Post Reply

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 21 post(s).
Posted by: Michael Aller
Posted on: Oct 5th, 2019 at 3:36pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The Polygraph and the Voice stress Analyzer do what they claim to do. Which is to register Stress. The problem with a lot of Polygraph exams are that they are used to elicit confessions instead of to determine truth. When a suspect passes the question 'did you do this' but fails another question like 'have you thought about doing this' and the polygraph examiner says the suspect failed the test. That is an abuse of the examination process and destroys confidence in this useful tool. The "Lie Detector" is not the problem, the operator is.
Did this happen to Kevin Jones ?
Posted by: Dan Ponder
Posted on: Aug 27th, 2008 at 8:14pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What do you think about the criminal profile that did not match Kevin?
It was in the Russellville Courier June 21, 2006 by a Texas Criminal profiler.
Posted by: polytek
Posted on: Aug 27th, 2008 at 9:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
It would be helpful to victims, suspects, investigators et al if more stringent controls were enforced during the polygraph in-test phase.

The videocamera should be positioned to the side and behind the examiner so that his keyboard is in clear view. Independent reviewers can then ascertain whether the examiner purposely manipulated any test by deliberately recording the 'answer bar' too early or too late.

Maybe then people like Kevin Jones and other False Positives would not have been falsely accused and convicted.
Posted by: SanchoPanza
Posted on: Aug 26th, 2008 at 1:04pm
  Mark & Quote
Yes Sir
The best source of information regarding the results of  polygraph tests is ALWAYS the suspect's stepfather. Especially since the stepfather is most likely relying on information provided to him by the suspect. Forget the fact that the suspect's mother remarked that her son is a liar in the same article.

According to Kevin Jones Attorney, The person who claims to administer the polygraph examination and appears in the video is not a certified or licensed polygraph examiner. If that is the case, Jones DID NOT receive a polygraph examination and the person who administered what Jones was led to believe was a polygraph test committed a crime under Arkansas law.
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24433365/page/5/  
"And what about that polygraph test. Remember what Kevin said the examiner told him?

Kevin Jones: He had not seen anybody fail a test worse in his 28 or some odd years of giving lie detector tests.

Well, the defense said it checked the polygrapher’s record.

Robbins: The person that was, that administered the test. He wasn’t a certified polygraph examiner.

Johnson: It was an attempt to get him to confess.  That’s all it was."


He might have been a recent Polygraph School Graduate BUT He would still have to have a certificate of completion from an approved polygraph school (Certified) and hold an Intern License which is only valid for 12 months according to Arkansas Law. So a claim of "uncertified" cannot legally co-exist with a claim of 28 years polygraph experience.

It appears that Arkansas State Police polygraphed the victim's known lovers and eliminated them. It doesn't appear that this new suspect was a "Known Lover" that would have been included in that group and if Kevin Jone's attorney was right and the Russellville Police used the same guy in the polygraph room on Dunn that they used on Kevin Jones, Dunn didn't take a polygrah test either.

Looking over some of the information available on this case it looks like the entire investigation was mishandled, Crime scene evidence was ignored, only a small area near the victim was examined for fingerprints, Blood evidence in other areas of the apartment weren't collected, the physical properties of Jones' bloody palm print wasn't properly evaluated in the context of the timeline of the crime, and material information was withheld from both the prosecution and defense Their chances of ever convicting anyone of this crime in the future are pretty slim regardless of polygraph.

Sancho Panza
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Aug 26th, 2008 at 11:00am
  Mark & Quote
A year after the acquital of Kevin Jones, Gary William Dunn, who reportedly passed a police polygraph examination, has been charged with the murder of Nona Dirksmeyer. Dunn has been implicated by DNA evidence left at the crime scene. It strongly appears that Jones, who failed the polygraph, was indeed innocent:

Quote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibyRxQgkSgzPuENtnxRbf5jnvnmAD92PSBJ00

New suspect scrutinized in beauty queen's slaying

By JON GAMBRELL – 1 hour ago

RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. (AP) — Police found the Arkansas beauty queen dead in her off-campus apartment in December 2005, her head bludgeoned by a floor lamp, her neck slit by a knife.

Authorities matched a bloody palm print on the lamp's light bulb to Nona Dirksmeyer's 19-year-old boyfriend. Prosecutors suggested Kevin N. Jones flew into a jealous rage after learning she had cheated on him.

But a jury acquitted Jones last year after defense lawyers argued police botched the investigation and the bloody print had been left when Jones discovered the body.

