Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?" (Read 14049 times)
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
May 4th, 2007 at 5:36am
Print Post  
UPDATE: Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to prosecutor Kevin McMurray, the polygraph "evidence" (portions of which are demonstrably untrue) "helped a lot." See Reply #4 below.

It appears that Steven D. Duncan, a polygraph examiner with the Georgia State Patrol, past president of the Georgia Polygraph Association, and member of the American Polygraph Association's Board of Directors, did some "testilying" in a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday, 2 May 2007. According to a Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald report by Elizabeth Richardson, in response to a defense argument that the defendant may have truthfully answered a control question regarding falsification of documents, "Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar." (emphasis added)

Who in the polygraph community actually believes this to be true? Who among you can cite any peer-reviewed research that would support Duncan's claim?

On the contrary, it is widely recognized -- even by polygraph examiners -- that Control Question Test polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful and that false positives are more likely than false negatives. Fear of the consequences of not being believed may cause truthful persons to react strongly to the relevant questions, and, perversely, the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.

If Elizabeth Richardson's reporting is accurate, I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve Duncan lied on the stand.

Here is the relevant portion of the Times Herald article (a PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purposes):

Quote:
Polygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com

New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.

Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.

"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."

Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.

The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.

On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.

Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.

Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."

Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.

Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.

In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.

Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.

Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."
« Last Edit: May 12th, 2007 at 3:54am by George W. Maschke »  


George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #1 - May 4th, 2007 at 5:36pm
Print Post  
George,

I believe that the polygraphers unwillingness to do a retest speaks volumes. If there was proof of another outcome, it would surely impeach the test he administered, making any and all testimony he gave as an expert witness completely unreliable. And we all know how much polygraphers like having their double speak impeached.  And his little drama speach about a liar honest, was nothing more than theatre for the court. The defense attorney missed an opportunity here to gut his testimony, and didn't ask him to cite any relevent works or data. The response most likely would have been "Based on my experience .... ", which is not a defendable position by this so called expert witness. But catching him making these falsehoods under oath is just as good. Again it appears they offer advice and testimony to meet the need of the moment. I also believe that this polygrapher already had a predetermined outcome in mind, and it was a secondary reason for not doing another polygraph. Just my viewpoint on the available info.

Regards ...
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #2 - May 4th, 2007 at 6:19pm
Print Post  
American Polygraph Association board member Steve Duncan's reported claim that the polygraph test is "more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar" is refuted by an impeccably pro-polygraph source: David C. Raskin and Charles R. Honts, writing in Chapter 1 (The Comparison Question Test) of the Handbook of Polygraph Testing edited by Murray Kleiner (Academic Press, 2002). At p. 29, Raskin and Honts provide a table illustrating "The results of high-quality laboratory studies of the control question test":



They note in the main text that the CQT "produced approximately equal numbers of false positive and false negative errors."

But at p. 32, they provide a much more relevant table illustrating "The accuracy of independent evaluations in high-quality field studies" (which more accurately reflect real world conditions):



They note in the main text that "with the field studies nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors" (emphasis added).

So, Mr. Duncan, on what evidence do you base your testimony that false negatives are more likely?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #3 - May 4th, 2007 at 6:49pm
Print Post  
Note that the above tables also contradict Mr. Duncan's reported assertion that "Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive."
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #4 - May 11th, 2007 at 5:25am
Print Post  
Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to the prosecutor, polygrapher Steve Duncan's testimony -- significant details of which are, as shown above, demonstrably untrue -- "helped a lot":

Quote:
http://content.times-herald.com/296043988588920.bsp

Birkbeck guilty on all counts
Published 5/10/07 in The Times-Herald
By ALEX McRAE
alex@newnan.com


After a day and a half of deliberations, a Coweta Superior Court jury found East Point police officer and Coweta resident Benjamin Birkbeck guilty on six criminal charges involving sexual battery and child molestation.

Superior Court Judge Jack Kirby sentenced Birkbeck to a total of 40 years in prison plus 12 months in the Coweta County Prison work camp.

"We're satisfied with the verdict and think it is a good decision for the victim and all the citizens of Coweta County," said Coweta Judicial Circuit Assistant District Attorney Kevin McMurry, who tried the case. "Lots of people worked very hard on this case, and we are very pleased with the outcome."

This was the second trial for Birkbeck on the same charges. The first ended in a mistrial in February.

Before pronouncing sentence, Kirby asked the young woman accusing Birkbeck if she wished to speak. The woman — a relative — thanked court officials, law enforcement and the district attorney's office for their hard work. She also spoke of how much she had been hurt by the ordeal.

She said she was glad Birkbeck had been found guilty and that she hoped putting him in prison would prevent another victim from being harmed.

"It's good to know he won't be doing this to any other girls," she said.

Birkbeck was also allowed to speak before sentencing. He continued to maintain his innocence.

