Quote:


Polycop,

Although your question is directed to beech trees (Dave), I'll address it. The obvious reason for Dr. Horvath not to have provided Deseret News reporter Ed Bauman with an honest explanation of comparison/"control" questions is that to do so would expose polygraph "testing" for the pseudoscientific charlatanry that it is. It is not surprising that Dr. Horvath has not responded to my public challenge to him.

The very survival of your profession depends on the public not knowing what a probable-lie "control" question is. Which is why when polygraph "professionals" talk to reporters, they routinely feed them the same false and misleading information about the nature of the procedure that they provide their subjects. If they told the truth, the polygraph house of cards would collapse.

AntiPolygraph.org is putting an end to the polygraph community's ability to deceive jouralists (in the way that Dr. Horvath apparently did) and get away with it.

Quote:


And how was he caught? What 'ridiculous' countermeasures did he attempt, and how did you catch them? Lastly, will you or will you not answer my questions as to why you will not identify this alleged drug dealer so that your boasts can be independently verified? Is it because:

1. You would prefer to remain anonymous because you are frightened of the repercussions if your posts were attributed to you? Or, 

2. There never was a drug dealer from whom you coerced a confession?

Quote:


I'm surprised you weren't aware of Mr. Horvath's comments as you posted repeatedly to the thread discussing his transgressions. Are you telling me you didn't even read the subject matter before you started posting? Regardless, George answered fully.

Batman wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 11:50pm:


Holy glass houses, Batman!

While I'm sure that Beech Trees is capable of presenting his own credentials, I find it ironic that a polygrapher (who engage both in dispensing medical/physiological "information" and in playing psychologist on the strength of less than half a year of education) would be throwing this particular stone.   

At least Beech Trees information has the backing of peer-reviewed scientific findings.

Skeptic

What an idiot..

First to Skeptic:

I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph.  Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?  Maybe I simply take offense to amatures making ignorant comments and assumptions regarding how a confession is obtained.  If Beech Trees is capable of presenting his credentials then let him do so.  Until then he should base his comments on fact not speculation and or assumptions. 

Now to Beech Trees:

Simply answer the question if you can.  What is your first hand experience with polygraph and interviews/interrogations? Are you basing your comments about illegally obtained confessions on actual experience or are you simply speculating?  What exposure have you actually had with the utilization of the polygraph technique?  Again, you speak with such authority when you are advising people on matters that may impact their lives, I think it is a fair question as to what experience or exposure you have in either the field of law or law enforcement.

To answer your question, you are getting to me only in that you seem so willing and eager to attack a whole profession (law enforcement) but you base these attacks on what?  A bad experience with a particular investigative technique that you happened to be subjected to?  On what do you base your comments about illegally obtained confessions?  Please do not split hairs as to your exact terminology.  You used the word coerced.  A coerced confession is an illegally obtained confession.  You made the comment to PolyCop that he coerced a confession from someone.  Again, what do you base this on?

Please provide the data, or as Skeptic says "the peer reviewed scientific findings" regarding coerced confessions.

Batman

Beech Trees,

You clearly accused PolyCop of obtaining a coerced confession.  Coerced confessions are, plain and simple, illegally obtained.  Now you're attempting to confuse that fact with perfectly legal interview/interrogation techniques.

It is plainly obvious you do not want to answer some simple questions put to you in an attempt to determine your qualifications for handing out advise and/or criticism regarding the law enforcement community. 

All I asked was for you to provide some data about your credentials/experience in this arena, and for some factual data regarding your accusation pertaining to illegally obtained confessions.  Are you willing or able to do this?  If not simply say so and we can then press on.

Batman

As the meaning of the word "coercion" has been at issue, the following definition from Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) may be of interest:

Coercion... Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force of arms or threat. General Motors v. Blevins, D.C.Colo., 144 F.Supp. 381, 384. It may be actual, direct, or positive, as where physical force is used to compel act against one's will, or implied, legal or constructive, as where one party is constrained by subjugation to other to do what his free will would refuse. As used in testamentary law, any pressure by which testator's action is restrained against his free will in the execution of his testament. "Coercion" that vitiates confession can be mental as well as physical, and question is whether accused was deprived of his free choice to admit, deny, or refuse to answer. Garrity v. State of N.J., U.S.N.J., 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 618, 17 L.Ed.2d 562.
  A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another's freedom of action to his detriment, he threatens to: (a) commit any criminal offense; or (b) accuse anyone of criminal offense; or (c) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (d) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action. Model Penal Code, § 212.5.

Apology accepted.

Later,

Batman