Now, a new prosecutor has charged a new suspect in the slaying of Miss Petit Jean Valley.

A district court judge set a $1 million cash-only bond Monday for Gary William Dunn, who could face the death penalty for the Arkansas Tech student's death. But prosecutors remain silent on why investigators crossed the convicted felon living in Dirksmeyer's apartment complex off as a suspect in their initial investigation.

Dunn, who turns 29 on Tuesday, already had felony convictions for hiding a man wanted by police inside his home, selling a stolen trumpet and breaking into a construction company's storage trailer to steal power tools with others.

He was out on parole at the time of Dirksmeyer's death after serving only two years of a six-year sentence for randomly attacking and threatening to kill a jogger in 2002.

In a court affidavit, Arkansas State Police Special Agent Stacie Rhoads said investigators found an open condom wrapper near Dirksmeyer's nude body when they arrived at her apartment Dec. 15, 2005. A DNA analysis of the wrapper determined the material came from both Dunn and Dirksmeyer, Rhoads said.

Dunn later told investigators he was at the apartment complex at the time of Dirksmeyer's death, though he had given false information to police in the past, Rhoads said. Dunn denied knowing Dirksmeyer and it remains unclear how a beauty pageant contestant who once sang the Italian operatic pop song "Con Te Partiro" crossed paths with a convicted felon.

Other evidence pointed to Dirksmeyer being sexually assaulted — something prosecutors denied when they filed charges against Jones in March 2006. At the time, prosecutors claimed Jones lay on top of her body and rubbed his hands in her blood to contaminate the crime scene.

At Jones' trial, a match to DNA evidence from the condom wrapper was not presented. However, a witness from the state Crime Laboratory said a detective using superglue on the wrapper to obtain fingerprints likely contaminated the evidence.

A jury acquitted Jones of a first-degree murder charge after a July 2007 trial.

Michael Robbins, a lawyer for Jones, said defense investigators obtained a DNA sample from Dunn and found a match to a substance on the condom wrapper. Robbins said defense lawyers gave the material to prosecutors, who immediately asked for a special prosecutor to take over the case this February.

Special Prosecutor Jack McQuary has said he will not discuss the case with reporters. A spokesman for the Russellville Police Department declined to comment Monday.

Dunn, dressed in orange prison clothes and yellow sandals, offered only "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to questions during a 15-minute hearing Monday, looking at a wall or down at the jailhouse courtroom's floor.

Afterward, Dunn's mother said she told investigators her son only occasionally offered white lies and was a good man.

"I have never seen him raise his hand" to woman, Martha Dunn told reporters.

Preston Chenoweth, Dunn's stepfather, said Dunn didn't have many employment opportunities, as "everybody is down on felons." The stepfather also said Dunn previously passed a polygraph test given by police.

"We're going to stand behind him," Chenoweth said. Dunn faces a Sept. 22 court appearance, at which he will be appointed a public defender.

When asked if his stepson could get impartial justice, Chenoweth offered his own question: "Did Kevin?"


See also:

Quote:
New prosecutor says boyfriend rightly cleared

BY DEBRA HALE-SHELTON

Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2008

URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/235428/

RUSSELLVILLE — The special prosecutor investigating the 2005 slaying of Nona Dirksmeyer said Monday that he believes the victim’s boyfriend, who was acquitted of the murder last summer, is indeed innocent. Kevin Jones, 22, of Dover said of the comments by special prosecutor Jack McQuary: “An authority figure with as much access to the information as he has will surely change people’s minds.”

Before, skeptics would say, “It’s just the family” professing Jones’ innocence, he said.

“A lot of people... have said derogatory things and have looked at me in a derogatory ways.”

On Friday, Mc-Quary charged Gary William Dunn, 29, of Dover, with capital murder in the case. Dunn was on parole and lived in the same Russellville apartment complex as Dirksmeyer at the time of the Dec. 15, 2005, killing.

“I would not have filed charges against Gary Dunn if I thought that Kevin Jones was guilty of the homicide of Nona Dirksmeyer,” McQuary said Monday, hours after Pope County District Judge Don Bourne set Dunn’s bond at $ 1 million.

In July 2007, a circuit-court jury acquitted Jones of firstdegree murder in the death of Dirksmeyer, 19. Even after the trial, Jones’ defense attorneys continued to work to prove his innocence and later turned over to authorities new DNA evidence they helped uncover on a condom wrapper found in Dirksmeyer’s apartment after the killing.

