmacology (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/some_elab.doc), but let me try to summarize this argument here in more lay terms.

     First, the pharmacological example.  The claim for aspirin is that it reduces headaches.  The appropriate double-blind study is to contrast an aspirin with a placebo condition, where neither the subject nor the experimenter knows what condition the subject is in.  If the aspirin condition contains fewer and less severe headaches than the placebo condition (as has been found), then we can conclude that aspirin has a specific beneficial effect on headaches although we still don’t know the mechanisms through which aspirin produces this specific effect (it turns out that after many years of research, we still don’t know exactly how aspirin works).

            The claim for biofeedback is that the provision of precise psychophysiological information about some physiological function not subject to voluntary control to the subject (e.g., second-by-second information about heart rate changes) will, in itself, produce an improvement in the subject’s ability to control those changes (e.g., producing heart-rate deceleration).  Usually biofeedback’s specific beneficial effects are medically relevant (e.g., decreasing blood pressure).  Therefore the double-blind evaluation of whether biofeedback does have such a specific (beneficial) effects is to a completely accurate information condition with one where the information is less than completely accurate (if it’s obviously inaccurate then the subject is no longer “blind”, and an improvement may be due to a placebo effect, i.e., the belief that biofeedback is beneficial).  Such a study has not only not been done in the clinic (where it may be difficult to do), it has not even been done in the lab with the outcome that shows that biofeedback is beneficial.  This, as I have argued (Furedy, J.J. (1987).  On some research-community contributions to the myth and symbol of biofeedback.  International Journal of Psychophysiology, 4, 293-7.), is a serious methodological failing of the psychophysiological research community.  Moreover, Diane Riley and I published an earlier study where we did use this proper reduced-accuracy-of-feedback control, and found no beneficial effect of biofeedback on the ability to produce heart-rate decelerations, although subjects did learn, through instructions to improve this ability  (Riley, D.M., and Furedy, J.J. (1981).  Effects of instructions and contingency of reinforcement on the operant conditioning of human phasic heart rate change.  Psychophysiology, 18, 75-81).  But that is simply the same as the old country doctor telling an older male not to have arguments with his wife, and therefore avoid accelerating his ailing heart.  For this instructional advice, no biofeedback or the software for expensive psychophysiological equipment for measuring second-by-second change in heart rate are necessary.  Rather, this equipment is placebo paraphanalea for peddling biofeedback as the shake oil of the 21st century.

                 Despite being called a “test”, the CQT polygraph is not a specifiable procedure like the giving of aspirin or the provision of precise psychophysiological information, but for the purpose of applying the logic of the double-blind evaluation (which is a necessary condition for establishing the benefits of any treatment), let’s assume that it is a test, especially as, in the laboratory version, it is more specifiable and standardizable than in the field version.  Granting this test-status assumption, the purported benefit of the polygraph is that, by providing precise psychophysiological information to the experimenter or examiner, the accuracy of the examiner or experimenter (i.e., in differentiating truthful and deceptive subjects, or innocent and guilty subjects) is enhanced.  The appropriate double-blind control in the lab, therefore, is to provide examiners in one condition with precise and completely accurate information about the examinee’s autonomic responses to various questions, while in the other condition, there the psychophysiological information is less accurate, but not so inaccurate that the examiner can tell which condition he is in.  While this may be a difficult study to conduct in the field, it is easy, in principle, to conduct in the lab.  Then, if the psychophysiological information is more than a mere interrogatory prop, the examiner under the completely accurate condition should be better at detecting deception or guilt than the examiner under the degraded accuracy condition.  Such a study, to my knowledge, has never been performed, or a least published in the refereed journal literature even in the lab, let alone the field.


All the best, John

Please forgive the length but I am offering a complete detailed article on what happened in that three part series.
I, too, was appalled at how Dr. Phil manipulated his show to paint this young father guilty of child molestatioin and to make the young woman appear straight as an arrow. As a former police trainer, actress, and 20 year journalist, let me share with you what I saw. By the way, it may shock some viewers of that three part series even further to know that "Dr." Phil McGraw made a very brief, butt saving, underwhelming announcement after the show's credits ran -- thereby eliminating many of the viewers -- that the young man had taken two polygraph tests paid for by the show budget, not one. And that further, he had passed one of the polygraph tests. Some late watchers taped this very brief backpedaling by McGraw.
Here is how McGraw set up the young father imho:
He placed him in an adversial position, head on with him, and screamed at the man, bullied him, and aggressively negated any defense the seemingly slow thinking young man tried to make. He baited the yojng man mercilessly.
In contrast, McGraw positioned the young woman sitting next to him on a small sofa, very cozy with him --  and even when he --gently -- suggested she may have coached the little girl t make this accusation, he soft pedaled all he said. He was clearing the decks for her in the only way he could -- pooh poohing this act away as "nothing serious." Which he did again when she failed the part of the "Poly graph" (more sensationalism for the ratings-- another "cliff hanger") -- that she had already admitted to doing. Clever, clever McGraw.
Coaching a child to say her father touched "my pee pee", is very very serious in a court case. I have seen one mother lose custody of her five year old daughter for doing that.
McGraw repeatedly showed the film the mother had provided of this three year old crying and saying "He touched my pee pee." Never did the child say "My daddy touched my pee pee." Isn't that a bit strange?  Why
didn't this very intelligent professional questioner pick up on that? No controversy, no show, folks.
Further, McGraw screamed at the audience that polygraphs are 92 percent accurate. We all know that is not true. They are not allowed in court because their rate of INACCURACY is so high they are not considered dependable.
Next, McGraw badgered the young man's new wife, literally bullying her into changing her statement of total support for her husband to "I don't know. He failed the lie detector test so now I don't know what to think."
He even bullied her into saying to the mother, who had a free ride if I ever saw one, that she would not want to endanger the child --as if she did cooperate in that act! McGraw literally put the words into the young pregnant woman's mouth and bullied her into saying them.When her husband tried to defend her, McGraw opened up the box of slurs he had in waiting. He growled that the young woman had an affair and the child was not the young man's! Since the man seemed to be totally aware of this fact and not disturbed by it, why would McGraw air it? Just to discredit the woman. Nothing more. Totally unscrupulous. He may be a showman, as has been said, BUT HE REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A PROTECTOR OF CHILDREN AND A PROFESSIONAL THERAPIST. HELLO? Why would a protector of children air this awful tape of this helpless child. And then say over and over, "I am all about Kaylee" mentioning even her name on air. Hey, we as journalists have a code NOT to out an underage child. No matter what mom and dad say.
Worse, McGraw represented his polygraph tests as "completely objective." Hogwash. Even that part of his show was designed to condemn the young father.
The so called polygraph expert (allegedly in  the narrow field of child molestation( said on air that the father tried to manipulate the exam to win. (After McGrw led the quesiton) That the young man had obviously used the internet to find out how to beat the test. Well, your own site tells how.. . and each thing listed on the Internet was used by THE MOTHER!
Mommy sat as calm and relaxed as if she was meditating with the Dalai Llama.   Coached and reassured of the results prior to the test????
On the other hand, the father was very emotional and once weeping  while obviously answering the examiner's questions. Mother said nothing -- not a peep_ but "yes' and "no."
Father's replies were emotional and not just "yes" or "no". Here's the clue: the audience NEVER HEARD THE EXAMINER'S QUESTIONS. The man was set up to look out of control.
This is the most unethical television program I've ever seen.
If I sound passionate, it's because of what happened to my neighbor and her son recently.

