Greetings!    
I am posting tonight in hopes of gaining insight into the world of inconclusives.  I have been on probation for 10 1/2 years now with the last 1 1/2 added on for having 3 consecutive inconclusive tests after having past 18.  A year or so prior to my first inconclusive test I was in an auto accident the result of another driver.  I continued to experience massive neck pain and migraines which I managed with Aleve and Caffiene.  I was tested by a Poly guy who was using a motion detector and he concluded it was inconclusive as I was cheating.  I immeadiately asked him to test me again and he refused.  I reported to my PO and requested another test from another couple who did Polygraph's.  This time I was told it was inconclusive and that I should seek medical attention immediately for heart issue's which turned out to be validated by physician.  I found out a month later that both he and his wife were practicing under the first guy who accused me of cheating and now I was being accused again (funny that the medical interpretation was conveniently dropped from all paperwork) of cheating the poly.  I then was "allowed to take a third test with a Polygrapher out of town who determined I was inconclusive but could not speak to past accusations of cheating , only that there was no evidence of cheating on this one. Probations just days before my release told me I had less than 6 hours to either sign a 5 year extension or they would arrest me, and take me into court requesting I be revoked and sent to prison for as long as possible.   
Does anyone have any thoughts, feedback and recommendations I could take under advisement?
I recently contacted the ACLU and they are asking for a detailed written accoount to determine if they would get involved....any thoughts here?

don wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 6:52am:


Everytime I read someone stating "(no need for CMs)" I realize that they have no idea how the polygraph works.

Freedom:

Don't listen to underminingtruth.  Ask him why he takes so many polygraphs. Get an attorney and do what he says.  In my state it is a violation of  the wire tap laws to tape record someone's  voice without their knowledge.

retcopper wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 9:19pm:


In your state, what is worse - a citizen recording a conversation to protect their rights or a polygrapher lieing under oath to infringe the citizens rights?

Nonombre,

I guess I must ask you as a polygrapher.  What do you think of this Ed Gelb business.  If true, it sure seems slimy

nonombre wrote on Aug 13^th, 2006 at 7:36pm:


Ad hominem, retcopper.  I am especially nitpicky on my Latin, and hominum is a genitive plural; it would make the phrase "toward of the men", rather than "toward the man", as ad hominem is.

With that, there was no such attack here.  A rhetorical question was asked, and a good one:

-Is it worse to record a conversation illegally...
-or be victimized by a polygrapher who lies under oath?

Unless the insinuation is obviously directed at you, nonombre, that's a values question.

Now, back on thread, I hope:

If anything, one should score an inconclusive as a pass. As long as this polybox is around, rules of fairness and evidence should still apply.  If there exist a reasonable doubt in court as to guilt, the accused is not guilty; they get the benefit of the doubt.

With an INC, if you can't say the person is being deceptive according to the rules of the APA or whatever (not that one can divine the truth from all this, anyhow), then you have an "NDI".  How else to reason it?  Deception was not indicated (you don't have a "DI" result), as it could not be found.  This fact by definition says that No Deception was Indicated.  Pretty easy, in my book.  Otherwise, you're making the questionee prove his truthfulness, and that is not how things are supposed to work here.  He should walk in under the assumption that he is honest...

But then, polygraphers don't seem to see it that way...

Cesium:

Other than the fact you are comparing the results of a polygrpah exam  to a finding of guilt or innocence in a court room I agree with your basic premise.

retcopper wrote on Aug 14^th, 2006 at 8:51pm:


Yes, in my state it is legal.  I also verified this with my attny before I did it.

According to the Penal Code: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

A compiled list of the states that do and do not allow this can be found at: http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html