Batman,

Apparently Abdallah Higazy and Daniel King are qualified to join your recently named "I CONFESSED EVEN THOUGH I WAS INNOCENT" Club.  You might note though that these gentlemen apparently received a bit of help from polygraphers and/or investigators in so doing.  It would further appear that this gentle push is not held in high regard by the relevant court systems.  You might care to read the recently posted and released documents relating to the Higazy matter and the presiding judge’s serious concerns about contrived admissions/confessions, http://cryptome.org/usa-v-higazy.htm.

I suspect that if some of our lesser-known victim/posters on this site were to have there polygraph examinations scrutinized as was done with these more celebrated matters, we might well find evidence of similar coercion.  I don't know whether you fell of your horse or ejected from the Batmobile while still in the Bat Cave, but your lack of reasoning, modus operandi of investigation through accusation, and insistence on drawing unfounded conclusions would suggest a serious bump on the noggin.  Perhaps you might care to check...

Dear WNThomp,

I find it hard to believe that any polygraph examiner would want to ruin his equipment in an attempt to "cut into the skin " of an examinee.

I do not like polygraphs but I cannot buy into your arguement.  The diaphram coils are rubber coated and would be rendered useless by such tension.

Try feeding this line of bait to another website because nobody here is going to bite.

Dear George M.,

Without your long history of exposure to these types of postings, I would have believed that this posting was left by a proponent of polygraphs to waste our time.  My law enforcement background is showing.  I have worked around many brilliant and manipulative minds (on both sides of the law) which tend to make me very skeptical.  I thought they were having some fun on a Saturday night.

There were many postings of questionable validity appearing at the same time.  I checked the calendar and it was not a full moon.

Dear Seeker,

I might have read too much into the message.  There is a very long road to remove the polygraph tool from prescreening.   I enjoy a good discussion.  I just do not like people who are not sincere.

Polyman2002,

Your conclusion that Steven was lying based on his use of the word "if" has no logical basis. He simply asked a question: "Anyways, I was never showed my charts and if I did lie, wouldn't I sweat and heart rate go up and breathing rate too?"

Do you use the same methodology you used to determine that Steven was lying to decide whether those you polygraph are telling the truth?

Polyman2002 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 12:35am:


Or perhaps he doesn't wish to be more forthcoming in a forum that doesn't require it.  Suspect what you want; you don't know for certain whether he's lying.

Verbal analyses (such as those taught in the classic "Identifying Lies in Disguise", by Rudacille) can be very helpful in spotting deception.  But there are exceptions to every rule, and every person is different.  It is not logical to assume you know the truth solely because of a well-placed "if", regardless of the quality of the seminar you attended.

Skeptic

I spent 180 days in jail and took 2 polygraphs to help convince the DA that I was innocent, but according to the examiner I failed his tests. After the 180 days the alleged victims recanted and admitted to making false statements that I messed with them at the same time while they were sleeping. They said this; I found out later, to get even with me and get there boyfriends back after a night of partying. Keep in mind that I weighed not much more than these girls and the police were notified approximately 20 days later from one of the girl’s mothers (both were over 18 BTW). Anyways I was held without bail because I was in violation of my probation resulting from this incident. The girls stated that I'd allegedly taken advantage of them while they slept after inviting me over to their place from a party. The polygraph examiner asked me questions related to their statements, which stated that I just messed around with them while they were asleep, but stated that I didn't have sex with them. I said, why don't you ask me if I had sex with them? The examiner was like why? I said because I had sex with one of the girls and she's making it all up. The examiner didn't know what to say. When he reset the questions the polygraph showed that I didn't lie on any of his initial questions concerning their statements and that I was innocent in that respect but the sex question which I had answered, "yes I had sex with one of the girls", he said showed up as a lie and that I had not had sex with one of the girls which created a paradox on the test. The examiner was really confused now and didn't know what to do. I then took another test months later and just stuck to the original questions this time but he said I was lying about them also this time. (Originally, I had passed these questions the first time.) I told him that makes no sense and that they are the ones that are not telling the truth. After all that the DA found out that they were making it up after all and I was released. 
My first “court appointed” attorney sent me to this guy for the 2 tests. It wasn’t soon after that I fired him and got a real attorney and the charges were dropped and I was freed. When I hired the new attorney and he said that the examiner was a retired cop and is famous for trying to fry people. He also said that just about everyone he examines according to the examiner is lying. Anyways my situation proves that polygraphs are not reliable and barbaric. And it took real investigative work to find out the truth and not a machine that measures nervousness.