No.

Saidme,
It disturbs me that you would believe all 11 of these people who failed are guilty of either complicity in the crime or of a similar crime as yet undiscovered or unsolved. Interestingly enough, none of the 11 cracked under their post-test interrogation. As one who claims a near 100% success rate in gaining admissions, don't you find it odd that not one of these 11 offered anything? Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they didn't because they had nothing to offer?

Your 7-11 analogy seems plausible for that specific incident. I would not consider it uncommon for 7-11 clerks to occasionally drink a soda without paying for it, or take a few bucks out of the drawer when they shorted the last customer. In your analogy, however, you have "loaded the dice" so the results support your conclusions. How would you explain the same scenario using 3 employees and 8 random people off the street, and 9 of the 11 are DI?

How is it possible to be DI on a specific-incident polygraph when one has no involvement in the specific incident? Aren't they supposed to be more accurate than the fishing expeditions called pre-employment screening? Doesn't look like it to me.

The fact is the polygraph is junk, you know it is junk, and you don't care that it is junk. It is nothing but a prop, but one that works well on people stealing $100.00 at the 7-11. And I get the feeling most of your "successful" examinations are of this ilk. 

Your comments regarding the Molly Bish case lead me to believe you have never been involved in polygraphing people in a capital crime investigation, particularly one involving the probable rape and murder of a teenage girl. And if you have, it was a case with plenty of physical evidence, 1 suspect, and the DA just wanted a confession to force a plea.

Orolan

Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me.  Maybe George has got a spell on me.  Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it.  As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway).  I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand.  As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.   

SEX (put it like you mean it)

Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear.  Blah Blah Blah

s-X-e,
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.

Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?

Why are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?

I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans.  I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.

Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.   

Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?

Saidme,

So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?

How many polygraphs have you given?

Saidme,
This is what I'm talking about:
Quote:
Why not? Surely if these people you have polygraphed and obtained confessions from are real, they are now members of the prison population. And their criminal records are a matter of public record. So why can't you disclose that info?

And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:
Quote:
To which Saidme replied that same day:
Quote:
(Emphasis added)
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.