Previously, authorities have said there was no sign of a sexual assault on the Arkansas Tech University student, found lying in a pool of blood on her living-room floor. However, court documents showed Monday that authorities now believe Dirksmeyer may have been sexually assaulted.

In an affidavit filed with the Pope County circuit clerk’s office, Arkansas State Police Special Agent Stacie D. Rhoads wrote that police found an open condom wrapper 3 to 4 feet from Dirksmeyer’s body, nude except for a pair of socks.

“An analysis of the condom wrapper revealed the presence of DNA,” Rhoads wrote. Authorities determined that DNA on it was “a mixture of at least two individuals” — Dirksmeyer and Dunn. “Other evidence at the scene indicated a possible sexual assault.”

Authorities have said the avid beauty pageant contestant was choked and beaten, and stabbed and slashed with a knife on her face, shoulders and throat.

During Jones’ trial, Ed Volman, a forensic serologist with the state Crime Laboratory, testified that he found no evidence of sexual activity based upon an exam of Dirksmeyer’s body and clothes.

McQuary said Monday that it’s difficult to prove sexual assault.

Dunn did not have an attorney at his hearing Monday. But in the affidavit, Rhoads wrote that Dunn has “denied knowing Nona and denied ever being inside her apartment.”

She continued: “Dunn has provided different accounts of his actions on the day Nona was murdered. Dunn also puts himself at the apartment complex during the time Nona was murdered. Information initially provided by Dunn as to his whereabouts [has ] been determined to be untrue.”

Dunn’s mother, Martha Dunn of Dover, said police told her in 2005 that her son had passed a lie-detector test. “I know in my heart my son did not do this,” she said.

Also Monday, one of Jones ’ defense attorneys, Michael Robbins of Russellville, said the Russellville Police Department owes Jones an apology.

“Do I think they’re big enough to do it ? I don’t know. I hope they are.... I think they need to admit they made a mistake,” Robbins said.

Russellville Police Chief Tom McMillen did not return calls seeking comment, nor did James Bacon, who was chief at the time of the killing and has since become chief in Nixa, Mo.

Jones said, “I think [police ] just need to learn from their experience... and do the right thing next time.”

Robbins did not criticize 5 th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney David Gibbons, who handled the case against Jones in court.

McQuary stressed that Gibbons “was not given information that we have been able to uncover. But if I had only had the information that David Gibbons had... Kevin Jones would have been a suspect in my opinion, as well.”

Gibbons declined comment.

Dirksmeyer’s stepfather, Duane Dipert of Russellville, said he and her mother, Carol Dipert, have decided not to talk with reporters.

Jones said he has not heard from Dirksmeyer’s mother since Dunn’s arrest but would be happy if they could renew their friendship.

“I never once blamed Carol,” he said. “If the police told me someone did this to my daughter... it was just a terrible situation.”

Jones said the experience has helped him mature.

“I look at the world in a different way now,” he said. Before, he would read about someone being charged with a crime and presume he was guilty.

“I’ve learned to question that,” he said.

“Before this, I was carefree. I didn’t have a problem.... I was just kind of bumping along, not doing what I should be doing, not really making very good grades in college.... I’m going to try to find some sort of silver lining for this experience.

“ What happened to me was bad,” Jones said, adding, “I don’t want people to dwell on what happened to me because what happened to Nona was exponentially worse.”

Jones, attending college in Fort Smith, plans to become a lawyer.

“If I could do for one person what [my attorneys have done ] for me... it would be worth” his efforts, he said.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: May 5th, 2008 at 5:41pm
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 4th, 2008 at 8:29pm:
Turn around is fair play.  When people refuse to take a polygraph they are accused of hiding something.

Seems logical, doesn't it?

So why would polygraphers be so afraid of having an attorney present during the pretest/interview, and post test/interrogation of a criminal polygraph adminstered by LE.  Do they have something to hide?

No, nothing to hide, but an attorney has a different goal than polygraph.  Distractions have no place in the process.

In the jones case, I doubt they would have gotten away with all the lying and brow-beating.

Polygraphers, experienced or not, lie during the test. Mr. Trimarco lied on national TV about the accuracy of the polygraph.  

Blah, blah, blah...! Same old distribe...and not addressing intellectually

In the case of a criminal LE polygraph.  Suppose you got some young kid suspected of a crime.  Gullible and naive about the polygraph like most of the public.  During the pretest the polygrapher claims "the test is scientific, and 98% accurate".  An attorney present, asks for a sidebar, and whispers to his client:  "There is absolutely no scientific evidence to his claim.  Don't believe it!"

Please refer to the US Constitution.  He didn't have to be there and could have terminated the process ANYTIME he wanted to! And, I'm sure at some point in the beginning of the interview, he was made aware of that!

As for the post test interrogations.  The mere presence of an attorney would probably stop the usual shennanigans.  "This test proves you're lie!  This is the worst failure I've ever seen!  The chart doesn't lie Junior!  Are you going to level with us or not!  You make me sick!"...etc.

Please see my last response.

It's kind of like a young kid shopping for a car.  Rather than go to the car dealership by himself, he brings his dad along so he doesn't get taken advantage of.  It's alone that vein...

Is "the kid" an adult?  Does he have the capacity to make decisions on his own.  Our laws state if you are 18, it's on you... I know a LOT of stupid or ignorant people who are well over the legal age.  Do you, Cullen have the capacity to assign them "keepers" to prevent them from being so-called "abused" by the populace?



Sackett
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: May 5th, 2008 at 5:28pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
"n.p.c."

you wrote, "But, in all states of the union, an attorney cannot practice unless he passes the bar, and is licensed by the state.  The same cannot be said for polygraphers.  In fact, it is my understanding that most states have no licensing provisions what-so-ever for polygraphers..."

Yes, that is true and probably one of the biggest problems within the profession.

Sackett
Posted by: nopolycop
Posted on: May 5th, 2008 at 1:40am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
sackett wrote on May 4th, 2008 at 6:42pm:
Cullen,

would that be a licensed, practicing attorney who passed the BAR? Or would that be a lawyer who simply graduated from a law school?  

Sackett


But, in all states of the union, an attorney cannot practice unless he passes the bar, and is licensed by the state.  The same cannot be said for polygraphers.  In fact, it is my understanding that most states have no licensing provisions what-so-ever for polygraphers, and of course, a J. D is a well respected professional degree, whereas graduating from a polygraph trade school takes perhaps. 10 or 12 weeks.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 4th, 2008 at 8:29pm
  Mark & Quote
Turn around is fair play.  When people refuse to take a polygraph they are accused of hiding something.

So why would polygraphers be so afraid of having an attorney present during the pretest/interview, and post test/interrogation of a criminal polygraph adminstered by LE.  Do they have something to hide?

In the jones case, I doubt they would have gotten away with all the lying and brow-beating.

Polygraphers, experienced or not, lie during the test. Mr. Trimarco lied on national TV about the accuracy of the polygraph. 

In the case of a criminal LE polygraph.  Suppose you got some young kid suspected of a crime.  Gullible and naive about the polygraph like most of the public.  During the pretest the polygrapher claims "the test is scientific, and 98% accurate".  An attorney present, asks for a sidebar, and whispers to his client:  "There is absolutely no scientific evidence to his claim.  Don't believe it!"

As for the post test interrogations.  The mere presence of an attorney would probably stop the usual shennanigans.  "This test proves you're lie!  This is the worst failure I've ever seen!  The chart doesn't lie Junior!  Are you going to level with us or not!  You make me sick!"...etc.

It's kind of like a young kid shopping for a car.  Rather than go to the car dealership by himself, he brings his dad along so he doesn't get taken advantage of.  It's alone that vein....
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: May 4th, 2008 at 6:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Cullen,

would that be a licensed, practicing attorney who passed the BAR? Or would that be a lawyer who simply graduated from a law school?  

I guess in George's rationalized manner of thinking, it really doesn't matter...huh?!

Sackett
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 4th, 2008 at 6:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
1) There has been no allegation that the polygraph examiner who polygraphed Kevin Jones "wasn't a real polygrapher." The allegation by Jones' lawyer, Michael Robbins, is simply that he "He wasn't a certified polygraph examiner." He may have been a recent polygraph school graduate.


Yet the polygrapher yelled at Jones saying that this was the worst failure of a polygraph he had seen in his "20 years as a polygrapher".

IOW, he lied.

There should have been an attorney present.

TC
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 4th, 2008 at 9:05am
  Mark & Quote
Regarding the use of polygraphs in the Nona Dirksmeyer murder investigation, it seems that:

1) There has been no allegation that the polygraph examiner who polygraphed Kevin Jones "wasn't a real polygrapher." The allegation by Jones' lawyer, Michael Robbins, is simply that he "He wasn't a certified polygraph examiner." He may have been a recent polygraph school graduate.

