Beech Trees,

You are certainly quite low down.  You lied the 1st instance by claiming that I said that the poly is a devastating interrogation tool.  You lied the 2nd instance by claiming that I said CM results in a ruined poly test.  You are lying again by claiming that I admit not knowing anything about the topic I am discussing.  I know what I say and say only what I know.  I don't pretend to be a know-all.  Have some respect in a forum like this.  Don't twist what people say.   

I appreciate the fact that your country is a great democracy and don't cane it's citizens for drawing on walls.  But that does not mean I prefer it to my country's system.   Check what that kid did to his dad.  When I was in your country not too long ago, all the folks introduced to me said they wished for a system like ours.   

I wholly agree with you that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty and take my hats off for those who exercise their rights and refuse a poly test.  I cannot say the same for those who 'volunteer' for a test, promise to co-operate and then end up doing everything else except co-operate.   My view is that these are dishonest cowards.  They fall into the same category of people who twist people's words.   
      
     

Mr. Ngoo,

First, let me apologize. I never intended to offend you, your country or anything else.  I was merely repeating the self-deprecating humor I heard from Singaporeans regarding the country's extensive system of "fines."  Virtually everywhere I went in Singapore, vendors sold T-shirts, postcards, etc. with listings of infractions and their corresponding "fines."  (For example: Vandalism = Cane & Jail.) Most carried the title:"Singapore: The city of Fine."  I'm sure you've seen them.  Believe me, no sarcasm was intended.   Your country's strict laws are the reason I felt completely at ease to walk the streets or ride the MRT at 2am by myself. (Can't do that in LA.)  I think our respective country's can learn a lot from each other.

You are correct that anonymity typically makes a person's claims unverifiable and one-sided, but I have a good reason to stay anonymous and intentionally vague.  If my identity were revealed, I would most certainly be disqualified from the police application process.

The City has an almost unconditional belief in the polygraph and will disqualify someone who (stupidly) admits to countermeasure use. Their belief is that countermeasure use means you must be lying about something.  (I simply used them to avoid a second false positive.)  Likewise, suing my first polygrapher would also most certainly result in my non-hire.  (For some reason, employers don't like to be sued by applicants.) Plus, applicants are forced to sign a waiver that precludes you from suing your polygrapher.  You see, that way, the polygrapher can accuse you of anything they want without ANY reprecussions.

Trust me, I'm not trying to air a grievance, I'm just saying that I successfully employed countermeasures (which weren't difficult to master) and don't believe the assertions that they are easy to detect.  The point of this website is that we shouldn't be relying on polygraphs in the first place; polygraphs simply don't work.

Sorry, I guess we were sleeping.....just noticed that Drew Richardson is identified as "top FBI polygraph expert"....just how did he rise to such a lofty position????....I have it on good information that he conducted few polygraph examinations in the field and caused the FBI more problems then he was worth...and they ultimately removed him from his polygraph position...I think th term thatw as used was that he was considered a "pariah".  Maybe you might want to consider removing his "credentials" on your homepage?
Dr. Drew C. Richardson,
Laboratory Division

theboys,

Dr. Richardson was only a "pariah" to the extent that he was retaliated against for having had the moral courage to speak truth to power on such matters as polygraphy.

If you good ol' boys in the federal polygraph community doubt his expertise, then why don't you accept his polygraph countermeasure challenge?

Cowards.

the boys,

To answer your question (forgive me for having mistaken it for a rhetorical one), it was my decision to refer to Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top polygraph expert, and I did so on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the scientific principles underlying polygraphy.

Boy....if we were Drew...we would be upset to hear someone describe us as " slackers, rookies, and n'er do wells"....that isn't what we said.....and surely that isn't what you meant...now was it beech trees?  ...and oh, by the way.....perhaps you should learn the process of how one gets to be called to OFFER testimony before ANY legislative body....we assure you no one looked out there in the hinterland, saw Drew and said "we gotta have him".

Just a little tidbit, from someone in the know; Drew NEVER ran a single operational test in the field.  I will bet there are a lot of people out there who do not even know that. Get a more credible expert....puleeze!

Drew,

You wrote:
Quote:


1. How do each of these individuals purposed polygraph should be used? (i.e.  format, setting, etc.…)


2. In their purposed use, how accurate and scientifically valid is polygraph?

3.  More importantly, how would you see polygraph used and how accurate and scientifically valid would polygraph be in that use?

You wrote:
Quote:


I have debated the issue of polygraph's scientific validity with both George and you.  Aside from the differing opinions you and I have on definitions of the scientific terminology, the debate seemingly has concluded with George unable to provide credible evidence to support his conflicting view of polygraph's validity.  Polygraph has most certainly been shown to have high validity, when used in criminal specific issue testing.