Johnson,

Let me be the first to give a reply.  It took you 15 sentences into yout post to offer some sort of denial regarding the allegation against you.  In that denial you simply state, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner."  Interesting way to pu it.  You "had" never (slight change in tense) touched your neighbors breasts , or (gramatical error) in any other sexual or inappropriate manner (qualifier).  In what manner did you touch her breasts then? 

Again, another "innocent" who admits guilt just to get out from under.  You actually admitted to sexually assaulting your 16 year old neighbor when you didn't really do it, and only because you were offered some sort of deal?

Here's the answer as to why you failed both the polygraph and the CVSA, you lied!  You touched that girl's breasts in some manner.  She may not have been totally factual in her allegation, however the gist of her allegation was true and you know it.

No doubt some on this site will jump to your defense, however I would caution them about continuing to give advise to individuals such as yourself.

Batman

Batman,

Thanks for your response.  Sorry about my grammatical errors, but I tend to write how I talk.  I qualified my denial with, "in any sexual or inappropriate manner" because there were times when I had touched my neighbor on her arm, her back, and her shoulder.  Once again, these were not sexual touchings and that is an important distinction.  So, one of the relevant questions on both my LAPD poly and the other agency's CVSA was, "Have you ever touched XXXX in an inappropriate way?" rather than just, "Have you ever touched XXXX?"

As far as my false confession goes, like George says, I was young (22 at the time), naive, and terrified.  The IAD investigator made it clear that the only way to clear my name was to pass this poly exam.  I was afraid of the consequences should I fail the exam (loss of my childhood dream, shame and embarassment in front of my fellow officers, not being able to work in law enforcement ever again, etc) and was under extreme pressure and stress.  The night before the exam, I only got about two hours of sleep, because I was so worried about the outcome of the poly.  I did not eat or drink anything before the poly.  So when I walked in the door of Parker Center I only had a been awake for about 20 hours and had nothing to eat for over eight hours.  I have no doubt that these two circumstances contributed to my lack of judgement that day.

In addition, the poly examiner who actually administered the exam to me subjected me to a very unpleasant post test interrogation for about two hours, during which I steadfastly denied my guilt and I maintained that I had told the entire truth during the exam.  The first examiner left (the "bad cop") and about 30 minutes later the second examiner (the "good cop") entered and interrogated me for about another hour.

During the second interrogation I continued to deny my guilt and insisted that I was not lying during the poly exam.  This second interrogator was much more pleasant than the first.  It was the second examiner who told me that he knew I was guilty, and as a result I was going to be fired.  But not because of what my neighbor accused me of doing, but because I was lying during the investigation.  He said that was a much more serious charge.  If I just told the truth and confessed, the department would know I was trustworthy and deserved to be a police officer.  If I confessed, he would see to it that I just got suspended and not fired.  I could then resume my law enforcement career with a clean slate.  Becasue of all the mitigating circumstances I listed above, I stupidly believed this second person and agreed to confess just so I would not be fired.

The next day, I realized what I had done, so I called up IAD and told them I was retracting my confession.  I only confessed because the second poly examiner told me I would only be suspended and not fired if I confessed.  As a result of that, I was reinterviewed by IAD, but they refused to throw out my confession.  They said that once it was out of my mouth, there was no taking it back.  As a result of my confession only, the complaint was sustained.  All my evidence that proved my neighbor was lying about the whole incident was ignored.

Joesph,
Let me tell you, I know how you feel about watching your childhood dream fade away. You may want to look into a non-polygraph department such as NYPD or Phili PD. They hire LOTS, especially NYPD, They hired almost 900 officers. Some with misdermeanors that were waved. Do three years there then re-apply in California. Thats what a friend of mine did. 

Batman,
You never seem to amaze me, you would change the wording on COPS on TV theme song to "all suspects are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law!" I noticed you havent answered my question in reference to the Drill Sergeant wrongfuly court martialed, who passed the poly but was still court martialed.

Batman,

You write in part:

Quote:


No. It's not enough. Your analysis is seriously flawed, for the reasons I explained in detail above, and to which you have not substantively responded. Your childish quip, "George, when you come to a quick stop do you ever feel Beech Trees?" is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

Batman,

You accused Joseph of lying based solely on your "statement analysis" of his initial post. Again, as I have pointed out, your conclusion went well beyond the evidence of that text.

Why won't you substantively respond to my critique of your analysis (in the 3rd message of this thread)? I take your lack of any substantive response (combined with your puerile taunts and request that I "let Joseph speak for himself") as a tacit admission on your part that your conclusion that Joseph lied was not well-reasoned.

