Quote:


How do you know this?

The story is absolutely true

Batman wrote on Jul 24^th, 2003 at 10:27pm:


Batman,
Good job on Slinky. I just reviewed it. That indeed is one of the best uses of both polygraphy and interrogation. The combination is highly effective. Rather nice of her to essentially identify herself on a site that just happened to be read by an observant polygrapher....

BTW, your comments about medical test records are off the mark. Of course you can get your medical records (X-rays, test results). You can even get other's providing you have proper patient permission. I have done both.

-Marty

Neighbor to the North,

Do you want to debate the merits of polygraph, the intelligence of the examinee's, or the validity of confessions?   In a few short paragraphs you really slammed the open mindedness door on several issues.

You mention "these confessions I talk of", with the "I" being me.  What confessions did I talk about?  I believe that the only confession that I have ever talked about on this site was one pertaining to a poster (Slinky) who was seeking advice on the use of CM's, who I ultimately administered a polygraph to, caught her in her CM use, confronted her, upon which she ultimately admitted to her CM use, and subsequently confessed to the crime about which she was being tested.  Now that goes way back to my very first posting on this site.   

But I digress...you state, "I am fairly confident when I say I am sure that these confessions you talk of don't all come freely and without some ethical and legal laws being broken during the course of the interrogation."  Now this is a very interesting accusation.  It is apparent you have a very strong anti-law enforcement bias.  Given this I'm not at all sure debating you on any issue would serve much of a purpose.  However, exactly what do you base your confidence on?

You appear to want to acknowledge that the polygraph works when you state, "I agree that when you use your machine and extract a confession out of a child molester or rapist I would be the last one to say it doesn't work in that capacity or should not be used in that capacity."  But you then reverse course slightly when you state, "I believe the poly works only as a prop or tool to assist the polygrapher in obtaining confessions from the nieve and uninformed."

So you really don't think the polygraph works at all in the detection of deception, even if an individual who takes one is opined to be deceptive and then confesses, and that confession is proven by evidence independent of the polygraph results?  So the polygraph examiner simply decided, for whatever reason, to tell the examinee that he was deceptive, as a vehicle to conduct an interrogation, and a ploy to obtain a confession?   Interesting concept.  If this was in fact the case, then there are a whole lot of polygraph examiners out there that are 'guessing' right and getting confessions, most of which are obtained legally (contrary to your ignorant and nieve accusation).

I take it, from your post, that your only actual experience with polygraph is when you were administered a pre-employment polygraph?  If this is fact the case, then on what do you base your comments/beliefs about specific issue polygraph as it pertains to law inforcement and criminal investigations?   

You state and ask, "The other issue I have is why pre-employment polys (or all polys for that matter) are not videotaped with a copy given to the examinee directly after exam completion.  If the poly is so scientifically accurate in detecting deception as most pro-poly people would have us believe, why not come with opens arms to substantiate and back your claims?"  You have some level of eduation in physiology, so let me ask you, are x-rays accurate?  Are blood tests accurate?  I believe they are, but why won't people in the medical profession let you walk out with them?  No one seems to be overly concerned about that, and often times the errors made in the medical profession cause people serious injury and death.

Polygraph is an imperfect tool used in an imperfect world.  Many studies indicate it has a low accuracy rate, and many studies indicate it has a very high accuracy rate.  Often times these studies are flawed to some degree.  I have never been one to put a whole lot of stock in studies, or polls.  I am a hands on kind of guy.  After administering polygraphs (in the criminal specific arena) for the past 19 years I am comfortable in attesting to its accuracy.  Not its perfection, simply its accuracy. That's 19 years of real world study.  To the scientific community that probably doesn't mean a damn thing, but to the young lady whose rapist confessed after being opined deceptive on a polygraph, it means a whole lot.

BATMAN

You got me to take the bait there Batman.  Touche.

I have a university degree in human physiology and genetics and a colledge diploma in environmental sciences.

As a preclude, I agree that when you use your machine and extract a confession out of a child molester or rapist I would be the last one to say it doesn't work in that capacity or should not be used in that capacity.  Provided you could verify the confession with hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as the validity of the confession may be in question.  (IE many stories regarding confessions that were later reneged based on DNA, other valid evidence, etc).  I believe the poly works only as a prop or tool to assist the polygrapher in obtaining confessions from the nieve and uninformed.

The roots of my discord with the polygraph and associated pro-polygraph community is, that having come from a scientific background I find it absolutely unsubstantiated, polygraphers claims that the readings obtained from your machine are indicative of deception?

The other issue I have is why pre-employment polys (or all polys for that matter) are not videotaped with a copy given to the examinee directly after exam completion.  If the poly is so scientifically accurate in detecting deception as most pro-poly people would have us believe, why not come with opens arms to substantiate and back your claims?

My guess and experience (subjected to a pre-employment poly and post test interrogation) is that the poly has no scientific validity in itself.  The only value in polygraphy, as I see it, comes from your ability to use the poly as a voluntary pass (from the subject) to interrogate him/her free from videocameras, audiotapes and lawyers.   

I am not an interrogator and am sure you may be very skilled in that manner (19 years interro..polygraph experience) but I am fairly confident when I say I am sure that these confessions you talk of don't all come freely and without some ethical and legal laws being broken during the course of the interrogation.  Is that why you won't, or why most polygraphers as I have witnessed on this site, allow or believe their polys should be videotaped?  Their interrogation would be useless.

Batman,

You write that "all anti's....", well, not quite ALL anti's agree either.

Actually batman, if you read my discussion with Ray (and others), I believe you'll see I do not have a problem with specific issue polys. Although it too is not 100%, I believe it is a valuable tool. I am, for the most part, only opposed to poly screening.

Best,

PK

My dear friend from the 51st state,

So you want to debate the merits of polygraph?  Why?  You state, "I think the poly is a load of "crap" and that the whole profession (and I use that word with the lightest of tones) is a hoax."

OK, so what's to debate.  You've made up your mind, as have many others on this site so what the hell would it serve to simply go back and forth with you about polygraph.   

You've read my last 10 posts?  Great, but go back a little further dufuss.  I have, in numerous posts, acknowledged the inherint weaknesses of polygraph, as well as what I perceive to be it's srengths.  As least I am willing to acknowledge that it is not perfect, mistakes can be and are made, however the anti-side, much like all anti's won't give an inch.  No matter how many success stories are cited, they never acknowledge, even the slight possibility that it may in fact work.   

So, with that said, lets debate.  I'm always willing to duel with a man with no arms.  But as is proper, lets establish our bonifides.  I am in the law enforcement profession (23 years), and have been a polygraph examiner within this profession for the past 19 years.  My knowledge of polygraph goes well beyond the classroom.  So what is your profession, and what experience do you have with polygraph?  Once you've answered then we can continue.

BATMAN

Saidme I mean Robin??  Is that you Robin?

LOL  Is that better everyone?  LOL as opposed to the abrasive hee, hee.

CC

I know Jerry Springer, and you're no Jerry Springer!  Just messing with you.  I do have to wonder about the Hee Hee though.

Regarding the intellect of your posts your wrote:  "Hee, hee.  If you ask me the current day poly works no better in determining deceptiveness. "   

What was batman to read further about?  I didn't see any grand wisdom in that post.  Don't bash batman unless you've got something better than that.

nanananananananananana batman, batman, batman 

Was that as far into my post as you could read and comprehend batman?  Are you incapable of adding anything intelligent or substantial to a thread or discussion other than unintelligent banter and insults?

Your reply is testament to your level of intellect and your lack of ability to respond to anything more than simple, one syllable words like "hee, hee".   

My turn to lower myself to your level so you might comprehend what I am saying.  Friendly word of advise batman, go down to the local Walmart and pick up the system called "hooked on phonics".  Learn to read, increase your IQ above Forrest Gump's and come back so we can intelligently discuss and debate how I think the poly is a load of "crap" and that the whole profession (and I use that word with the lightest of tones) is a hoax.  I used that descriptive so you would understand.

On second thought I reviewed your last ten posted and have come to the conclusion that you probably don't possess the mental capacity to increase your intelligence and join into any legitimate debate.  Your calling lies in insults and would be best served writing for shows such as Jerry Springer's.   

This is my first and last reply to old batman.  I have a hard time dealing with people who can be entertained for hours with a good stick and a couple of rocks.  Had to get my two cents in.  Sorry everyone else for having to read this.

Canadian Crusader,

"Hee, Hee"?!?!

What in the hell kind of post is that for a 'new user'?

"Hee, Hee"!?!?

You gotta be kidding me, you won't last another 20 posts with that kind of input, and you sure won't make it to 'Senior User'.

Hey George, 

How many do I need to get to the next level of this game?

"Hee, Hee"???!!!  I doubt any of those tougher than nails Canadian hockey players ever said, "Hee, Hee".

BATMAN

I'm done, gotta watch TV for awhile.  The Simpsons are on and I never miss the man voted as the "Greatest American" by our European illiterates.

Hee, hee.  If you ask me the current day poly works no better in determining deceptiveness.

Same principle with fancier electrodes.

Barbara Mikkelson's article "Next Case on the Court Colander" on the Urban Legends Reference Pages may be of interest. It seems the celebrated story of the colander used as a lie detector might be nothing more than a tall tale.