Sergeant, Who was the poster here today who first claimed to have the definitive answer to a question he wasn’t asked and then in his very next post admits he is unqualified to provide a definitive answer?
Hint: {identify the author of the following quotes}
Quote:I can save him the trouble. Such a thing occurs because the polygraph does not detect truth or deception. If it did I would passed all four polygraphs instead of failing the first three
Quote:I'm sure there are many others more qualified than I to critique the polygraph
Let me put your polygraph qualifications in a different context. You are highly trained, and very experienced in traffic collision reconstruction are you not?
Perhaps you attended the Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Investigation I - 10 days
Accident Investigation II -20 days
Or perhaps you received your basic accident investigation training from the Connecticut State Police. I’m not familiar with their specific training, but I would imagine it is at least the best in the state and easily more than enough to prepare you for Northwestern University Center for Public Safety Courses
Accident Reconstruction I - 5 days
Accident Reconstruction II -10 days
Between your basic instruction and reconstruction training I’m betting you had several years on the road working wrecks and gaining experience. You must have displayed a certain aptitude for collision investigation and reconstruction because I’m betting that everybody in your agency doesn’t get to attend reconstruction training.
If you did all your training at Northwestern, you could start calling yourself an accident reconstruction specialist and some might refer to you as the new department expert after 9 weeks training. (Side note: most basic polygraph schools are running 10-11 weeks now) Of course your training doesn’t stop there, you surely attend continuing education course specific to accident reconstruction every year i.e. pedestrian accidents, black box analysis, vehicle/train, etc to supplement your knowledge and improve your skills.
So here you are an authority on accident reconstruction with the credentials to back it up and you are discussing a fatality collision and stating that in your expert opinion the equations and observations used to determine vehicle velocity before and at the point of impact are an accurate means of determining speed and that in the accident under discussion the defendant was traveling at approximately 30 mph over the speed limit at point of impact when he T-boned a van full of kids on their way home from day care.
In rebuttal, a guy stands up to dispute your findings and he makes the following statement. “I have never been to accident investigation training, but I read a book about it once. I have personally been involved in four fatality collisions. In 3 of those collisions the accident reconstruction expert claimed that I was speeding but I wasn’t. In the 4th collision the expert said I wasn’t speeding and he was right. Still being right once and wrong three times proves that all of this accident reconstruction stuff is voodoo. If it was any good it would have proved that I wasn’t speeding every time I said I wasn’t speeding because I WASN”T SPEEDING. Besides, this guy who is supposed to be an expert (referring to you) said that the defendant was traveling approximately 30 mph over the speed limit. If his science was valid he would be able to tell the difference between 29, 30, and 31 mph. I have heard of cases where the speed estimates have been off by more than 20 mph. This proves his tests are not accurate. Besides I heard those accident reconstruction guys cannot specifically determine a driver’s Perception Reaction Time in a particular collision and this introduces a variable that prevents anyone from knowing exactly how fast he was going. Oh, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night
Sergeant, Based on the above scenario, the question before you is;
do you really believe that anyone with genuine knowledge or training in accident investigation is going to accept this guy as a credible authority on collisions? Sancho Panza