My neighbor, who is in her 60s, works at Wal-Mart. Her middle aged son, who lost his good job in Dallas when the downsizing, outsourcing hit Texas in full force, moved in with her until he could pull his life together again. He had lost his income and his apartment. Her income and her late husband’s social security payments kept them afloat. Then he found a decent job. They started to pull out of their poverty spiral. Let’s call him John, although that's not his name.
The elderly mother was at work that night at Wal-Mart. Her son was at home alone. A knock came at the door. He opened it part way. Before he could identify the two men at the door, they pushed into the apartment and attacked him with a baseball bat. As they hit him in the head with the bat, one shouted, “If you ever talk to MY kid, I’ll come back and kill you.” Then they walked out, leaving John seriously injured on the floor.  
Now John is unable to work; his memory is severely limited. His neurologist says the assault damaged his brain. Today, he lost his job. NOW GET THIS. THEY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS. THEY HAD THE WRONG MAN. THEY EVEN HAD THE WRONG AGE MAN! It seems a younger man of 20, who had been arrested at age 12 for molesting a 2 year old, lived somewhere near by. The police have not caught John’s assailants BUT HE WILL LIVE WITH THE RESULTS OF THEIR ASSAULT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
McGraw, when the young man expressed fear that he might be "mugged on my way out of the studio," led the audience to applaud enthusiastically. Unbelievable.
As a former journalist and producer on radio, television and print, I am appalled with McGraw. He rode the tail coats of Dateline's Predator series to raise his ratings and position himself as a protector of children. Not true.  McGraw is all about McGraw and his growing empire. I've stopped watching him. I will boycott any products ever connected with him.  Radiogal

McGRAW'S NEXT CAREER AS A POLYGRAPHER?

The American Polygraphic Association should be delighted with Dr. Phil if ever he wants to take up the profession.  He has given an admirable demonstration of how the polygraph can be manipulated between the usual hostile condition and the "friendly" condition, even if the same questions are asked and the autonomic responses measured.  In this case, he was hostile to the father and friendly to the mother.  Of course the differences in his behavior were a bit crude, but no doubt he'll learn with experience.  In any case, unless the polygraph is videotaped, the judge or jury have no idea about these friendly/hostile manipulations which are possible with the CQT polygraph, but not with the GKT version (which is used in Japan for criminal casses.)

All the best, John

It's amazing that DR. Phil put the disclaimer that the man "passed" the 2nd version! He should be sued for slander, as this was all but hidden.

Now I see that a "lie detector" test does not detect lies, but detects only the sympathetic system. So on a job interview, i am nervous, so I could be considered a liar. Dr. Phil did indeed badger the poor man. Example: "oh, isn't your screen name Anal (something)?" OK, so what if it is? "Oh, do you use the internet, where there are thousands of hits for how to beat a polygraph test"? Yes, said the poor Jeremy, he uses the computer sometimes....but so do 50 million other americans use the internet. Feeble circumstantial evidence! "Did you feed cake with your tongue to Kayle?" Jeremy: "oh......hmmm..." (a moment of confusion, trying to recollect what he could be talking about" Aha! you hesitated. you're guilty! But if the man was lying, he could have just said "no" automatically.

Poor, innocent blacks have been tried and hung many a time due to this kind of treatement, before Miranda.

Should we contact Dr. Phil's show to complain about the 2nd polygraph test not being revealed during the show?

paris wrote on Nov 16^th, 2006 at 2:15pm:

Should we contact Dr. Phil's show to complain about the 2nd polygraph test not being revealed during the show?

It can't hurt. You can use the e-mail form:

http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9163

or send a letter to:

Dr. Phil show
5482 Wilshire Boulevard #1902
Los Angeles, CA 90036

It appears that the lie detector has been a successful ratings gimmick for Dr. Phil McGraw:


Quote:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6394517.html Breaking News Syndicated Ratings: Dr. Phil Edges Closer to Oprah By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/22/2006 2:20:00 PM Dr. Phil edged closer to talk leader Oprah in the syndicated ratings for the week ending Nov. 12, the first full week of the November sweeps, with his highest ratings since May 2005. That was part of a generally buoyant week for talkers and most magazine shows. Phil was up 11% from the prior week to a 5.9 and was the only talker up over the same week last year, with a 7% bump. He was helped by a 6.6, just making it into his top-five all time ratings performances, for a Nov. 6 episode in which it took a lie detector to settle a family dispute. Oprah still led the way at a 7.2, but that was down 6%. ...

I have now watched the Dr. Phil lie detector series that aired on 6-7 November 2006 and think a few points are worthy of note. First, it appears that Howard Swabash polygraphed Jeremy after he had already passed Krista Mehl and her mother, Bonnie Dyjasek. The results of those examinations would have tended to bias the outcome of Jeremy Park's polygraph result.

Second, it seems odd that Krista was apparently polygraphed sitting in a normal, hotel room chair:




but Jeremy was polygraphed in a more traditional polygraph chair with flat armrests:



In the episode that aired on 6 Nov., it is revealed that Howard Swabash believed that Jeremy employed polygraph countermeasures. Here is a partial transcript:




Quote:

Dr. Phil: Now in the audience is licensed forensic polygraphist and investigator Howard Swabash. Now, sex offender testing is one of his specialties. He is a former Michigan State Police polygraph examiner with twenty years of lie-detecting experience. You believe that these tests are fair and accurate and highly reliable given the instrumentation that you've used and the protocol that you've used, correct? Howard Swabash: Yes sir. Dr. Phil: Now Howard you first determined that Jeremy had not smoked marijuana or taken any illegal drugs 24 hours before the test, correct? Howard Swabash: That's correct. Dr. Phil: And we had all the results double-checked by a independent review board, correct? Howard Swabash: Yes sir. Dr. Phil: We took your protocols, your printouts, your procedures, everything, had it reviewed by independent people -- Howard Swabash: Yes sir, that's correct. Dr. Phil: -- at that point. Now, I noticed that you were telling Jeremy to be still during this and stop moving around. Ah, what was going on there? Howard Swabash: What I was doing at that point was I wanted to make sure that he did not employ any countermeasures to defeat the test. Dr. Phil: Were you concerned that you were seeing some countermeasures? Howard Swabash: Yes sir, I was. Dr. Phil: And you can learn these things, what, where, by going to the Internet? What--? Howard Swabash: Yes, there's at least one thousand sites on the Internet that teaches people how to beat polygraph, but what people don't know is that I read those sites, and I also go to federal and state institutions to learn how to counteract countermeasures, so I've been taught how to do that. Dr. Phil: In your opinion, were you observing countermeasure efforts on Jeremy's part? Howard Swabash: Yes I was. Dr. Phil: So you think he was attempting to defeat the test? Howard Swabash: Yes sir. Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): Is that true? Jeremy: Huh. I wouldn't... Like I said, I wouldn't have any idea how to do that. Dr. Phil: Do you have access to a computer? Jeremy: At the library, yeah. Dr. Phil: Do you know how to use a computer? Jeremy: Ah, I know how to get on the e-mail, that's about it. Dr. Phil: Do you have an e-mail address that is analbastard@[redacted].com? Jeremy: Yeah, I do. Dr. Phil: All right. (Holds up a sealed manila envelope with Jeremy's polygraph results.) I'm gonna read 'em when we come back. [A video montage from the polygraph examination includes Howard Swabash saying: "I read Jeremy as being a very manipulative person, very theatrical. He seemed to be crying for a few seconds and then the tears went away.] Dr. Phil: Well, in my hand I hold Jeremy's lie detector results. A study published in February of 2006 by Johns Hopkins University says that results using this instrumentation and software, properly administered, has a 92% accuracy rate. [Results are read, Jeremy failed 4 out of 5 relevant questions, discussion ensues]

Here are the relevant questions that Jeremy was asked:

1. Have you ever put your tongue into Kaylee's mouth while kissing her?
2. Have you ever touched Kaylee's vagina for your own sexual gratification?
3. Do you know for sure how Kaylee's labia became torn?
4. Have you ever put your penis or anything else into Kaylee's vagina?
5. Have you ever taken pictures of Kaylee's bare vaginal area or buttocks?

During a video montage from Jeremy's polygraph examination, only one of the "control" questions asked was revealed.

"Have you ever done anything that you're ashamed of that you can think of right now?"

Dr. Phil doesn't explain to the audience that polygraph "tests" are scored by comparing reactions to relevant questions with reactions to "control" questions to which the examinee is secretly expected to lie. It is not hard to imagine that any father wrongly accused of sexually molesting his three-year old daughter might well react more strongly when answering any of the above five emotionally charged relevant questions truthfully than when deceptively answering a "control" question such as the one above.


Quote:

Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): ... Did you attempt to evade this test or defeat this test with what our examiner calls countermeasures? Jeremy: No. Dr. Phil: So, you didn't move around, you didn't hold your breath, you didn't... (addressing Howard Swabash) What did you observe? Howard Swabash: I observed a couple things. Number one is, when he was breathing, he'd breathe different. He'd pant for a while and then he'd take long, deep breaths, and start panting for a while. He was moving around in the chair when I told him to remain still and quiet, and also I put two finger platelets on his fingertips and he was always manipulating his fingers. Dr. Phil: And that's what you read if you Google up "beat a polygraph," it tells you to do those things. Howard Swabash: Yes sir, it does. Dr. Phil: But you didn't attempt to defeat the test? Jeremy: No.

Jeremy's behaviors that Howard Swabash characterized as "countermeasures" are things that no one who understands polygraph procedure would ever do. And if you "Google up" (as Dr. Phil puts it) "beat a polygraph," the first result returned is AntiPolygraph.org. We certainly do not suggest such things as panting, deep breaths, and fidgeting as polygraph countermeasures. If Jeremy did these things, it seems a pretty good indication that he was telling the truth when he said he "wouldn't have any idea" how to defeat a polygraph test.

Howard Swabash also appears in the segment that aired the following day (which was taped on the same day as the previous segment). Toward the end, Dr. Phil questions him:


Quote:

Dr. Phil: You have no doubt. Howard Swabash: No doubt at all. Dr. Phil: You have no doubt that he is molesting his daughter. Howard Swabash: No sir. Dr. Phil: And you base that on his results, but also his test behavior. Howard Swabash: Many years of experience dealing with people who are sexual predators. Dr. Phil: Uh, and, you know from twenty years of experience dealing with it, well more, but testing 'em for that long, you know that the kind of high-horse arrogant behavior here is also very indicative of--- Howard Swabash: Correct. Dr. Phil: --those people. So, is there another possibility? Frankly, there is. You can never be sure unless you, you just keep piling up data. I think we're making a responsible run at it, and I appreciate you-- Howard Swabash: Thank you very much. Dr. Phil: --and thank you for your time and effort.

So here we have an admission by Howard Swabash that he uses non-polygraphic data in reaching his conclusions. I must disagree with Dr. Phil's notion that relying on such quackery as lie detectors constitutes "making a responsible run" at determining the truth.

Finally, at the very end of the show, Dr. Phil appears alone with an announcement:





Quote:

Dr. Phil: Since taping this program, Jeremy took another lie detector test, one that he did pass, which raises more questions. We've been following this family, and we will have everyone back here to continue our quest to uncover the truth and protect this precious child.

This Dr. Phil lie detector series will continue on Tuesday, 28 November 2006. Details about this show are posted on the Dr. Phil website here:

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/799

Jeremy Park (his last name is now public information) passed a polygraph examination administered by the Michigan State Police. Polygrapher Howard Swabash, whose polygraph examination Jeremy failed, attempts to explain this away:


Quote:

"My test revolved around the penetration and sexual abuse of Kaylee. His test that he took with the Michigan State Police, not to diminish the severity of it, dealt with merely sexual touching, which in the polygraph realm are two different complete tests," Howard says. "When I’ve dealt with sexual offenders, the penetration is a lot more sensitive than the mere sexual touching."

But if Jeremy Park was guilty of child molestation, of which Swabash earlier maintained there was no doubt in his mind, then he was a fortiori guilty of sexual touching. Swabash (who, having previously flunked Jeremy, cannot be considered an unbiased reviewer) scores the Michigan State Police polygraph charts as "inconclusive."

Then Dr. Phil reveals that American Polygraph Association past president "Dr." Ed Gelb, whom AntiPolygraph.org in 2003 unmasked as a phony Ph.D., reviewed the Michigan State Police polygraph charts and scored them as "deceptive." Perhaps Dr. Phil should have "Googled up" Ed Gelb before hiring this charlatan's services.

Jeremy Park's (and consequently, his daughter Kaylee's) last name has been made public by the child's grandmother, Bonii Dyjasek of Berrien Springs, Michigan, who started the following website:

http://www.helpkaylee.com

If there is probable cause there was some sort of sexual assault on this child why aren't the Michigan (or whatever state is involved) authorities investigating it?  

I've never seen the Dr. Phil show, but the sort of blabber I'm reading about these episodes leads me to conclude this program has the same credibility as the Jerry Springer Show or professional wrestling.  

Perhaps professional wrestling is the most appropriate comparison.  Recall that before Jim McMahon became a wrestling promotor those involved solemnly declared the matches were "real."  McMahon was the first to admit the entire show is staged and planned in advance strictly for entertainment purposes and there is no athletic competition involved.