I did not do this," he said. "I don't know how someone could make up something like this."

Birkbeck also complained about not being able to present certain evidence in his defense. His remarks were cut short by Kirby, who presided over both trials. Kirby said he had seen all the evidence and was convinced jury members had the information they needed to reach the guilty verdicts.

McMurry said the state had a stronger case on the second go-round.

"We had much more good evidence and testimony," McMurry said. "We also had the polygraph evidence, and that helped a lot."

McMurry was referring to a polygraph taken by Birkbeck and presented as evidence during the trial. McMurry said Birkbeck "failed miserably" on the polygraph.


...


A PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purpsoses.
« Last Edit: May 13th, 2007 at 11:59am by George W. Maschke »  

birkbeck-conviction-10-05-2007.pdf ( 63 KB | 270 Downloads )

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Lienot
Ex Member


Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #5 - May 11th, 2007 at 12:01pm
Print Post  
All the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did.  Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor.  In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved?  This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #6 - May 11th, 2007 at 12:52pm
Print Post  
Quote:
All the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did.  Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor.  In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved?  This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?


So lying on the witness stand is A-OK with you, so long as it helps secure a conviction? What about being "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto)? I know Steve Duncan doesn't have peer-reviewed research to support his reported testimony that false negatives are more common than false positives because I follow the polygraph literature.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Lienot
Ex Member


Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #7 - May 11th, 2007 at 1:58pm
Print Post  
You follow your instincts to discredit polygraph regardless of the consequences of the guilty.  You state he lied and then you posted statistics from polygraph sources that you totally disagree with, so where are your ethical standards at this time, in the toilet.   You are quoting states that you totally disagree with to prove an examiner incorrect in his testimony, so challenge the decision of the court, not the examiner.  Figures don't lie, but those that figure do lie, and you are one of them.  You use polygraph statistics to prove your point, when you disagree with the premise that polygraph is in fact accurate.  You argue with yourself not me or the stats.  You are very confused and only wish to prove that polygraph does not work and is less than a coin toss.  Try that on someone else.  Your argument does not hold water IMHO. Argue with yourself, I tire of BS, and that is where your are.  You want to prove your point regardless of the facts.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5757
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #8 - May 11th, 2007 at 2:36pm
Print Post  
Quote:
You follow your instincts to discredit polygraph regardless of the consequences of the guilty.


My purpose in this message thread is not to discredit polygraphy. That has already been done in spades by the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and others. Rather, my purpose in this message thread is to discredit the reported testimony of American Polygraph Association board of directors member Steve Duncan. I do not pretend to know whether Benjamin Birbeck is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. I do know that Steve Duncan's reported testimony that false negatives are more common than false positives is patently untrue.

Quote:
You state he lied and then you posted statistics from polygraph sources that you totally disagree with, so where are your ethical standards at this time, in the toilet.


I cite Honts & Raskin's chapter in Kleiner's Handbook of Polygraph Testing to show that even the most pro-polygraph sources do not support Duncan's reported testimony, but rather refute it. I don't see how this reflects negatively on my ethical standards.

Quote:
You are quoting states that you totally disagree with to prove an examiner incorrect in his testimony, so challenge the decision of the court, not the examiner.


I don't necessarily disagree with every word written by pro-polygraph sources. I'm challenging Steve Duncan's reported testimony because it is untrue (and I think he either knew or should have known it).

Quote:
Figures don't lie, but those that figure do lie, and you are one of them.  You use polygraph statistics to prove your point, when you disagree with the premise that polygraph is in fact accurate.  You argue with yourself not me or the stats.  You are very confused and only wish to prove that polygraph does not work and is less than a coin toss.  Try that on someone else.  Your argument does not hold water IMHO. Argue with yourself, I tire of BS, and that is where your are.  You want to prove your point regardless of the facts. 


Why not just answer the questions I posed to all polygraphers in the initial post of this thread: Do you genuinely believe it is true that false negatives are more common than false positives? Can you cite any peer-reviewed research to support such a notion?
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
Threema: S7TK4RXR
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Postal mail: Van Trigtstraat 53, 2597 VX The Hague, The Netherlands
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
1904
Ex Member


Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #9 - May 29th, 2007 at 4:11pm
Print Post  
Quote:
UPDATE: Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to prosecutor Kevin McMurray, the polygraph "evidence" (portions of which are demonstrably untrue) "helped a lot." See Reply #4 below.

It appears that Steven D. Duncan, a polygraph examiner with the Georgia State Patrol, past president of the Georgia Polygraph Association, and member of the American Polygraph Association's Board of Directors, did some "testilying" in a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday, 2 May 2007. According to a Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald report by Elizabeth Richardson, in response to a defense argument that the defendant may have truthfully answered a control question regarding falsification of documents, "Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar." (emphasis added)

Who in the polygraph community actually believes this to be true? Who among you can cite any peer-reviewed research that would support Duncan's claim?