2) It seems that the Russellville Police Department did rely on polygraph results to "conclusively eliminate" suspects. A Russellville Courier News report posted to the CrimeLibrary.com message board states:

Quote:
For the past month, Russellville police investigators have continued to pursue any and all leads provided to them by various sources in the apparent homicide of Arkansas Tech University sophomore Nona Dirksmeyer.
On Tuesday, all the work and effort put into the investigation was handed over to the 5th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review.
Russellville Police Chief James Bacon released a statement Tuesday regarding the reports.
“At the request of the prosecuting attorney, to further support our initial statement of suspects being conclusively eliminated, we have re-evaluated each person of interest,” Bacon said in the released statement. “Subsequently, we requested the Arkansas State Police to administer additional polygraph examinations, and yet again we can say that all but one suspect has been conclusively eliminated.”


3) CBS 48 Hours also covered the Dirksmeyer murder story, and has made about five minutes of video from Kevin Jones' post-polygraph interrogation available with its story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/48hours/main3802230.shtml

The first sequence of the video shows investigators asking Jones whether he would be willing to take a polygraph test. The time stamp on the video shows 17:17 hours on 21 December 2005. In the next sequence, the post-test interrogation has already begun, and the time is 18:26 hours. So the pre-test and in-test phases of Jones' polygraph examination took at most 69 minutes. By way of comparison, the video of Louis Rovner's polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, which includes only pre-test and in-test phases, is more than twice as long, running a total of 157 minutes.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: May 4th, 2008 at 6:47am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
This is not about the abuse of polygraph, it's about the anti minions making hay about a non-polygraph issue and somehow making it relevant to their anti-position.

If someone falsely reports to be an examiner and conducts "an examination" that obviously equates to an abuse of polygraph...huh?

Wow!

I must give up on this mentality...

Sackett
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 9:29pm
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:16pm:
Quote:
The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.


They used the test to try and force a confession out of a confused, grief stricken and INNOCENT kid who just lost his childhood sweetheart.

Naw, that's not abuse.  I withdraw my statement your honor.   Tongue

Of course, he must have "reacted" pretty bad on the machine.  It just had to be deception.  What else would cause such an unprecedented (worst in 20 years) ANS reaction?  Certainly not his emotional state at the time, and the fact that he was being brow-beaten.
I dunno, maybe it really wasn't abuse.   Roll Eyes



TM you should know by now that ANY comment aimed at Polygraphs WILL be vigiously shot down regardless of merrit.
Now I guess it's OK for anyone to pick up a Polygraph machine and aim it at a person,which, in fact leads me to some of my comments regarding the "training" that is required.
If you use a Polygraph and the victim believes it's accurate ( even though it's not) it doesn't matter if the examiner is even a examiner at all hell, it doesn't even matter if the machine is turned on! All they are after is a confession.
It happened that way with mine failed test. If the "results" were reliable I WOULD BE IN JAIL!! But no confession ( there was nothing to confess) no conviction!  HA  Grin
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 7:16pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.


They used the test to try and force a confession out of a confused, grief stricken and INNOCENT kid who just lost his childhood sweetheart.

Naw, that's not abuse.  I withdraw my statement your honor.   Tongue

Of course, he must have "reacted" pretty bad on the machine.  It just had to be deception.  What else would cause such an unprecedented (worst in 20 years) ANS reaction?  Certainly not his emotional state at the time, and the fact that he was being brow-beaten.
I dunno, maybe it really wasn't abuse.   Roll Eyes
Posted by: yankeedog
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 7:01pm
  Mark & Quote
T.M. Cullen wrote on May 3rd, 2008 at 6:47pm:
It is cases like this which illustrate why the myth of the polygraph must be exposed to the populace.

This case was classic "bait and switch."

BAIT - They tell the kid they want to "rule him out" as a suspect, and ask if he would take a polygraph.  Like most people, he mistakenly believes the polygraph is accurate and can prove his innocence, so he gladly agrees to take the test.

SWITCH  -  Police detectives now have a young naive kid they who has taken the bait, and they can now interrogate him WITHOUT A LAWYER present.  They use the machine to browbeat the kid.  Remember, his childhood sweetheart is on a slab in the morgue.  The kid is confused, scare, grieving.  Polygrapher lies his ass off.  Turns out the kid would not "cave", and held his ground and refused to confess.

In the meantime, the police fail to properly search for crime scene evidence.