There is one quote from the show that I remember differently.  I don't have a tape of the show to verify it, but as I recall, the child said "THEY touched my pee pee", not "HE touched my pee pee".  That would entirely absolved Jeremy of any wrongdoing considering his new wife's reactions (behaviour) both before and after she knew the polygraph results.

Anyone... did the girl say "HE" or "THEY"?

ecchasta wrote on Nov 26^th, 2006 at 1:02am:

Anyone... did the girl say "HE" or "THEY"?

"They."

I am SO happy to finally find some voice of reason here.... I watched all 3 shows...  I have been a fan of Dr. Phil's... UNTIL THIS.... and that is when I went to the message boards there and stated my opinion.... I had never done that before... BUT, I was so outraged at the treatment of this young man Jeremy... that I wanted to put my 2 cents in... I thought a lot of other people would feel the same way.... BUT, what I found there was an uneducated witch hunt.... and a bunch of bored housewives who are using their experiences to seek revenge on someone they know nothing about.... and the fact that this was a poor excuse for a show..... exploiting this guy Jeremy... and if it really was about justice... then they would not have aired this until he was indicted and charged with a crime... I personally think Jeremy is innocent... but that Dr. Phil used a bunch of fancy editing to make this guy look guilty.... and further the agenda of the young mother and grandmother to keep Jeremy from his daughter....  If it was about justice.... and in Jeremy was possibly guilty.... after this has been played out so public.... and so many people have made up their mind without any real proof.... then no judge in his right mind will even allow this case in their court... any half way decent defense attorney would have heyday with this...................

I have also been to the Help Kaylee site... and in my opinion I feel that Jeremy is being slandered... and not to mention... there women are getting a lot of attention... and people are offering them money now as well....

The first day I saw the Kaylee site... I called the phone numbers they had provided... they wanted people to call in support of Kaylee... I called and supported  Jeremy...

In my opinion this guy is not real smart.... BUT that does NOT make him a child molester.... I DO think he has been exploited in the worst way possible....

I am just glad to find, that I am NOT  the only one who feels what Dr. Phil has done, is wrong...

Thank You for letting me share my thoughts...

PS... If you want to read what I have written at the Dr. Phil site... my user name is rlwitham....

It really is scary the amount of ignorance that is out there.... :o

Meangino... 11/25/06 at 12:55:36]"If there is probable cause there was some sort of sexual assault on this child why aren't the Michigan (or whatever state is involved) authorities investigating it?"

It was investigated... they found NO evidence of sexual abuse....

BTW... it was the father, Jeremy who first took his daughter to the hospital because she was having pain on her privates.... they found a 2 centimeter laceration.. (meaning scratch).... On the Dr. Phil show they said... she had a torn labia...
It is that kind of twisting of words that really angers me about all of this....

Thank You..
Just A Gurl  

BTW... after reading the comments on Help Kaylee site.... I am coming to the conclusion, that these people are VERY DANGEROUS... and Dr. Phil has fed the frenzy..... these people don't care about justice... they want revenge for their own lives.... It is of my opinion that Kaylee was most likely not molested.... I think that Krista, Kaylee's 20 year old mother... may have asked some wrong questions the wrong way... and being that at 2 years old.. that is when this all started.... but at 2 years old Kaylee was still in diapers... and Krista could have asked her if someone touched her pee-pee (vagina).... and of course if somebody was changing Kaylee's diaper... then someone would touch her vagina.... how could she explain the difference between a safe touch and a sexual abusive touch..... SHE WAS TWO.... so if she was asked if somebody touched her pee-pee.... the answer would be YES..... and that does not make anyone guilty.....  I do think this is all a misunderstanding because the mother asked a very young child the wrong questions.... with good intentions... but the wrong questions NONE THE LESS....

paris wrote on Nov 9^th, 2006 at 1:37pm:

Mr. Maschke, Could you please give your opinion on my post above, specifically, the ramifications of putting on a "guest" and accusing him of a felony, then "bullying" him into a lie detector test, all without a lawyer. And would not a polygraph be (even more) inaccurate if someone was under pressure of being on national TV? This is not how our legal system works in this country!

I am soooooo GLAD you asked this.... I wish this poor guy Jeremy would get an attorney... he is being exploited in a BAD way..... I don't think he is a very smart guy.... and this is a very dangerous position for him to be in.. for many reasons..... If he is NOT guilty... his life is screwed.... and there might be some nut out there who feels they should take the law into their own hands.... not to mention... if he will ever fully recover emotionally from being falsely accused so publicly....

Dr. Phil was negligent by allowing such serious allegations to play out in such a public forum... especially this being such a serious crime.... and prior to this being on Dr. Phil, he had been investigated... and there was found NO EVIDENCE to support sexual abuse....

Sorry I got a bit off track there...

Thank You for letting me share my thoughts...

Just A Gurl

radiogal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2006 at 5:28am:

Please forgive the length but I am offering a complete detailed article on what happened in that three part series. I, too, was appalled at how Dr. Phil manipulated his show to paint this young father guilty of child molestatioin and to make the young woman appear straight as an arrow. As a former police trainer, actress, and 20 year journalist, let me share with you what I saw. By the way, it may shock some viewers of that three part series even further to know that "Dr." Phil McGraw made a very brief, butt saving, underwhelming announcement after the show's credits ran -- thereby eliminating many of the viewers -- that the young man had taken two polygraph tests paid for by the show budget, not one. And that further, he had passed one of the polygraph tests. Some late watchers taped this very brief backpedaling by McGraw. Here is how McGraw set up the young father imho: He placed him in an adversial position, head on with him, and screamed at the man, bullied him, and aggressively negated any defense the seemingly slow thinking young man tried to make. He baited the yojng man mercilessly. In contrast, McGraw positioned the young woman sitting next to him on a small sofa, very cozy with him --  and even when he --gently -- suggested she may have coached the little girl t make this accusation, he soft pedaled all he said. He was clearing the decks for her in the only way he could -- pooh poohing this act away as "nothing serious." Which he did again when she failed the part of the "Poly graph" (more sensationalism for the ratings-- another "cliff hanger") -- that she had already admitted to doing. Clever, clever McGraw. Coaching a child to say her father touched "my pee pee", is very very serious in a court case. I have seen one mother lose custody of her five year old daughter for doing that. McGraw repeatedly showed the film the mother had provided of this three year old crying and saying "He touched my pee pee." Never did the child say "My daddy touched my pee pee." Isn't that a bit strange?  Why didn't this very intelligent professional questioner pick up on that? No controversy, no show, folks. Further, McGraw screamed at the audience that polygraphs are 92 percent accurate. We all know that is not true. They are not allowed in court because their rate of INACCURACY is so high they are not considered dependable. Next, McGraw badgered the young man's new wife, literally bullying her into changing her statement of total support for her husband to "I don't know. He failed the lie detector test so now I don't know what to think." He even bullied her into saying to the mother, who had a free ride if I ever saw one, that she would not want to endanger the child --as if she did cooperate in that act! McGraw literally put the words into the young pregnant woman's mouth and bullied her into saying them.When her husband tried to defend her, McGraw opened up the box of slurs he had in waiting. He growled that the young woman had an affair and the child was not the young man's! Since the man seemed to be totally aware of this fact and not disturbed by it, why would McGraw air it? Just to discredit the woman. Nothing more. Totally unscrupulous. He may be a showman, as has been said, BUT HE REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A PROTECTOR OF CHILDREN AND A PROFESSIONAL THERAPIST. HELLO? Why would a protector of children air this awful tape of this helpless child. And then say over and over, "I am all about Kaylee" mentioning even her name on air. Hey, we as journalists have a code NOT to out an underage child. No matter what mom and dad say. Worse, McGraw represented his polygraph tests as "completely objective." Hogwash. Even that part of his show was designed to condemn the young father. The so called polygraph expert (allegedly in  the narrow field of child molestation( said on air that the father tried to manipulate the exam to win. (After McGrw led the quesiton) That the young man had obviously used the internet to find out how to beat the test. Well, your own site tells how.. . and each thing listed on the Internet was used by THE MOTHER! Mommy sat as calm and relaxed as if she was meditating with the Dalai Llama.   Coached and reassured of the results prior to the test???? On the other hand, the father was very emotional and once weeping  while obviously answering the examiner's questions. Mother said nothing -- not a peep_ but "yes' and "no." Father's replies were emotional and not just "yes" or "no". Here's the clue: the audience NEVER HEARD THE EXAMINER'S QUESTIONS. The man was set up to look out of control. This is the most unethical television program I've ever seen. If I sound passionate, it's because of what happened to my neighbor and her son recently. My neighbor, who is in her 60s, works at Wal-Mart. Her middle aged son, who lost his good job in Dallas when the downsizing, outsourcing hit Texas in full force, moved in with her until he could pull his life together again. He had lost his income and his apartment. Her income and her late husband’s social security payments kept them afloat. Then he found a decent job. They started to pull out of their poverty spiral. Let’s call him John, although that's not his name. The elderly mother was at work that night at Wal-Mart. Her son was at home alone. A knock came at the door. He opened it part way. Before he could identify the two men at the door, they pushed into the apartment and attacked him with a baseball bat. As they hit him in the head with the bat, one shouted, “If you ever talk to MY kid, I’ll come back and kill you.” Then they walked out, leaving John seriously injured on the floor.   Now John is unable to work; his memory is severely limited. His neurologist says the assault damaged his brain. Today, he lost his job. NOW GET THIS. THEY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS. THEY HAD THE WRONG MAN. THEY EVEN HAD THE WRONG AGE MAN! It seems a younger man of 20, who had been arrested at age 12 for molesting a 2 year old, lived somewhere near by. The police have not caught John’s assailants BUT HE WILL LIVE WITH THE RESULTS OF THEIR ASSAULT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. McGraw, when the young man expressed fear that he might be "mugged on my way out of the studio," led the audience to applaud enthusiastically. Unbelievable. As a former journalist and producer on radio, television and print, I am appalled with McGraw. He rode the tail coats of Dateline's Predator series to raise his ratings and position himself as a protector of children. Not true.  McGraw is all about McGraw and his growing empire. I've stopped watching him. I will boycott any products ever connected with him.  Radiogal

WOW..... That is exactly the reason I first went and posted my opinion on the Dr. Phil message board.... I agree 100% with everything you said here.... You hit the nail RIGHT on the head....

Peace..

Just A Gurl

I was just wondering... I heard that a polygraph should not be preformed on a person who is on medication.... or who has ADD or ADHD... Is this true?

I read the Nov 28th show transcripts... and it says Jeremy is bipolar... and he is on Seroquel.... and he stopped it cold turkey for the polygraph test...  that alone in MY opinion would make for a false positive.... also... many people who are bipolar are also found to have ADHD.... making it hard for a person to sit still....

Also... people say he took too long answering some questions... a side effect of Seroquel is slow memory... and confusion... as with MOST antidepressants....

After reading tomorrows show transcripts... I am even more convinced that he is innocent.... and NOW, I think  Kaylee is being coached.... NONE of this stuff is adding up.... and it is just becoming more of a circus.... and I am afraid that the authorities will cave under the pressure and indict this man, when there has been no evidence.....

CPS even stated that Kaylee has been OVER INTERVIEWED.... now that alone can become coaching... if the wrong people are doing it....

:o

wrote on Nov 25^th, 2006 at 5:09pm:
Dr. Phil: In your opinion, were you observing countermeasure efforts on Jeremy's part?

Howard Swabash: Yes I was.

Dr. Phil: So you think he was attempting to defeat the test?

Howard Swabash: Yes sir.

Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): Is that true?

Jeremy: Huh. I wouldn't... Like I said, I wouldn't have any idea how to do that.

Dr. Phil: Do you have access to a computer?

Jeremy: At the library, yeah.

Dr. Phil: Do you know how to use a computer?

Jeremy: Ah, I know how to get on the e-mail, that's about it.

Dr. Phil: Do you have an e-mail address that is analbastard@[redacted].com?

Jeremy: Yeah, I do


I'm sorry, but this is an incredible lack of logic. Are the Dr. Phil audience this stupid?

OK. "do you have access to a computer" "Yes." Aha! That proves it. He has access to a computer! (So does practically every American....so what?)

"Is your screen name analbastard" "Yes". As they say, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?
So he's guilty of trying to beat the test because he has a nasty email address screen name? (Note that the screen name was not "love_little_girls'_privates".

The logical deduction is loose and misleading.

This demonstrates the gullability of the American public and the power of the media. I am interested what will happen on today's show.

SAW THE SHOW YESTERDAY!

It was amazing.

1. First they discussed why the 2nd lie detector test was opposite from the first. Dr. Phil had the same person on to say why the 2nd test was "not a good test" (taken by the police department) for various reasons, including they asked if jeremey "touched" the child vs. penetrating her. Then they went on about jeremey being on medications, or not, etc. that would effect the results. So, they are talking out of both ends of their mouths: either lie detector tests are valid or they are not.
2. then they tried to hypnotize jeremey, but the Dr. Phil "expert" said he could not hypnotize jeremy because he was not "cooperative". (It is in fact not easy to be hypnotized).
More hocus-pocus. This proves what??
3. The mother/grandmother's case keeps getting rejected by:
the judge, the CPS, the court assigned psychiatrist, the OB/GYN who examined the girl, etc. etc., as NO ONE has found any evidence or believes the child, who is clearly being traumized.

Even Dr. Phil finally had to attack the mother/grandmother as being hysterical, and their own lawyer had to admit he was "perplexed" by lack of evidence.

My only question is: that poor slob, jeremy, continues to come on alone, without a lawyer or some expert to speak in his defense!!

paris wrote on Nov 29^th, 2006 at 5:21pm:

SAW THE SHOW YESTERDAY! It was amazing. 1. First they discussed why the 2nd lie detector test was opposite from the first. Dr. Phil had the same person on to say why the 2nd test was "not a good test" (taken by the police department) for various reasons, including they asked if jeremey "touched" the child vs. penetrating her. Then they went on about jeremey being on medications, or not, etc. that would effect the results. So, they are talking out of both ends of their mouths: either lie detector tests are valid or they are not. 2. then they tried to hypnotize jeremey, but the Dr. Phil "expert" said he could not hypnotize jeremy because he was not "cooperative". (It is in fact not easy to be hypnotized). More hocus-pocus. This proves what?? 3. The mother/grandmother's case keeps getting rejected by: the judge, the CPS, the court assigned psychiatrist, the OB/GYN who examined the girl, etc. etc., as NO ONE has found any evidence or believes the child, who is clearly being traumized. Even Dr. Phil finally had to attack the mother/grandmother as being hysterical, and their own lawyer had to admit he was "perplexed" by lack of evidence. My only question is: that poor slob, jeremy, continues to come on alone, without a lawyer or some expert to speak in his defense!!

First off...I have a feeling that Jeremy is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed....

and, I thought it was a pretty good show... That hypnosis guy was something else.... He was being uncooperative.... he never answered as to HOW Jeremy was being uncooperative..???... That hypnosis expert was MAKING ME MAD.....

as for the Polygraph expert Swabash.... he is so BIAS... and he sure thinks he knows it all... including... he is 100% sure that Jeremy is a pedophile... What a negligent statement that is..... Unless he has some kind of gift.....

I personally thought it was CLASSIC when Krista was one minute, talking about what happened when she was picketing the court house....
then when Dr. Phil asked her if she was picketing the court, she denied picketing... she said she was only there to pick somebody up....
SHE JUST LIES!!!!
and Dr. Phil bearly called her on it....

This guy Jeremy needs a lawyer.... and QUICK....
there are so many people ready to hang him... over NO EVIDENCE..
It is insane..... somebody at the Kaylee board mentioned getting Bill O'Reilly
involved... and this is just the kind of thing he would get involved with....
and just because a bunch of people are ignorant and onlt see what they want to see.... Jeremy might end up
in real trouble....

I also hated the fact that they were again, badgering him.... and twisting his words.....
like when they were talking about, how he drinks on his medication....

This guy needs to exercise his right to remain silent... I am just NOT sure he has the ability......

justagurlinseattle wrote on Nov 29^th, 2006 at 7:34pm:

First off...I have a feeling that Jeremy is NOT the sharpest tool in the shed.... and, I thought it was a pretty good show... That hypnosis guy was something else.... He was being uncooperative.... he never answered as to HOW Jeremy was being uncooperative..???... That hypnosis expert was MAKING ME MAD..... as for the Polygraph expert Swabash.... he is so BIAS... and he sure thinks he knows it all... including... he is 100% sure that Jeremy is a pedophile... What a negligent statement that is..... Unless he has some kind of gift..... I personally thought it was CLASSIC when Krista was one minute, talking about what happened when she was picketing the court house.... then when Dr. Phil asked her if she was picketing the court, she denied picketing... she said she was only there to pick somebody up.... SHE JUST LIES!!!! and Dr. Phil bearly called her on it.... This guy Jeremy needs a lawyer.... and QUICK.... there are so many people ready to hang him... over NO EVIDENCE.. It is insane..... somebody at the Kaylee board mentioned getting Bill O'Reilly involved... and this is just the kind of thing he would get involved with.... and just because a bunch of people are ignorant and onlt see what they want to see.... Jeremy might end up in real trouble.... I also hated the fact that they were again, badgering him.... and twisting his words..... like when they were talking about, how he drinks on his medication.... This guy needs to exercise his right to remain silent... I am just NOT sure he has the ability......

No, Jeremy is not that bright. I think that he is actually innocent, and thinks that this is enough. He has underestimated how people can be manipulated.

I said from the first show that Jeremy should  have a lawyer with him. This is not a session of pyschotherapy (I thought this was what Dr. Phil does) but an unofficial court trial, without the protection the man should have. It is outrageous Dr. Phil.

There is the Miranda law, so people don't say things under pressure or unitentionally that might increminate them. Jeremy is being slandered, and the wife/grandmother 's behavior are outrageous, to pay for a billboard, distribute flyers, picket, etc. and then have the gaul to say they are not doing anything to enflame the situation? It is sad for jeremy, and the little girl who must be very confused.

In regards to this question posted earlier,

"I was just wondering... I heard that a polygraph should not be preformed on a person who is on medication.... or who has ADD or ADHD... Is this true?"

The answer... A person on medication or with ADHA should not be given a polygraph.  And neither should a people who are not on medication and are perfectly normal.

Polygraphs do not detect lies on anyone!  Polygraphy is an interrogation tool just like lying to a suspect is an interrogation tool that occasionally leads to confessions.  Don't be head-faked.

Polygnov06reply

SPECIAL PERILS TO INNOCENT SUSPECTS IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

In these cases with which Dr. Phil is dealing, there is a special danger because the relevant questions arouse much greater emotion in the innocent than those pertaining to other less disgusting crimes such as theft and even murder.  So the relevant questions about child sex abuse by Dr. Phil and his fellow entrails-reading polygraphers must have aroused considerably more emotion in innocent suspects than the “standard” so-called “control” questions like “did you ever do anything you were ashamed of in your life”.  You don’t need a PhD in psychology or psychophysiology, or even a high-school degree, to understand, by an exercise in common sense, that an innocent suspect would give a bigger response to such relevant questions than to control questions.

It’s interesting that 29 tears ago a criminal lawyer and I made the same point (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Cconfess.doc).  The relevant passage from that paper is pasted below:

Another mitigating condition arises when the "control" questions, which are meant to generate as much emotion (even in the innocent) as do the relevant questions, patently would not have done so. One such "control" question that the polygrapher generated in the Middleton case, was "Did you ever lie to someone in authority?". It surely strains the bounds of credulity to suppose that, even in the innocent, the amount of emotion generated by this question would compare to that generated by the relevant question ("Did you lick X's vagina", when X was 4 years old?). Even the staunchest defender of the general accuracy of CQT polygraphy would admit that, even for the innocent, the relevant question is much more emotive than the "control" question, and that, in this case, the polygrapher did not come up with an adequate "control" question.


     It’s even more significant that 20 years on, Dr. Phil and his polygraphers are using the same “control” question, although now the few psychophysiologists who support the CQT polygraph, are using the (meaningless) term “comparison” question.  This, perhaps, is the clearest demonstration that the CQT polygraph.  This, perhaps, is the clearest way to distinguish science and science-based applications from pseudo science and the snake-oil-type applications that are based no that pseudo science.

     A science revises it terms and concepts in the light of the evidence, and the technologies associated with that science gradually improve in their accuracy.  That’s how we got from the 20 feet flown by the Wright brothers to the flight to the moon.  In contrast, a pseudo-science and snake-oil technology based on that pseudo science revises its terminology in a rhetorical attempt to mislead the public, and, like entrails reading, produces no real but only illusory improvements in its accuracy.  It also helps, of course, when an articulate and formally educated figure like Dr. Phil espouses this peculiarly American flight of technological fancy that continues to reap havoc in North American society, as well as weakening its national securitiy.

All the best, John

I read the last reply.  It is quite good and reasonable.  I want to "correct" ;) one thing you said.  It was:

".... the polygrapher did not come up with an adequate 'control' question."

This statement (it seems to me) implies that there might be such a thing as an "adequate  control question".  There can never be an adequate control question because polygraphic lie detection is as you say "snake oil", not capable of detecting lies.

Later

ecchasta wrote on Nov 30^th, 2006 at 1:27am:

In regards to this question posted earlier, "I was just wondering... I heard that a polygraph should not be preformed on a person who is on medication.... or who has ADD or ADHD... Is this true?" The answer... A person on medication or with ADHA should not be given a polygraph.  And neither should a people who are not on medication and are perfectly normal. Polygraphs do not detect lies on anyone!  Polygraphy is an interrogation tool just like lying to a suspect is an interrogation tool that occasionally leads to confessions.  Don't be head-faked.

I understand all of that.. and I personally DON'T believe in polygraph...
It is total BS....

I was wondering though.... if there are criteria of people who do believe in it... and try to pass it off....

such as not doing a polygraph when someone is pregnant.....

I thought I had heard once that an ADHD person would not be a good canidate for polygraph....
(and I know... NOBODY IS A GOOD CANIDATE)

:)

REPLIES TO JOCHAASTA AND JUSTAGIRL

jOCCHASTA.

       The statement about the "inadequacy" of the "control" was in the context of defending (successfully) an individual in a legal context where, even in polyraphic terms, the "control" question was inadequate because there was no attemmpt to make it have anywhere near the emotional impact of the relevant question for an innocent person.  In general terms, as I've emphasised in many papers and a book, no polykgraphic "control" is adequate, because it is not a control in the normal scientific sense of control.

       JUSTAGURL;

         It's sensible to ask whether a science-based, specifiable and standardized test is affect by such factors, but does not make sense even to raise such questions for an unstandardized interrogatory interveiw like the CQT polygraph, except that perhaps a person with a disability may be more subject to post-test interrogatory pressures than one without a disability.  Still, in most criminal contexts, especiallyk those involving child sex abuse, by the time someone gets into the clutches of a polygrapher, that person is likely to be unbalanced because of the terrible presures he is under.

All the best, John

I've never thought much of lie detector "tests", but now after reading ;your posts i realize how bogus they are indeed!

It is shameful for Dr. Phil, who must know better, to try to fool the american audience, and worse yet, to create such a witch hunt with virtually no evidence of foul play.

I guess you can see how someone like Hitler could come to power, with use of pseudo-science, control of the media, and a very dynamic personality.....

Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.

Quote:

Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.

Good post!  Very edifying, and timely too.  

He was arrested for possession of child porn?  Well, he must be guilty then.  That is quite obvious.  If it was on Dr. Phil it must be true, though one should probably wait for verification from the Enquirer!

Pardon the sarcasm

TC, idiot moron

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 11:59pm:

Jeremy was arrested for possession of child pornography.  You're a moron if you think he's innocent.  You're also pretty dumb when it comes to lie detectors.  Seems the only people complaining about lie detectors are lowlife child molesters like the dirtbags you support so firmly.

Hi, David, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. Am I correct in inferring that you are the David Lynch who assisted with the HelpKaylee.com website? I appreciate your concern for Kaylee. But you're mistaken about lie detectors.

I don't know whether Jeremy Park sexually molested his daughter. But I do know that polygraph chart readings offer no answers in this regard. As you will recall (and has been discussed earlier in this message thread), while Park failed the polygraph administered by Dr. Phil's hired polygrapher, he passed one administered by the Michigan State Police.

As for being "pretty dumb about lie detectors," you should know that the consensus view among scientists is that polygraphy has no scientific basis. By contrast, virtually the only ones supporting the validity of polygraphy are those with vested interests in this pseudoscience. That would include Dr. Phil McGraw, who regularly uses the lie detector as a ratings gimmick. I think that which you should find outrageous is that McGraw, who with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology should know better, exploited Kaylee's plight by pretending that such quackery as polygraphy could resolve the serious question of whether she was sexually molested.

As you correctly note, Jeremy Park was arrested earlier this year (12 June 2008) and extradited from South Bend, Indiana to Berrien County, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography. In a plea agreement, he pled guilty to two counts of "possession of child sexually abusive materials" and in August was sentenced to 270 days in jail and five years' probation:


Quote:

http://www.nilesstar.com/articles/2008/06/14/news/ndnews4.txt Arrest made on child porn charge Saturday, June 14, 2008 7:35 AM EDT ST. JOSEPH - A South Bend man is expected to be extradited to Berrien County on a warrant for child pornography charges. On Thursday, June 12, at approximately 11:45 a.m. officers from the South Bend Police Department and the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department arrested Jeremy A. Park, 28, at his apartment at Bonfield Place in South Bend, Ind. He was charged with four counts of possession of child sexually abusive material and four counts use of computer for criminal act. Park was arrested on a warrant issued by the Berrien County Trial Court earlier this month resulting from an investigation that begin March 18. Park was lodged in the St. Joseph County Jail pending extradition to Berrien County. On March 18, officers from the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department responded to a report of a domestic assault at 9064 Kephart Lane, Berrien Springs. At that time, Park alleged he had been assaulted by his wife. Officers were not able to substantiate that an assault occurred and no arrests were made on that allegation; but, as a result of the living conditions in the apartment along with the incident officers were called to, officers took the Park's one-year-old child into protective custody. Child Protective Services was notified and the child was placed into foster care at that time. During the investigation a laptop computer was turned over to officers along with information that it contained child pornography on it. A search warrant was obtained for the computer and it was analyzed by Det. Sgt. Mike Danneffel, a forensic computer analyst with the Berrien County Sheriff's Department. Pornographic images and movies were located on the computer during the examination. The images and movies were examined by a doctor qualified as an expert in determining a person's age from the recovered evidence. It was determined that two images and two movies containing pornographic material were of an underage female. Following the investigation by the Berrien Springs Oronoko Township Police Department and the Berrien County Sheriff's Department with assistance from the FBI, Berrien County Prosecutor Art Cotter authorized a warrant for Jeremy Park as specified, which was then issued by the Berrien County Trial Court. This case remains under investigation.

