Quote:


Drew Richardson was an FBI chemical specialist who went to DODPI, and according to classmates, Barely graduated and didn't recieve his certification. Drew was defaulted to the poly lab at DODPI where he was reputted to be very disagreeable and perhaps unhappy with the FBI's demotion/ displacement. After emerging from DODPI, he testified before congress and the NAS that polygraph was not a valid tool for detecting deception---despite going on record of saying that polygraph GKT was a valid test. Since his testimony, he has challenged the polygraph community to detect his countermeasures in a mock crime lab setting. The challenge is poorly conceived via psychological construct, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone challenges Drew to a likewise empty countermeasure challenge involving his fMRI booby-tube. I would like to know how being a simple physiologist while analysizing neurological and neuro-linguistic activity is connected. I do however wish him luck and if he pioneers his field, I will praise his new work, but I will always lampoon his "reluctant activism," evident poor performance at DODPI,  and subsequent fanboy indulgences. I submit that Drew's expertise in polygraph mirrors G W Bush's expertise in Ranching.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 3:20pm:

I have already expressed the idea contained in the highlighted text above.  You are exhibiting classic troll behavior.


The text of Miranda v. Arizona uses the terms "questioning" and "interrogation" synonymously.

Quote:


In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court defined "interrogation" as as "express questioning or its functional equivalent."  The court went on to write that the functional equivalent of interrogation consists of "words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation.  If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights.  You could also ignore the Edwards Rule and polygraph a suspect in custody after he states he wants to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions.  In reality, you can do neither.  

Sarge,

(if you are a sarge, 'cause most sergeants don't whine about their tough experiences at every opportunity) 

and D-Head (if you know anything about science and empirical matters)

This thread is not about whether the polygraph is an interrogation. By your broad definitions a job interview is an interrogation.

The thread is about the fact that Drew Richardson and the users of this board have grossly exaggerated his credentials and "expertise" as a polygraph examiner. It seems he's hardly qualified at all.

And now, there is speculation about whether he even exists.

Drewie = Lt. Kije ???????

 

Sarge,

Its just that your so eminently attackable...

Miranda is a matter of SOP.

That does not itself define anything in the epistemological sense.

The way you write, its sounds like you'd disagree that police should even question people. 

This is like Plato allegory of the cave - its a bunch of people sitting around blowing smoke up each others a%^, about something ya'll seem to feel rather desperate about.

Remember this thread is about Drewie's fabricated expertise regarding the polygraph.

Sarge,

I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.

Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.

Take care,

MM

Paradiddle wrote the following:
Quote:


It seems to me that an easy way to prove the polygraph is an interrogation is that Miranda is required before you can polygraph any suspect in custody.  My questioning in this regard was reasonable and on point.

Whether you wish to call it interviewing, questioning, or interrogation, if you have a suspect in custody and are going to ask questions or do anything likely to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda is required.  That includes the polygraph.  It logically follows that the polygraph falls under the category of interrogation.