This is a good example of how the polygraph is being used not to detect lies (which it can't), but to INTIMIDATE a gullible populace!


The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.  A typical ploy by one of Maschke’s Minions.  You may not like the interrogation tactics and I may not like the interrogation tactics. But, they were not illegal or improper.  Just very aggressive.  But to blame the polygraph?  Geez!  What a vivid imagination.  The problem in that case appears to be in the investigation itself.  And one thing is absolutely certain.  This failed polygraph was not what resulted in the arrest or trial.  Other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, is why this kid was arrested and put on trial.  But, since the universal evile polygraph was involved, it is all the fault of the polygraph.  Based upon the obvious limited information available about the investigation, this girl was probably killed by someone close to her.  Someone very close.  Tell you what Cullen, next time you try to post such intellectual dishonesty and make baseless charges, make sure you fairy tale can’t be checked out. 

Should a polygraph test have been administered for diagnostic purposes when it was?  No.  Should it have been utilized for utilility?  Absolutely! 

Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 6:47pm
  Mark & Quote
It is cases like this which illustrate why the myth of the polygraph must be exposed to the populace.

This case was classic "bait and switch."

BAIT - They tell the kid they want to "rule him out" as a suspect, and ask if he would take a polygraph.  Like most people, he mistakenly believes the polygraph is accurate and can prove his innocence, so he gladly agrees to take the test.

SWITCH  -  Police detectives now have a young naive kid they who has taken the bait, and they can now interrogate him WITHOUT A LAWYER present.  They use the machine to browbeat the kid.  Remember, his childhood sweetheart is on a slab in the morgue.  The kid is confused, scare, grieving.  Polygrapher lies his ass off.  Turns out the kid would not "cave", and held his ground and refused to confess.

In the meantime, the police fail to properly search for crime scene evidence.

This is a good example of how the polygraph is being used not to detect lies (which it can't), but to INTIMIDATE a gullible populace!

Posted by: sackett
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 5:16pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Cullen,

you wrote "Turns out the guy wasn't even a licensed polygrapher, let alone been practicing 20 years."

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH POLYGRAPH??!!! YOU SAY HE WASN'T EVEN AN EXAMINER!?  HELLOOOOOOO!!!? Earth to Cullen, earth to Cullen, come in Cullen...

You really shouldn't allow your prejudice and zeal against polygraph to cause your fingers to attact my profession unless you have something to hold on to.  Shame, shame, shame... and dishonest too!

And George, I would have expected better out of you. Hook, line and sinker, eh?  I'm so Shocked


Sackett
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 12:58pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
See NBC Dateline's web page for the story, "Death and the Beauty Queen":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24433365/
Posted by: yankeedog
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 12:18pm
  Mark & Quote
I didn’t see it, but wish I would have known it was on.  Guess I need to watch something other than The History Channel, Discovery and the Military Channel.  I like to watch these “brow beating” interviews as they usually are superb training tools on what not to do.  It doesn’t make any difference if the officer yelling at the “suspect” was a polygraph examiner, detective or street cop.  I’ve been in this field for more than 30 years and I have seen during some interrogations the “suspect” will be yelled at by the person doing the interview.  I generally don’t agree with that technique because it is counter productive.  This is not to say that in a given situation it is not helpful or considered necessary.  However, I have found you generally get more with sugar than you do with salt.  Most of the time once the yelling starts the interview/interrogation is over!  A mentally weak interviewee may be beaten down to say just about anything.  I have stopped interrogations in the past being done by others when it was my opinion that the interrogations had moved to a coercive environment where information trying to be elicited could not be relied upon.  Mr Cullen, in this situation, was the boyfriend charged, tried and acquitted?  It sounds like that is what happened.  What was the evidence the police had to charge?  What evidence did they ignore?  Do you know if it will be aired again?
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: May 3rd, 2008 at 8:22am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
The NBC show "Dateline" aired tonight.  Name of the episode was "Death and the Beauty Queen".

Covered a murder case in Russell Ville Arkansas.  Showed police video of the murder victim's grieving boyfriend being interrogated and polygraphed.  Polygrapher starts yelling at the boyfriend saying he has never seen somebody fail a test as bad as he did in his 20 year career as a polygrapher.  Turns out the guy wasn't even a licensed polygrapher, let alone been practicing 20 years.

The boyfriend was found innocent.  Police had ignored vital evidence and tried to coerce a false confession out of him via the polygraph.

Did anybody else out there watch this?

TC

Post title edited by AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
 
  Top