There should be no reason why a polygraph examiner would typically stop between question sets and "interrogate" the examinee. In fact, doing so before the data collection phase of the exam is finished would likely have the effect of sensitizing the examinee to the relevant questions, which any polygraph examiner worth his salt would know to avoid doing. The fact that you claim this occurred during every polygraph you have taken suggests a defect in the polygrapher's training or his own methods. There should be no interrogation during the data collection phase of a polygraph. Such practice reflects poorly on the individual examiner, not on the polygraph itself. I'm curious. Was your polygrapher at the federal or state level?

While Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all. The other methods of evidence collecting DO often lead to interrogation of a subject because they point an investigator in the right direction and encourage the investigator that he/she is on the right track. Likewise, the polygraph, if you accept it as having a scientific basis, which many of you on this forum don't but which almost all polygraphers do, then it also points the investigator in the right direction. Feeling that he/she now has evidence against a subject, the polygrapher will, and should, go into interrogation mode.

Perhaps if you're talking about independent polygraphers, Mr. Cullen.  But not when you're talking about polygraphers who are part of a police department or federal agency, where they are often themselves investigators for their departments or agencies.

Now, before you talk about conflicts of interest, let me continue. One thing that the "Anti-" crowd on this forum never talks about--and perhaps doesn't realize--is that most good polygraphers go into every exam with an impartial viewpoint.  You have to not care one way or the other whether your examinee, even an accused defendant, passes or fails the exam. A good polygrapher will tell the investigators, the attorneys, and the examinee that the polygrapher is not there to pre-judge the examinee. In fact, prior to all such exams I've conducted, I've always told everyone, including the examinee, that I don't care one way or the other how the exam turns out. It is not the polygrapher's job--prior to the end of the data collection phase of the exam--to pass judgment or to even interrogate the examinee.

Now, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved.  Just as the CSI investigators who work for departments or agencies, who conduct those other types of evidence collection are an extension of the investigative process, so are polygraphers, but only after an examinee has broken his/her promise to be truthful during the exam.

Whoops, hit save by accident

Yes, he did make that claim. He said that polygraphers should have no role in interrogating those they test. Why do you keep asking the same question? I thought I was clear, but apparently not clear enough.

How do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely.  And no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.

Sorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?

We could go round and round on this, Mr. Cullen. I could point out studies that show what I believe, and you could point out studies that show what you believe. None of the studies would be conclusive, and there are definite problems with trying to correlate lab studies with real-life. I've argued studies before, and it's like two people from different religions trying to convince each other that theirs is right.

But I ask potential polygraph examinees this question: Who do you think is more credible--someone who can point out questionable studies but who has absolutely no experience in conducting polygraph exams, or someone who can also point out questionable studies, but who has the experience of having conducted a very large number of polygraphs?

And about "Sancho." I asked why Ed Earl was banned. I've never read anything posted by "Sancho." Are they one and the same? One thing's for sure, though: Mr. Earl (if indeed that's his real name) had you running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Very impressive, banned or not.

Quote:


You are quite correct, a polygraph is based entirely on pseudo science – in short, it’s nothing but a fraud. It’s a massive, evil fraud which is perpetrated by thugs and charlatans who don’t give a damn how many people they hurt as long as they can continue to unjustly enrich themselves. But there may be a time coming when they will be held accountable. I’ve got the beginnings of an idea about a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied employment or falsely accused of deception based on this pseudo-scientific test. Check this out and let me know if there’s anything you can help me with by way of suggestion. Anyone is welcome to chime in. https://polygraph.com/sue-the-bastards.html