AntiPolygraph.org Message Board - Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

AntiPolygraph.org

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Policy › Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies)

Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? (Read 10757 times)

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #120 - Oct 14^th, 2007 at 8:03am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 13^th, 2007 at 1:38pm: Sergeant, DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position. Regards, MM So you are saying that if you have a suspect in custody, and you want to give them a polygraph exam, you are not required to advise of their Miranda rights first? Obviously I'm not talking about screening applicants or questioning a suspect who drives his own car to the PD, is not in custody, and leaves freely after the test. If you have a suspect who is not free to leave, and he agrees to submit to a polygraph, you don't believe he would require Miranda first? I'm not claiming the polygrah examiner is the one required to Mirandize the suspect, but he or she definitely needs to be advised of their rights. Since interrogation is defined in the case law not only as direct questioning, but also as any words or deeds on the part of the police officer that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, I find it impossible to believe that Miranda is not required prior to polygraphing a suspect in custody.

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

1984istillhere New User Offline Posts: 1 Joined: Oct 14^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #121 - Oct 14^th, 2007 at 3:02pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Miranda rights or not, the suspect held in custody should be made aware of the inaccuracies of any testing; and for any information that would be used against the suspect, legal representation should be present, otherwise the information volunteered on a test should not be admissible in a court of law. Most suspects don't understand that by submitting to a polygraphic examination, the are subjecting themselves to to he unscrupulous motives of the examiner as well as the investigator. Certainly you can't make an argument that a public examiner, working for a law enforcement bureau is not trying to make a case against the "suspect". Rather, he is trying to make the "suspect" look guilty, and will most likely violate the "suspect's rights and betray their confidence to WIN!


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #122 - Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. That being said, interrogation has become a loaded word. Thanks to the dildos who have tortured enemy combatants and then were called "interrogators", the word means much more than to infer guilt by questioning. The word "interrogation" has now become synonomous with "Torture"---thanks by and large to torturers naming themselves interrogators because I suppose they didn't want their true profession be known by virtue of them being called "Torturers"---a label that most mom's wouldn't brag at the grocery store to friends about their son being known as i.e. "my son Tony---I'm so proud---did you know he was promoted as head of torture---they say he is very creative". So, in the interest of discussion, can we all agree here that Torture should not be confused with interrogation----which can itself be torturously boring, but not actual torture. It is worth noting that you poly fanboys who read but not do polygraph per se---already know that before and during the test the tone is calm and not accusational---unless of course the examinee tanks the test. At that point very probing questions could follow, and perhaps even ego-shattering accusations of examinee bald-faced lying will ensue. Now that is an interrogation----gee I might know, since I am a professional interrogater as well as a polygraph examiner----both seperate fields of study and art/science. When my wife asks me "systematically" what I bought at the sporting goods store, she is not interrogating me. If on the other hand she finds a receipt conspicuously hidden totalling $300 for a sonor fish finder---which I initially denied ever having spent over $100----then she will begin to accuse me and match her accusations with probing questions---at which point I am being interrogated by one of the best.
	« Last Edit: Oct 14^th, 2007 at 10:04pm by Paradiddle »
	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #123 - Oct 14^th, 2007 at 10:35pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience... Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled... Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay... If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... So I'm going have to go with the evidence that Dr. Richardson is qualified to talk about the polygraph and its validity until I am presented with more compelling evidence than a deposition of someone stating his views... Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm: That being said, interrogation has become a loaded word. Thanks to the dildos who have tortured enemy combatants and then were called "interrogators", the word means much more than to infer guilt by questioning. The word "interrogation" has now become synonomous with "Torture"---thanks by and large to torturers naming themselves interrogators because I suppose they didn't want their true profession be known by virtue of them being called "Torturers"---a label that most mom's wouldn't brag at the grocery store to friends about their son being known as i.e. "my son Tony---I'm so proud---did you know he was promoted as head of torture---they say he is very creative". So, in the interest of discussion, can we all agree here that Torture should not be confused with interrogation----which can itself be torturously boring, but not actual torture. It is worth noting that you poly fanboys who read but not do polygraph per se, you already know that before and during the test the tone is calm and not accusational---unless of course the examinee tanks the test. At that point very probing questions could follow, and perhaps even ego-shattering accusations of examinee bald-faced lying will ensue. Now that is an interrogation----gee I might know, since I am a professional interrogater as well as a polygraph examiner----both seperate fields of study and art/science. When my wife asks me "systematically" what I bought at the sporting goods store, she is not interrogating me. If on the other hand she finds a receipt conspicuously hidden totalling $300 for a sonor fish finder---which I initially denied ever having spent over $100----then she will begin to accuse me and match her accusations with probing questions---at which point I am being interrogated by one of the best. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...


	IP Logged

Wonder_Woman Senior User Offline The magic lasso of truth Posts: 69 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #124 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert. Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol [i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’ Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over???? Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting? On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’. This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’ YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load... Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas. So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible. Give me a fkn break.