On the contrary, it is widely recognized -- even by polygraph examiners -- that Control Question Test polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful and that false positives are more likely than false negatives. Fear of the consequences of not being believed may cause truthful persons to react strongly to the relevant questions, and, perversely, the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.

If Elizabeth Richardson's reporting is accurate, I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve Duncan lied on the stand.

Here is the relevant portion of the Times Herald article (a PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purposes):

Quote:
Polygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com

New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.

Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.

"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."

Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.

The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.

On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.

Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.

Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."

Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.

Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.

In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.

Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.

Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."



Is this the same Steve Duncan whom was/is associated with American International p/g school?
An associate that attended one AI p/g satellite schools had SD as an Instructor. Reportedly, Duncan
used to hand out answer sheets with each Friday 'test' and tell the class not to achieve 100% so as
not to arouse suspicions.

Yip. sounds like the same Steve.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
sbirkbeck
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: May 30th, 2007
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #10 - May 30th, 2007 at 3:40am
Print Post  
It might be interesting to note that Benjamin Birkbeck took a polygraph (when he was not sick) with a former FBI agent Cliff Cormany (not sure ot the spelling) and passed with flying colors. He was given the test 3 seperate times and passed each time. I would also like to mention that when watching the video of the test administered by Duncan Birkbeck started caughing in the middle of the test and the test was not stopped or started over. Birkbeck also made
Duncan aware of his concerns about being sick and taking medications and Duncan went ahead with the test and did not offer him an opportnity to take the test at another time.
Duncan met behind closed doors with ADA McMurry before administering the test. I wonder what that was for.
It is ashame that this young woman has made accusations against 7 different people now (one other that rape charges are still pending against) and that the Judge would not allow that evidence into the trial, nor the polygraph Birkbeck passed, nor medical or school records, or anything else that could have helped vendicate an innocent man.
Anyone who might could help us in this matter please reply.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
1904
Ex Member


Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #11 - May 30th, 2007 at 8:54pm
Print Post  
Quote:
All the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did.  Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor.  In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved?  This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?



What about the people whose lives, careers, future hopes and realtionships that have been trashed because of the p/g and cvsa...?

Does that sit okay with you? (If we catch 1 then its okay to screw up the other 9 ) Is that your credo?

Yip - you are a typical, narrow minded p/g examiner. Traffic Cop mentality.

Bless your soul. Hell has a stadium full of people like you, waiting for you.

Dont forget to take your p/g downstairs...............................

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dhouse
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Sep 19th, 2010
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #12 - Sep 27th, 2010 at 4:28pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Quote:
UPDATE: Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to prosecutor Kevin McMurray, the polygraph "evidence" (portions of which are demonstrably untrue) "helped a lot." See Reply #4 below.

It appears that Steven D. Duncan, a polygraph examiner with the Georgia State Patrol, past president of the Georgia Polygraph Association, and member of the American Polygraph Association's Board of Directors, did some "testilying" in a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday, 2 May 2007. According to a Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald report by Elizabeth Richardson, in response to a defense argument that the defendant may have truthfully answered a control question regarding falsification of documents, "Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar." (emphasis added)

Who in the polygraph community actually believes this to be true? Who among you can cite any peer-reviewed research that would support Duncan's claim?

On the contrary, it is widely recognized -- even by polygraph examiners -- that Control Question Test polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful and that false positives are more likely than false negatives. Fear of the consequences of not being believed may cause truthful persons to react strongly to the relevant questions, and, perversely, the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.

If Elizabeth Richardson's reporting is accurate, I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve Duncan lied on the stand.

Here is the relevant portion of the Times Herald article (a PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purposes):

Quote:
Polygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com

New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.

Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.

"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."

Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.

The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.

On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.

Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.

Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."

Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.

Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.
In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.

Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.

Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."



Is this the same Steve Duncan whom was/is associated with American International p/g school?
An associate that attended one AI p/g satellite schools had SD as an Instructor. Reportedly, Duncan
used to hand out answer sheets with each Friday 'test' and tell the class not to achieve 100% so as
not to arouse suspicions.

Yip. sounds like the same Steve.



In Birkbeck's "test", which question(s) would be considered control questions?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dhouse
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Sep 19th, 2010
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #13 - Sep 27th, 2010 at 6:19pm
Print Post  
Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.


Which of the questions on Birkbeck's "test" would have been considered control?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bryan
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: Jan 30th, 2012
Re: American Polygraph Association Board Member Steve Duncan a "Testiliar?"
Reply #14 - Jan 30th, 2012 at 2:14pm
Print Post  
I'll be brief. Steve Duncan gave me a polygraph. I told the truth. He said I failed the test. I think the polygraph is used to intimidate and coerce. I call BULLSHIT on the whole damn thing and Steve Duncan.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo