Quote:

Very poetic. Due to us not having ; a. The charts Why should YOU have the charts? An APA accredited examiner carried out the bungled examination. Shouldn't you all be on par ? I understand from your remark that you 'all' aren't on par.

Assuming your brother had no secret knowledge of the theft or refrained from "tattle telling" on a co-worker, then that leaves two possible explanations for the error; A. The construct of the test, or B. The examiner improperly scored the charts (assigned false numerical values to things he shouldn't have.)
Your question of "shouldn't you all be on par" is proper. The answer is yes, we should. If it was examiner error, than it is the equivelent of the wrong tooth being root canaled. Inexcusable and unfortunate.
If it was construct, then it was similar to the inexplicable false positive of a Hep B test, not altogether uncommon, and an issue that keeps the researchers working tirelessly to remedy.



Quote:

b. The precise questions Again, why? What the h*ll difference does that make. the test was a bungled, proven  f a i l u r e. What would change by you having the precise questions........??

This woud be helpful to view possible examiner errors. Perhaps the examiner "crossed targets" or was too vague in writing the relevant questions? Here is a horrible relevant question as an example' Do you know who stole those watches and or money." Well, if it was a theft by a member of an especially small group (1 or 2 other suspects), then "yes", your brother did in fact "Know" who stole the goods by virtue of excluding himself, and perhaps he had the dignity and social graces to not point fingers at a fellow employee without absolute evidence. This situation is not uncommon, and a highly sensetive examiner is required to hash out those subtleties.



Quote:

c. The investigative facts Again, Why ? There was no investigation other than the polygraph investigation. The facts are: Person B stole from the employer. Person A was accused by the examiner as the guilty party. A subsequent test by a CVS examiner found Person B to be guilty. Person B confessed to the theft and returned merchandise and cash. There was no prior theft

Again, knowing the investigative facts would be helpful. You Candy are not an investigater and probably do not appreciate how all cases have a level of complication---some simple and some complicated regarding polygraph application. Many times when examiner question formulation is at error, it is due to examiner ignorance or a lack of consideration to potential case complications. In looking for examiner error regading test question formulation, INVESTIGATION FACTS ARE EVERYTHING.




Quote:

d. A physiological and psychological profile of your bro Again, Why? Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist? Are you inferring that something in my bothers makeup could or did affect the test and it wasn't just a case of a bungled polygraph? You amaze me with your verbal gymnastics.

You claim to have researched polygraph, yet you ask such a question. hmmm. Well, if your brother suffered from some long term psychosis, short term neurosis, acute physical illness such as heart murmers, respiration illness,----and medication---such is important information. You can't even get your teeth cleaned without a dentist wanting to know those things. Silly statement Candy, bellow you.


Quote:

e. Your brothrs first hand acount Again, what difference would it make. The first hand account goes like this: Did you steal 4 wristwatches ? - NO. Okay let me test you. Sure. You failed your test. Oh, why? Cos youre a thief and you're going to get fired unless you own up. I didnt do it. Yes you did. No. Yes. No. Tough.

Not his first hand account of the test, the account of the incident and the investigation. sigh


Quote:

My Mom's doctor made her permanently blind because he prescribed her the wrong medication. Aweful shit happens. She still has an albeit suspicious belief in modern medicine, but she understands that people make enormous mistakes, but that doesn't altogether impune the validity of modern medical testing. Absent facts regarding Mom's previous moron doctor's notes and testing procedures,, her second physician inquired Mom about what sorts of pre-existing conditions SHE might have had and not disclosed. It was painful for her, but she had far less righteous indignation than you people. Does this manner of analysis sound familiar Candy? Well stop whinging, its not like she got raped or anything serious.

Well, when elderly people lose their sight, due to restricted plasticity (the brains ability to learn new things and adapt to new thought patterns), they typically develope acute Parkinson's disease, with a progressive rate that shocks. No whining here, just an analogy. So, no she wasn't raped, but due to an examiner error AND a pharmaceutical (construct) error combination, she will be dead in about a year or two.
I am sorry that your brother suffered from one of those types of errors, or suffered the consequences of not ratting out a friend.