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #125 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:42am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I wrote; Quote: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. D-Head wrote; That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience... Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled... Yes, you do have a man-crush on him as evidenced by your wholehearted embrace of a scientist who's doctorate you have not read, and whose work you are not aware of other than 2 speeches and a few posts. What exactly do you know of this fella D-Head? Prolly nada. Yet, you defend him simply because he called the polygraph CQT test "pseudoscience"----but he calls the GKT test a "strong and scientifically worthwhile test"---despite the fact that he cannot scientifically explain the precise mechanisms involved with the GKT test---"it just works." Gee, that's really scientific. Maybe he likes one test but not the other--not due to construct validity, but because one of the tests is more complicated to administer.....oh wait....he had no apparent psychological grasp on the CQT test. Oh but hey, he is a physiologist. Trust me D-Brain, I have met several physiologists that couldn't explain the first damn thing about behavioral mechanisms----fact is, they typically are so clueless, they can barely engage in human conversation. On self deception, no one has mastered such as you my little friend. The lights, the sparkle, and the fixtures may impress the simple onlookers, but you and I know that you have serious faux-logical issues and your engagement in bully-pseudo-epistemology is empty, fixated, and embarrassingly obvious cries for help. It's a test with some errors, but works well when used and understood correctly. Dr. Richardson didn't demonstrate that he really understood this peculier modality for detecting deception. I only hope he "grasps" fMRI and does his homework.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #126 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:48am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am: Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert. Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol [i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’ Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over???? Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting? On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’. This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’ YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load... Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas. So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible. Give me a fkn break. Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath... Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events... So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished... Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation... Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)... Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...


	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #127 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:03am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:42am: I wrote; Quote: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. D-Head wrote; That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience... Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled... Yes, you do have a man-crush on him as evidenced by your wholehearty embrace of a scientist who's doctorate you have not read, and whose work you are not aware of other than 2 speeches and a few posts. What exactly do you know of this fella D-Head? Prolly nada. Yet, you defend him smply because he called the polygraph CQT test pseudoscience----but he calls the GKT test a strong and scietifically worthwhile test---despite the fact that he cannot scientifically explain the precise mechanisms involved with the test---"it just works." Gee, that's really scientific. Maybe he likes one test but not the other--not due to construct validity, but because one of the tests is more complicated to administer.....oh wait....he had no apparent psychological grasp on the CQT test. Oh but hey, he is a physiologist. Trust me D-Brain, I have met several physiologists that couldn't explain the first damn thing about behavioral mechanisms----fact is, they typically are so clueless, they can barely engage in human conversation. On self deception, no one has mastered such as you my little friend. The lights, the sparkle, and the fixtures may impress the simple onlookers, but you and I know that you have serious faux-logical issues and your engagement in bully-pseudo-epistemology is empty, fixated, and emarrassingly obvious cries for help. It's a test with some errors, but works well when used and understood correctly. Dr. Richardson didn't demonstrate that he really understood this peculier modality for detecting deception. I only hope he "grasps" fMRI and does his homework. Nice ad hom! Attacked my character, intelligence, and personality with lightning precision. Well done! Do guys have anything else going for you besides character assassination and logical fallacies? Since you can't seem to address any of my questions, it leads me to believe that you have a pathological need to attack those that question your profession and its methods. If you can't beat them with science and evidence, beat them with innuendo, ad hom, and name-calling... You call Dr. Richardson names and accuse him of all sorts of intellectual impropriety, yet you provide no evidence that any of his testimony or research is wrong or false other than an affidavit that states someone's opinion... The good thing is that most rational people can see right through your methods. I hate to break it to you but viciousness and vindictiveness get you nowhere... Seriously, you got anything other than name-calling? I'd really like to engage in true debate. I'm holding out hope... Lastly, how do you know what I've read or what I haven't read? Are you mind-reading now? I think it's just as scientific as CQT but I hear it's a lot more lucrative...


	IP Logged

Wonder_Woman Senior User Offline The magic lasso of truth Posts: 69 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #128 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:05am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	DHead, you can twist it anyway you want to make yourself feel better. But deep down it that little soul of yours, you know there is a difference. Now back to the topic RE:there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government...and your man crush....copy cat


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #129 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:09am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:48am: Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am: Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert. Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol [i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’ Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over???? Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting? On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’. This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’ YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load... Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas. So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible. Give me a fkn break. Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath... Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events... So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished... Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation... Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)... Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise... Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information. Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly."

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #130 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:54am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:05am: DHead, you can twist it anyway you want to make yourself feel better. But deep down it that little soul of yours, you know there is a difference. Now back to the topic RE:there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government...and your man crush....copy cat And again, so what if there is a official sworn declaration that Dr. Richardson was the single worst examiner he's ever seen. How does this impeach his credibility on anything he's testified to? I know it really excites you polygraph people that you think you've found a "smoking gun" but all it really looks like is character assassination...


	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #131 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:59am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:09am: digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:48am: Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am: Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert. Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol [i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’ Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over???? Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting? On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’. This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’ YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load... Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas. So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible. Give me a fkn break. Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath... Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events... So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished... Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation... Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)... Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise... Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information. Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly." You know that repeating the same false assertions over and over again does not make them any less false... You also should take Criminal Procedure 101 over so that you can see that affidavits are a type of hearsay evidence, especially those that pertain to character. A sworn affidavit is one that happens in front of someone (e.g., notary, judge, magistrate) authorized to say that what is contained in the affidavit is what the person presented, it does not speak to the truthfulness of what that person said. Additionally, it is up to the judge to decide whether to let them in or not... And nice job, trying to reflect my criticisms of you guys back on me...


