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