Quote:


I see...  You know but you won't say...

WIth regards to the tactics some police officers use when dealing with suspected drug couriers, that has nothing to do with the current topic under discussion.  I can understand why you would seek to go off on a tangent and make the conversation about me, but I decline to do so.

For a polygraph supporter it must be difficult to come up with a logical reason or reasons to refute the idea that, barring any corroborative phsical evidence, the only one who knows if each polygraph result is accurate or not is the examinee, not the examiner.  Yet examiners are the ones who claim to be the authority on the results of the tests and the accuracy of the process.  It seems backwards to me, and is simply not logical on its face.

Sergeant, I not only told you where to find the numbers you asked for, I provided you numbers from the NAS study and the FBI and then explained them for you.  If you are going to learn, you need to figure out how to look things uo.

Polygraphers have been repeatedly accused of lying and psychological manipulation on this board. I think a discussion about a nationwide program that teaches 100 or 1000 times more police officers how to lie and psychologically manipulate people into surrendering their rights not only germain to the topic. It also provides perspective. It isn't going off on a tangient at all. I'm sorry if it hits too close to home for you to provide a comfortable response, but the question was not about you. If you look at the questions I first asked about interdiction it was about your experience and knowledge of the program.

When a police officer suspects someone of drunk driving the driver is the only person who knows if they have been drinking too much or using drugs, but the officer still puts them through a screening test without even informing them that they have the right to refuse. He  then uses a subjective "scoring system" to render an opinion as to whether or not the subject is under the influence. Without any further information the officer can handcuff them, tow their car and haul them off to jail. If a blood test is used, the suject is booked and in order to obtain release the subject has to post bond. weeks or months later if it turns out the subject was stone cold sober, He doesn't get an apology, he doesn't get back the money he paid his bondsman, and he doesn't get back the money he paid the towing company all because of a subjective opinion rendered as a result of an error ridden screening test. The only way he can get anything back is to file an expensive law suit that costs him more money and the same error ridden screening test is used to defend the officer from accusations of false arrest.

Everyone knows that there is no single or group of observable physical characteristics that only be attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication. Are there? Likewise there are no observable characteristics of a driver or vehicle moving down the highway that only be attributed to drug trafficking. An inderdiction officer screens the driver and vehicle and renders an opinion based on his observations. An applicant who fails a polygraph fills out another application and goes to work elsewhere. Isn't that what you did?

The only thing preventing you from seeing the similarities that exist in screenig drunk drivers, drug traffickers and liars is a set of blinders.

In any case the question that changed this line of discussion from a clear and convincing example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory, http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html  (you should read this if you haven't. If it wasn't for polygraph this guy might have gone to work for your agency.) was this one: Quote:

George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you guys are using the back end of this forum to plan response strategies. Unless of course some or all of you are just some of George's "alternate personas"

Sergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.

To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?

Quote:


Oh really? 

Recent post from applicant today:

Quote:


Here's another posted just today:

Quote:



"Deception indicated" is used routinely and to describe specific answers to specific questions.  The above is an example.

You failure to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that polygraphers routinely claim the polygraph machine capable of "detecting deception" hurts your credibility.  But by all means, keep it up. 

TC

Lethe,

Ed "E.B." Van Arsdale, Ponca City, OK. (aka Ed Earl, Sancho Panza, Anonymous too, Phillip Queeg) was banned again.  So you are posting to a ghost.

Give him a call and schedule a polygraph!  Talk over old times.  Just do not squeeze your (or his) cheeks!

TC

Ed provides some pretty good advice to attorney client prospects trying to decide on whether or not to have THEIR clients voluntarily submit to a police polygraph:

1.  If the police polygraph examiner becomes "aggressive or accusatory",  IMEDIATELY TERMINATE the polygraph.

2.  Do NOT submit to a POST TEST INTERROGATION.

This speaks volumes coming from a retired police polygrapher/detective.

Of course it only applies to police polygraphs not employment polygraphs,

TC

P.S.  He denied vehemently while posting here under his many aliases that the polygraph was an INTERROGATION.

He (Mr. Van Arsdale Queeg Panza) was banned months ago when posting as Sancho Panza.  I forget why. So he had already been banned before coming back under new aliases.  

Quote:


Sounds reasonable to me.  So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?

Polygraphers would have you  believe that unless there is a "post test interrogation", the polygraph is not an interrogation.  However.....

During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated.  

Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the  chart was indicating I was being deceptive.  "Why is that Tom?  Why would you be having trouble with that question?  Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts?  Is there anything you have to tell me?!"

It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators.  Duh?

This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory.  Which they usually do?  

Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?

Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game.  To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE!

TC