Mr. Cullen,   It is my understanding that the vast majority of police polygraphs are only conducted after an examinee has been given the Miranda Warning. It is also my understanding that most Law Enforcement Agencies even advise an applicant of their Miranda Rights prior to a pre-employment test. 
Wouldn't it be the subject's choice about whether or not to proceed without counsel?

It never ceases to amaze me that prisons are full of criminals that are too stupid to shut up after they are told that talking may not be in their best interest. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 10:56am:


POLICE POLYGRAPHERS DILUTE THE SKILLS OF POLICING AND POLICEMEN. THROW OUT THE POLYGRAPH AND BRING BACK PROPER
POLICING SKILLS BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE. POLYGRAPH RESULTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SUPPOSITION. 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 2:26pm:


" Yes. "

A good exercise in deflection SP, but unsuccessful nevertheless.

If you took anything personally, then what else is there to say other than, " If the shoe fits, wear it."


Your attempt to glorify polygraphy is quite shallow. Polygraphy is
a refuge for the talentless. A weapon for the misguided and weak-minded. 

BTW, I have read many of your posts. They are typical of pg examiners who are frustrated mystery writers. You do not have the same 'artistic licence' at the mutual masturbation camp (PP) and since 
the anti crowd are barred from venting there, you come here and attempt to stamp your authority and intimidate. 

Epic Fail dude.

PG = BS....... Now how's that for a one liner  ?

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 10:56am:



WRONG again Sanciii My Police polygraph was NOT preceded by a Miranda Waring and I was specifically told that I was not in need of an attorney.
Now I understand that an ignorant poly graph "victim" like me can't hold a conversation with the likes of you. But if polygraph WAS admissible as evidence in court I WOULD BE IN JAIL since I failed mine. 
You can keep talking but the TRUTH does prevail.
Someone like you who perpetuates a lie ( ironically about lying) is in fact a charlatan, money hungry lier, one all or a combination of them all. So your see Sanciii the titles may infact fit.
And, my posts are based on fact. It happened to me and that is why I am on this site. To help other that have been victimized by your silly box. 
WHY ARE YOU HERE SANCIII if your "science" is so accurate?
Seems to me that you'd have better things to do with all your alleged education than be on here defending a "proven science".

Notguilty1  You seem to need to indulge the misconception that your personal experience translates to some sort of indictment of polygraph in general, It doesn't.  It is just your personal experience. I didn't say all, I said "Vast Majority" and your personal experience, whether it is the truth or you have just made up your story in order to lend some sort of credence to your position on this subject, does not alter the accuracy of my statement.  

If you have some support for the contention that the vast majority of police polygraph tests ARE NOT given after a subject is advised of his Miranda rights then you have material for a debate. 

As to the reason I am here. 
The administrator of this site claims to be “pro-truth” even after he co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to tell lies, deliberately conceal information and even provides advice on how to lie , while at the same time his disciples call all polygraph examiners liars without any substantial proof. I find the moral inconsistency of these positions interesting fodder for debate. I found a lie behind “the lie behind the lie detector” and since I am an invitee on this board, I choose to discuss it HERE. I’m not here to defeat you, I just enjoy the debate. You don’t have to be defeated, you’re inconsequential. 

Why are you here? This site has been online for 8 years and has not accomplished any of it stated goals. The Anti-polygraph petition that claims 1325 signatures is full of Joke Names, Duplications, and Line Voided entries. At one time the petition contained links to porn sites.  The claim that there are 1325 legitimate signatures on the petition I guess falls under the heading of “If the administrator thinks a lie is justified, it’s OK”. I surmise that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names,Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period. This makes you a member of a ery tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully defeat the 98% accuracy rate claim that some polygraphers have made regarding polygraph. 

Regarding what I do for a living, you can only guess and you are probably wrong. When I first began posting on this board I chose not to reveal my occupation because too many people tend to pigeonhole someone based on where they work. 

Sancho Panza

T.M. Cullen wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:


TC as we have seen before with as you mentioned Sackett who is down the road, an now Sancii . These people WILL not relent. They will continue yo tout the validity of their silly box.
They come here ( as if they had nothing better to do with their time) to "debate" with an inconsequential  number of  critics of polygraph. What their real goal is damage control and as you and others have rightly put it time and time again they need to keep the lie they perpetuate alive and have the public go on believing in their silly box this is why Sackett, Sancho and their ilk come here and "debate".
Sancho has come on here making broad sweeping statements like "police do not polygraph without a Miranda warning" which he has no clue if it's true. But when I tell him thats BS then I may be making that up.
He seems to be conceding on the stated accuracy rate ( another tool to make people believe that the silly box actually does work) Duhhh you think since there are NO scientific studies that prove the accuracy rate. But of course I was told that it was 98% but I'm sure that according to professor Sancii I probably made that up too.
Thanks for your post TC
ANd yours too Sancii we need you to go forward and we will 

SanchoPanza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 1:29am:


well Sancii
The fact that you don't believe that I am not guilty doesn't cause me to lose any sleep or appetite.
You should know all about fishing with no bait, hook or line since you are trying to defend some crystal ball method of reading minds.
The only time I was ever standing by the shore looking like an idiot is when I fell for the BS that the police polygrapher was trying to hand me. I can assure you that I will not do that again.
You seem to have an intellectual issue with many on this site including the founder himself. Yet, you seemingly have a need to indulge our feeble minds under our bad comb-overs.
As for my irritation with polygraph and idiots like you. You'll forgive me if I get highly irritated when I submit to a "test" administered by the police ( a agency I once had respect for) be told I am a lier ( or showing some deception) being informed that the test is 98% accurate   (LIE) and then discover that the machine is a bunch of non-sense.
Luckily we live in a country where charlatans cannot convict you with silly boxes or I'd be in Jail.
So save your lies for those who have not been educated on your shell game. I and others here will continue to educate and enlighten people.

polytek wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 2:49pm:



Hey Poly,
Sancii here displays the pompous ass attitude that it takes to be a crystal ball reader, his attitude is typical of people in his business ( why not when they hold such power. 
He needs desperately to show that we may be ignorant, illiterate, disgruntled  people to bolster his argument that polygraphs do anything at all in the arena of deception detection (which it doesn't) his whole livelihood depends on it.
It's really funny still that he has time to waste on, what he describes as few misguided, unintelligent and disgruntled people on this site. When, there is ample room for him to do what he does on the other site where we would not enjoy the same freedom as he does here. We'd be banned and our posts deleted. 
Hey Sancii there is a country in the middle east that is in need of a dictator, where proving something means nothing and where if you disagree with the dictator your labeled and shot down (or at) maybe you should apply for the position.