Batman,

You write:

Quote:


My critique of your analysis does not deny any "air time" to Joseph. But it seems to upset you.

Quote:


Honest?   
 
Quote:


Perhaps.
 
Quote:


The only person you can truly know will not be convinced by rational argument is yourself, Batman.

Quote:


Joseph very clearly denied his then 16-year-old neighbor's accusation in his first post, multiple times, as I pointed out in my first reply to you. It's true that he did not explicitly state, "I did not fondle my 16-year-old neighbor's breasts," but he did state the following:

• "A criminal investigation was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's Department (I lived in a county area at the time) and I was cleared completely.  I had proof that she was lying."
• "I was telling the entire truth during the exam." (The matter under investigation in the LAPD IAD polygraph exam was the neighbor's allegations.)
• "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner." (Again, this sentence admittedly contains a grammatical error, but the intent seems to have been, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, nor had I touched her in any other sexual or inappropriate manner.")

These statements substantively amount to a denial of the neighbor's accusation. But you seemingly disregard all this because Joseph did not explicitly state "I didn't do it." Your thinking in this regard seems to be heavily influenced by the doctrines of Avinoam Sapir of the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. As I recall (I took his "Scientific Content Analysis," or "SCAN" course in the mid-1980s), one of the cornerstones of his technique was to "scan" a suspect's statement for an explicit "I didn't do it" statement, and that the absence of such a statement was an indication of guilt.

It should be borne in mind, however, that Sapir's methodology (like CQT polygraphy) has no grounding in the scientific method. It's codified conjecture (some of it admittedly plausible) masquerading as "science." A second point that should perhaps be borne in mind is that Sapir's statement analysis methodology is centered on suspects (or potential suspects) who have been asked to "tell their story" to investigators. Joseph wrote his statement under a different set of circumstances. He didn't write this statement to give his side of the story to investigators who may have suspected him of a crime. Everything he wrote was prefatory to his question about how it is that he failed a CVSA "test" even though he was totally honest and did not employ countermeasures (a question I have not yet addressed).

You cite Joseph's failure of a polygraph "test" as a reason for not believing him, parenthetically adding, "even though we all know that doesn't count for anything." Well, obviously, his having "failed" a polygraph "test" does mean something to you, Batman. Why else would you cite it as a reason for not believing Joseph?

You note that Joseph confessed to the neighbor's accusation. Here at last is a plausible reason for doubting his denial. But you flippantly add, "but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired." I suggest that Joseph's explanation of how he was induced to make a false confession is entirely plausible, and consistent with experience in other cases, like that of Abdallah Higazy. (On the subject of false confessions, see Peter Brooks' op-ed piece "The Truth About Confessions" in today's (1 Sep. 2002) New York Times.)

You also cite as a reason for doubting Joseph's veracity his failure of a CVSA "test." But failing (or passing) a CVSA "test" is evidence of absolutely nothing, and your citing this as a reason for disbelieving Joseph speaks more to your ignorance than to Joseph's truthfulness or lack thereof.

CVSA "testing" is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever. Like CQT polygraphy, it's a fraud. Some anecdotal evidence that may nonetheless be of interest: I had the opportunity earlier this year to experiment with a CVSA laptop computer. I simply uttered the word "No" into the microphone without any question being asked. I was under no stress whatsoever. But about 1/3 of the time, the CVSA software indicated stress (and hence deception) in my voice.

You also write:

Quote:


I have not said that I believe he didn't do it. My point to you was that your conclusion that he did goes well beyond the evidence of his statement.

However, I do find that Joseph's account is completely plausible. His civil reply to your venomous and ill-reasoned accusations adds to his credibility, in my opinion.

Quote:


If you understood what the past perfect tense is, you would not have asked this question. What I meant was this: Joseph wrote in his first post, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts..." If this is true, it still leaves open the possiblity that he had touched his neighbor's breasts at some point in time after the polygraph examination. Get it? Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, there is no rational basis for assuming this post-examination touching of breasts to have occurred.

Quote:


I see no compelling reason not to. Of course, it's possible he has not told the truth here, but your ill-reasoned "statement analysis" is not convincing.

Quote:


Perhaps I'm just more reluctant to label people as liars based on the scantest of evidence (or no evidence at all) than you are, Batman.

Batman,

I am not "Beech Trees." I give you my word of honor, for what it may be worth to you.