To say that I am 'fried' after taking my polygraph and 'failing' is an understatement!  To say that the 'last laugh' will probably be all mine, is satisfying.  Name names...I don't mind.  ERNIE HULSEY, Polygraphist (law enforcement), Harris County Sheriff's Department, Houston, Texas.  If I had known then what I know now, I just wouldn't have taken the thing because, not ringing my own bell, I am so blatantly truthful to a fault, that I wouldn't be able to use countermeasures because that to me, is deceitful in and of itself.  But I did find out one thing...polygraph exam(iners) are not to be trusted...I believe they don't operate in any realm of truth or good faith, as it typically relates to polygraph exams.  I will scream from the rooftops to everyone who has ears and will hear...don't ever take a polygraph...and if I'm ever on a jury and the word polygraph even gets mentioned, it and every syllable of testimony related to it will be thrown right in the garbage, the only place it belongs in the first place.  No, I'm not just using this forum as a sounding board to vent - I'm more or less, a grandma that doesn't take being called a liar, lying down.  The morning after I took the polygraph exam, I e-mailed THE Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, THE Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas, Harris County Sheriff's Detective James Fitzgerald's supervisor THE Lt. Ruben Diaz and since, to the Texas Board of Polygraph Examiners with whom I have lodged a formal complaint against Mr. ERNIE HULSEY, for what I believe were his violations of the Texas Occupations Code and the Texas Administrative Code/Rules, under which he must operate!  To clarify things...I'm not a suspect in a crime, just an old grandmother of whom one of my grandchildren has made outcrys of abuse by their father and Det. Fitzgerald needs a scapegoat that he can say has 'coached' the child so that he can, I assume, not do whatever it is he doesn't want to do...I am the self-identified scapegoat.

If you can provide me with an e-mail address, I will send the complaint via attachment.  I didn't have a clue what to expect when I went in and it's only after the fact that I've found out what I should have expected.  In the pre-test, he asked questions but the irrelevant ones...he did not ask...just kind of generically lopped them in.  After the 2nd test, he commented there was a question/response that something just wasn't right about so he was going to 'throw it out' and not analyze it...this 'problem question/response' was his basis for giving me a 3rd test.  On the 3rd test, there was an irrelevant question (re: name) where he asked, "is your name ___?" I responded, no; he immediately stated, "I meant to ask if people call you ___" I responded, yes.  There was no 20 second mandated delay between the 2 questions and whether or not I was 'called' by any name was not one of the written questions.  Texas law requires that all questions must be written and all questions addressed to the examinee must be asked exactly as they are written.  I am 59, as I recall, he asked me 2 'control' questions which were prefaced "Before you were 50..."; I can only remember one and he asked, "Before you were 50, did you ever lie to get someone in trouble?", I responded, no.  I believed that then and believe it now because the question intends malice and I have never lied to get anyone in trouble...not even my twin sister, when we were children.

Ticked,

I would note that quite apart from the question of any possible negligence or other misconduct on Mr. Hulsey's part, it would be wrong for Detective Fitzgerald or any one else involved in the investigation allow the outcome of your polygraph "test" to guide their investigation. Polygraphy has no scientific basis, and the results of this procedure are no more to be relied upon than answers provided by a Magic 8-Ball.

Ticked,

I have received your e-mails, and will e-mail you my comments.

ticked

Good luck in your appeal to the Texas Polygraph Board. These agencies are there, primarily, to protect the states' polygraphers regardless of their wrong doings. According to these boards "polygraphers do no wrong". They are allowed to read their tea leaves with impunity. I hope I'm wrong but, in the final analysis, I will bet the Board sides with Hulsey. They will find in his favor and tell you the beef is between you and him.

Ticked,

It is to be hoped that the Harris County Sheriff's Office will have the wisdom not to allow the readings of a polygraph chartgazer to direct its investigation in any way.

Unfortunately, many in law enforcement truly (but wrongly) believe that there is some scientific basis to polygraphy, and that the results, though admittedly not 100%, nonetheless provide some indication of whether or not a person has spoken the truth.

With this in mind, you might want to direct those involved (some of whose names you've mentioned here) to the information available on AntiPolygraph.org. In particular, you might want to e-mail them a link to Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis":

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml

Also of relevance is Dr. Drew C. Richardson's "Evaluation and Opinion of CQT Polygraphy":

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-028.shtml

Another point that investigators should bear in mind is that had you in fact been lying and wanted to beat the polygraph, you could have easily done so using simple countermeasures that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect. Information on how to beat the polygraph is readily available in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which has been downloaded 150,000+ times:

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Although polygraphers frequently claim that they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably do so, and Dr. Richardson's public challenge to the polygraph community to prove its claimed ability has gone over 1,000 days without any takers.