Skeptic wrote on Dec 9^th, 2005 at 7:16am:


If I remember correctly the New Orleains PD has internal examiners. Cops stick together A polygraph that is never seen is like a tree that falls in the woods when noe one is there.

If you can't beat the box, you might be able to beat the examiner. more so if the examiner is one of your "own". Cops polygraphing cops is always a bad idea, and should never be done.

It is a good ole boys network over there. If you know someone you're in. 

mustbaliar wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:33am:


will need it in this pit of vipers

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:30am:



ODIN,

Get real--don't you think the Newport News Police Department would be smart enough to have the goods on this guy before charging him? Give me a break--he's a state trooper--you know they crossed their "t"'s and dotted their "i"'s.

With all due respect, ODIN--I'm sure you're not the first examiner to claim someone like this wouldn't get past them. Have you seen him? He doesn't look like a pedophile--very clean-cut, but you never can tell with these types. Not that examiners could ever be accused of being biased. 

Your beloved polygraph failed to weed out this alleged pedophile.

ODIN wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 4:51am:


More unsupported claims.  It's virtually your hallmark, Odin.  Back them up, or withdraw them.  Others have already done so, when you made up the excuse that you wouldn't until everyone else did so.

Have you considered the possibility that people might use countermeasures because the polygraph is known to be a poor instrument for detecting truthfulness?  Have you even considered the possibility?

Quote:


That, of course, is up to the site's proprietors.  But for the record, IMHO you're being ridiculous.  As the challenge stands, the winner gets PR and bragging rights.  Moreover, there's no reason to suppose anyone will be more "honest" about the results of the challenge if the Antipolygraph.org web site is on the line than if it isn't.  So what's really going on here?

Are you simply trying to bluster your way out tough questions as to why you won't take up the challenge to prove your claims?

Quote:


Oh, come on.  Let's make it really interesting.  Why not play for houses?

Look, you and other polygraphers have made the claim that you can detect countermeasures.  Now you are furiously backpedalling, saying the only way you'll back up your claims is if others risk far more than you're willing to do.

You know what?  I think you're playing games and spinning excuses.

You say you've caught people using countermeasures.  We're asking you to prove it.  I doubt you will, since you've thus far made lots of claims and haven't backed them up.  So you know what?  From now on, as long as you post here I will remind you and others of the claims you've made and haven't backed up.

Thus far, we have (among others):

1) Claims that states without the polygraph for LE jobs tend to have higher corruption in LE
2) Claims that those who use countermeasures have something to hide
3) Claims that you can detect countermeasures.

These are claims you've made, and it's incumbent upon you (that means it's your obligation) to back them up or withdraw them.

Show you have the intellectual integrity, courage and honesty to make good on your claims or withdraw them.  I will hound you about it until you do.

polyfool wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:33am:


My problem with the polygraph and bona-fide, convicted child molesters is that it gives them a loophole.  It gives them a way out, countermeasures or no countermeasures.  The polygraph simply doesn't work, and it's foolish to rely upon it to tell you whether the molester is re-offending.

Why would anyone want to give molesters an easy way to "demonstrate" their innocence, when the process doesn't work?

Quote:


An unfortunate thing that occurs (This is from what I've been told from som LE folks) is that when some pedifiles, particularly child molestors, take the poly, the fact that they are careless enough to commit the crimes they commit may also contribute to the fact that their vital signs will not react enough to the poly to get a "DI."  For example, I talked to an officer who works with the Georgia police department where John Couey, the man charged with molesting and Killing a 9 Year-Old girl in Florida earlier this year, was arrested and he said that Couey acted as if it was no big deal as he was being arrested.
    Thats the problem with false negatives on ploygraphs is that you may get someone who's mind is truely warped and they may "beat" the machine while lying through their teeth while employing no countermeasures whatsoever.  I am aware that this convicted sex offender did undergo a ploygraph, but from the news reports I've heard, after the poly, they asked him something to the effect of did he commit the crime and he stated something to the effect of "I thing you know the answer."  I believe this man deserved to be executed in a slow and painful manner if he did commit this crime, but the issue at hand here is that the ploygraph simply is not sufficient.  

Skeptic wrote on Dec 10^th, 2005 at 6:53am:


Skeptic,

You make an excellent point here. It's also important to note that the polygraph is dangerous in allowing child molesters to walk away from their crimes in the very beginning by throwing investigators off their trails. I personally know of one such child molester who was guilty as hell and passed his polygraph. The mother, who was forced to take a poly, initially had problems with hers, but the examiner gave her the benefit of the doubt, talked with her and re-started the test and she passed. This child molester never paid for his crimes. Very sad.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/article.cfm?articleID=501&volumeID=37

some bed time reading boys. talk you every onr soon.