Quote:

http://www.sbtinfo.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080812&Category=News01&ArtNo=808120390&SectionCat=News&Template=printart Berrien Springs man sentenced in child-porn case 'Dr. Phil' show films session in Berrien court. By DEBRA HAIGHT Tribune Correspondent NILES -- It's not every day that a television crew from a nationally syndicated television show is filming inside a local courtroom, but that was the case Monday in Berrien County Trial Court here. Jeremy Park, 28, of Berrien Springs, was sentenced for possession of child pornography. He had appeared on the "Dr. Phil" show in late 2006 to defend himself against allegations that he has sexually abused his young daughter. Krista Mehl, his ex-girlfriend and mother of his daughter, and her mother, Bonii Dyjasek, appeared on the show to make the allegations. No criminal charges have been filed as a result of the abuse allegations. While the allegations made on the television show aren't connected with the pornography case, people from the "Dr. Phil" show were on hand to film Berrien County Trial Judge Scott Schofield's sentencing of Park. They plan to air the sentencing on their season opening show in early September. In the criminal case, Park was sentenced on two counts of possession of child sexually abusive materials, which carry a maximum penalty of four years in prison. He had originally been charged with two more counts of the child sexually abusive materials and four counts of use of a computer to possess child sexually abusive materials. Those six charges were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. All eight charges stemmed from an investigation by the Berrien Springs/Oronoko Township Police Department in March. A laptop computer belonging to Park was turned over to police and pornographic images and videos were found on it. Monday, Assistant Prosecutor Kelly Travis said she believes Park needs to be monitored, register as a sex offender and have no contact with minor children. For his part, Park said he was very regretful and ashamed of his actions and what it had done to himself and his family. "It's nice you feel bad for yourself and your family, but the real victims are the children who were portrayed in the pornographic pictures," Schofield said. "They don't have the ability to consent. "Their self-esteem and ability to form romantic relationships in the future are at terrible risk. There would be no reason for them to be forced into this activity if not for people like you willing to view and purchase it." Park was placed on five years' probation and ordered to serve 270 days in jail with the first 90 in jail and the balance at the end of the probation term. He was given credit for 61 days already served and must also spend 180 days on tether after he's released from jail. He must pay $2,120 in fines and costs and restitution of $1,255.74 to a leasing company he bought the computer from. He must register as a sex offender, not own a computer or camera and have no contact with children age 17 or younger. After the sentencing, Dyjasek, her family attorney James Boardman and Berrien Springs Police Chief Milt Agay spoke on camera to the "Dr. Phil" crew. Agay said he is continuing to look at the child abuse allegations involving Park to see if charges can be brought in connection with that case. The initial investigation was closed in 2007 with no charges filed. Boardman said he's looking to formally terminate Park's parental rights through proceedings in the Berrien County Trial Court's Family Division. Dyjasek said she still blames Child Protective Services for not doing its job in protecting her granddaughter. "CPS didn't do their job," she said. "Hopefully they'll not fail the next child calling out for help the way they failed. ... Not only does Jeremy have a lot to answer for, but also CPS has a lot to answer for." She said she and her daughter will continue to pursue justice for the young girl. "We are going to pursue this case so there is justice for (the girl), this case is far from over. Krista said today that justice is only halfway served."

Just to let you know that Jeremy Park was convicted of possession of child pornography (it was found on his personal computer).  I'm happy that you're still arguing "possibilities" while this scumbag was getting his jollies by looking at naked children.  Look it up if you don't believe me.

It's gratifying to know that even morons like you folks are allowed internet access.

Barium Bob,

In the previous post, GM pointed out that this person plead guilty to the charge of possession of child porn.  Also, that Mr. Park both PASSED and FAILED separate polygraphs (two coin flips, coming up "tails" once, and "heads" once).  So you can't really base anything  on the polygraph.

Whether or not he molested his daughter is another matter.

TC

And have you idiots now seen that he was found with ABUSIVE child porn and convicted of the same? And have you seen his living conditions, as reported by his parole officer?  Dr. Phil's supposed grandstanding aside, it was so OBVIOUS that his guy was a sick F*ck.  My God.  This a SEXUALLY ABUSED BABY.  What the hell is the matter with you, with the court, with CPS?  You're all talking about stupid BS and there is a BABY at stake here. What if it was yours?      

wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:

What the hell is the matter with you, with the court, with CPS?You're all talking about stupid BS and there is a BABY at stake here. What if it was yours?

It's because we are here to discuss the inequities of the polygraph, not try to save the children of the world. If such is your quest, I'd suggest starting in Africa where they are starving and dying from pestilence.

And, by the way, your post is 6 years late.

It would be in this websites interest to do a little MORE research in regard to this particular case. The polygraph test that Jeremy Park "passed" was checked by a different party. He did, in fact, FAIL! The poly that they said he 'passed' was given by a police dept employee that had an issue w the gma Bonnii. That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth. It had nothing to do w DrPhils questioning. It had everything to do w microexpression & how to spot a LIAR. It's not a hard thing to do once you educate yourself & know what to look for. It was painfully obvious & anyone defending this trash thinking he's innocent...I hope to GOD they never have children!

wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth.

So you are able to divine when someone is lying? Sounds to me like you have some unresolved anger issues.

http://articles.southbendtribune.com/2011-04-05/news/29387024_1_kpep-kalamazoo-probation-enhancement-program-boot-camp

Time always tells.  Read this and keep bashing Dr. Phil! Jeremy Park should rot in Hell for what he did to his daughter!
:'(

wrote on May 25^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

Jeremy Park should rot in Hell for what he did to his daughter!

Worry about your own soul.

wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

It would be in this websites interest to do a little MORE research in regard to this particular case. The polygraph test that Jeremy Park "passed" was checked by a different party. He did, in fact, FAIL! The poly that they said he 'passed' was given by a police dept employee that had an issue w the gma Bonnii. That employee deliberately LIED about Jeremy passing the poly. & whoever this "Paris" is that is showing a disgusting amount of compassion for this SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, is no better than the pedophile herself. Some people are so gullible that can't see a blatant & obviously guilty person LYING through their teeth. It had nothing to do w DrPhils questioning. It had everything to do w microexpression & how to spot a LIAR. It's not a hard thing to do once you educate yourself & know what to look for. It was painfully obvious & anyone defending this trash thinking he's innocent...I hope to GOD they never have children!

TC and all the idiots against polygraph, when its over90% acurate and you still have the argument its flawed it makes you seem ignorant. Most of the men accused like Jeremy Park (aka convicted pedophile) if they have a inconclusive result will eventually end up caught and convicted. What goes on in the dark always comes out in the light. It just usuallyworksthatway. Unfortunately bc of people like you sometimes things like this do go on and on for years and meanwhile a baby gets raped over and over. He was sooo adament that he had never done anything like that, ha!! Then when convicted and sentenced he confessed, blaming meth!! Vile, Scum bag white trash pedo waste of oxygen

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Vile, Scum bag white trash pedo waste of oxygen

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

That came out of nowhere, or did I miss something in the string?