Skeptic wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2002 at 5:42pm:


What about the honesty tests that are becoming widespread and are less legally limited than the polygraph?  One of the suppositions in those tests is that a thief tends to believe in a higher prevalence of thieves than someone who is not. Presumably, most thieves are not aware of this statistic.

Quote:


I think there is also universal agreement that the belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is a key component to obtaining confessions which have much higher reliability than an unconfessed DI.  From that point of view, widespread ignorance is an asset, regardless of how poor the science.

-Marty

Breeze,

My reference to "pathetic embarrassing discussions" had nothing to do with your conversations at work, but with your defense of a completely invalid procedure(s) on this message board.  I realize you may be blind to the nature of your own contributions.  You suggest your employment as an investigator is necessary, if not sufficient, to have a familiarity with the scientific literature regarding issues of diagnostic validity and a basis for an evaluation of same.  Yet your inappropriate commingling of the terms "diagnostic value" (validity) and "utility" in the first two sentences of your last post would lead one to seriously question such an assertion.

Anonymous-
That was fast, we both must not be doing anything worthwhile at this particular time...
Thanks for clarifying that I am merely pathetic on this site, I was worried that I had lost focus at work.  Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic.  My use of a phrase such as "diagnostic value" is not a technical term like validity or reliability- just a literal definition. Value to an investigation based on diagnostic features as seen on a polygraph chart. (yes some believe they do exist)
Utility means usefulness.  How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI.  This in turn led to a tearful confession and resolution.  This clearly threatens you and does not fit into your notion of the tools worthlessness, but there it is.
Do you really think calling me pathetic will change my mind about what I know to be true?  You are strong on belief alone.
Unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of other prominent posters here who think personal attack and no experience will carry the day.....

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2002 at 11:36pm:


Congratulations, The Breeze. A scant 23 posts ago (24 really, I note you deleted your very first post-- why?) you stopped by this website in search of information about the polygraph and cvsa. Apparently, you knew so very little about either that you were unable to answer your superiors' questions concerning same and were forced to search the Internet for information to give them.

Two months later you now sit comfortably denouncing the life's work of legitimate scientists, PhD's, and researchers who categorically, in plain English, have calmy refuted every assertion you make about the validity of the polygraph. 

I will now suprise you and agree with a point you almost made: The polygraph is a powerful criminal interrogation tool when your test subject is ignorant of the facts concerning polygraphy. No one disputes that fact. No one disputes that you may legally lie to a criminal subject in order to obtain a confession. No one disputes that you may use the polygraph as part of that lie.

What IS disputed is the scientific validity of drawing conclusions with regard to truth or innocence based on the scribblings produced by a polygraph machine. There are many permutations of how an interrogator could arrive at a confession. Certainly one of them is:

Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Guilty suspect is confronted with his charts and, believing the lie behind the lie detector, confesses. Great. That's wonderful. I'm happy for you. Here is another way it could go:

Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts, at which time he insists he is innocent. Police continue to focus on him rather than the true perpetrator. Because the investigation can go nowhere (as it must, he is, after all, innocent), they begin interrogating his friends, family, coworkers, etc. in an attempt to develop further incriminating evidence. Along the way, this person's friendships, marriage, reputation, and career are ruined. Oh well, too bad/so sad.

Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. The interrogator lies to the suspect because he just KNOWS that bastard is lying. I'd be very curious how often this one occurs. Pity such statistics aren't available. But I digress...

How about this one? Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. Ok, off with you laddie.

Hey, here's a fun one: Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph, is interrogated, and produces a chart deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts and, for whatever reason, confesses. Of course now police fail to obtain from the guilty suspect a confession.

My Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA.

The police polygraphers here ont he boards are fond of boasting of the utility of their investigative tool. "Today I helped put a rapist away." I commend that. Will you now step forward and say likewise, "I helped convict an innocent man today."

"Today I helped ruin an innocent man's reputation."

"Today I extracted a false confession."

Who's first?

Beech Tree
You obviously are quite proud of your self, and have recieved the much needed cyber high 5 from skeptic.  You have much time to spend here but if you are going to call someone immature you may want to back off the silly references to pigs, just a thought.
My point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.  You are merely strident when you repeat others conclusions.  Since you have no background and bring little to the table except aggressiveness, dont ask me to refute your assertions.  You have none.
When I spoke of mockery, I was thinking of Batman.  I dont mock you, I just dismiss your hysteria as unimportant and one sided. I was not aware that any of my posts had been deleted, and honestly dont know how that would be accomplished, since it concerns you and you think your on to something, talk to george.
Finally lets talk about your continual references to abuses by LE officers. Since you clearly have never conducted anything resembling an investigation, and have no idea what might be involved in a practical sense- you might as well know that your assertions are insulting.  Basing your arguements on scattered news reports that reinforce your notions may pass for open mindedness where you are, but should not be respected here.
Your father on the other hand sounds like a great guy, thanks for sharing.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 4^th, 2002 at 8:06pm:


One other thing -- being dependent on others' research is irrelevant.  Many well-read and knowledgable people have never done their own original research on a topic.  Your point is a specious one, and frankly you're dodging the issues.

Skeptic

Batman

I feel very slighted. You didn't include me in "what you do for a living. Shame on you. I will include myself.

I am a 72 years young gold miner, during the summer months, in Alaska. I can still shovel 4-1/2 yds. of gravel in 4 hours. Side note: (I don't plan on serving on any more juries).

All seriousness aside - I am still opposed to the polygraph. As posted here before, I have a very big problem with one person operating one machine (who can manipulate said machine any way he wants to) holding another persons livelyhood, even their lives, in his hands.

Years ago, my daughter took an employment polygraph. It showed deception on every question. Even her age and where she lived. The operators question: "You can't tell the truth about anything, can you"? This operator can keep you from getting a job or even send you to prison?? As Stossel says "Give me a break!!