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #132 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 2:29am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:59am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 1:09am: digithead wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:48am: Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 12:28am: Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert. Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let’s claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.….and we really don’t believe you have that ‘man crush’…lol [i]If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it... On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively... He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he ‘was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government’ Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company ‘brain fingerprinting’ can take over???? Don’t get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting? On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can’t accept it - yep it sounds to me ‘like a man crush’. This site has pointed out ‘fraud Ph.D’s.’ YEAH!..you know what - we don’t like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT. So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load... Polygraph has three major portions….D….listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas. So, let’s all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information ‘volunteered’ on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect…that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child….it shouldn’t be admissible. Give me a fkn break. Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath... Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events... So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished... Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation... Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)... Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise... Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information. Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly." You know that repeating the same false assertions over and over again does not make them any less false... You also should take Criminal Procedure 101 over so that you can see that affidavits are a type of hearsay evidence, especially those that pertain to character. A sworn affidavit is one that happens in front of someone (e.g., notary, judge, magistrate) authorized to say that what is contained in the affidavit is what the person presented, it does not speak to the truthfulness of what that person said. Additionally, it is up to the judge to decide whether to let them in or not... And nice job, trying to reflect my criticisms of you guys back on me... You are right D-Head, for me to repeat that a sworn heresay declaration which was submitted to a triar of fact (Judge)contained the allegations that this web site's very own antipolygraph's sexiest man of the year (5 years running) Drew Richardson was the worst polygraph student ever witnessed by an auditing senior examiner, and furthermore the declaration states that Drew Richardson had the single worst lacking of grasp on the polygraph methodology and practical applications seen in a career of service with the United States Federal Governement----probably isn't going to change world hunger, but it is the right thing to do. I was wrong D-Head, you should go to work for Big Oil and devalue the word "Pollute" to mean simply "dirt." Soon we will all be saying "my kitchen floor has pollution" when we spill our soda. Your comment of "nice job" infers that to teach you a lesson in D-Head debate is a job rather than a pleasurable pastime. Good night D-Head, as I have to go get the pollution out of my hair in the shower before bed time. niters

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner? Reply #133 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 3:11am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I am going to assume from the frantic re-direction attempts by Paradiddle that no one is going to continue to falsely claim that a suspect in custody need not be Mirandized prior to being polygraphed. As I already wrote, since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that certainly indicates that a polygraph exam is an interrogation. If you have a suspect in custody, and you advise him of his rights, and he invokes his right to counsel, does the Edwards Rule apply with regards to a polygraph exam? Or are you going to try to claim that a suspect in custody who has asked for a lawyer can be polygraphed anyway since it is not an interrogation?

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

George W. Maschke Global Moderator Offline Make-believe science yields make-believe security. Posts: 6223 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2000	Dr. Richardson Has Not Misprepresented His Credentials Reply #134 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 4:52am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 14^th, 2007 at 7:52pm: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures. Actually, Mark Johnson in his statement did not characterize Dr. Richardson as "the single worst polygraph student" he had "ever seen," nor did he state that Dr. Richardson "lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures." Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson's performance is limited to the following two paragraphs of his statement: Quote: 6.I remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test. ... 8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts. Note that Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson appears to be based on his observation of only one polygraph examination. While Johnson characterizes Dr. Richardson's polygraph examination as "the worst polygraph examination [he had] ever witnessed," he offers no specific criticism of it, which makes any rebuttal problematic. As for Johnson's only specific claim -- that Dr. Richardson canceled "five to seven" polygraph examinations that he (Johnson) was to supervise -- Dr. Richardson promptly addressed it, stating that "(w)ith regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me." It is again worth noting that Mark Johnson's gross mischaracterization of statements made by former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah in such a serious national security matter as an espionage investigation calls his objectivity into question. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, Dr. Richardson fully responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely addressed your mockingly sarcastic follow-up questions. Despite your and your fellow polygraphers' ongoing histrionics, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials, nor (as alluded to by digithead) have you in any way impeached Dr. Richardson's credibility with regard to any matter on which he has testified.

	George W. Maschke I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time. Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.) E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com Wire: @ap_org Threema: A4PYDD5S Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
	WWW Twitter YouTube IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Change Text Color

resize_wb

resize_hb

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse additional features

Collapse/Expand additional features

Wink

Cheesy

Grin

Angry

Sad

Shocked

Cool

Huh

Roll Eyes

Tongue

Embarrassed

Lips Sealed

Undecided

Kiss

Cry

Attachments More Attachments

More Attachments

Less Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

X

Attachment 2:

X

Attachment 3:

X

Attachment 4:

X

Attachment 5:

X

Attachment 6:

X

Attachment 7:

X

Attachment 8:

X

Attachment 9:

X

Attachment 10:

X

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.

Return To:

Select where you would like to return to after posting.

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge