Paradiddle wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 4:20pm:

When you resort to name calling it does not indicate you are debating from a position of strength.

Agreed Serg i notice a lot of that coming from the pgs whats up with all of the name calling...

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:41am:


I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a step in the wrong direction is a step in the wrong direction.

As for isolating the polygraph's impact on the psyche from the less sophistacated means of confession extraction. I would once again point out that Jeffrey was interrogated on several occasions, with all the usual intimidation tactics being employed. There was a extremely hostile interrogation on both Jan 10th and Jan 25th if memory of the case report serves me. On both occasions, the investigator pushed HARD for that elusive confession,  but on the 10th, all he got was a map of the crime scene [a.k.a. "the pit"]. The interagator knew that he needed a confession to make a case against the kid. So he asked Jeffrey to take a little polygraph test, but the report makes a direct point that this test was arranged for the "sole purpose of obtaining a confession." The examiner graded Jeffrey as inconclusive, so the investigator decided to make a little white lie, and tell Jeffrey that he had failed. Things then got very confrontational, and jeffrey confessed. In a sense, they repeated the same interrogation keeping all things constant except for the polygraph. How do you explain why Jeffrey was vehemently protesting his innocence on Jan 10th, but gave into oppresion and confessed on Jan 25th? All the same dirty tactics were used in both cases. Only one thing changed at the end of the day. Furthermore, if the investigator had no other intention other than to get a confession out of that kid, why did he go to trouble of getting a polygrapher. What was he hoping to achieve with the polygraph if not the classifaction of guilt or innocence? The report made it quite clear that there was no doubt in the investigator's mind that Jeffrey was guilty well into December.

We all understand that a girl died in this tragedy; I don't need a patronizing reminder. There's nothing shameful about trying to prevent it from happening again. I believe the polygraph caused an innocent person to be convicted by playing a direct and prominent role in inducing a false confession. I don't have a personal incentive or financial motive to end the polygraph profession, so I don't at all feel selfish by arguing my opinion to anyone who will listen. I feel it is my responsibility, as a free citizen, to do nothing less.

P.S. Sorry if that last part was a little patronizing.

Quote:


He likely knew this because the police used a polygraph in the case--for the same reason it is almost always used.

They had a weak case that had no chance of a successful prosecution without a home-run confession.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:


Ludovico,

I did no such thing, I know these facts from carefully reading the Winchester county report on the false conviction:

https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Attachments/Jeffrey_Deskovic_Comm_Rpt.pdf

and Matt Elweig's article on the issue:

http://adowntownreporter.blogspot.com/2006/11/someone-elses-time-jeff-deskovic-s...

They were both posted by George on this thread some time ago. As the case report states that the polygraph examer, Investigator Stephens, proceeded with the "avowed purpose of which was to elecit a confession" [pg 14].  I mentioned the report in passing because I had assumed everyone knew what I was referring too, and had read the material for themselves. It is rediculous to argue that post test interviews occured in isolation of the polygraph test. Obtaining confessions has always been an important selling point of the polygraph profession; and they're dangerously effective. 

I still remember Angela's name, Ludovico. I mention it sparringly out of respect for her family. Unlike certain individuals who would call them into public eye over and over again while ostensibly posing as there self-proclaimed protector. If you really cared about comforting her family, I would suggest leaving them out of this debate. You seem very informed about how people ought to behave. However, I do not see the direct connection between saying that Jeffrey's false confession was caused by a polygraph, and causing pain and suffering for the Angela's family. 

Also, I do not accuse the investigors responsible for this case of being evil... sigh.

tbld wrote on Oct 10^th, 2007 at 12:40am:


This site extends beyond criticisms and lampooning of polygraph (corrected type-o)examiners. This site is one great big ad hom attack on every examiner who seeks to conduct fair tests in order to insure safer streets---and once more this site empowers sex offenders to disengage from their treatment and supervision protocol under false pretense. So, my question  to you oh "tbld" activist against polygraph----is, why are you reminded of a kid? Do you like "little kids" Woody? 

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 1:28am:

 


Sarge said it best btw.....