A slippery slope - Polygraph Place Bulletin Board

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link

Polygraph Place Bulletin Board

Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY

A slippery slope

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: A slippery slope
eprice2956 Member	posted 06-08-2010 08:36 AM I just thought some may find this interesting. http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=467390 IP: Logged
skipwebb Member	posted 06-08-2010 04:35 PM I, for one, find this troubling. Inconclusive or no opinion is just that. No opinion. When we, as polygraph examiners start providing opinions on no opinion charts, we are stepping backwards into the late 50s and early 60s when we did global analysis and had no numeric scoring. Providing an unsubstantiated opinion that a person would probably pass if given multiple tests that haven't happened yet is makes the examiner a fotune teller not a polygraph examiner. IP: Logged
Ted Todd Member	posted 06-08-2010 05:04 PM Did you see the video?? I don't know how anyone can give an accurate polygraph test on a analog instrument, while standing up and looking at a watch?? Anybody know these guys? Ted [This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 06-08-2010).] IP: Logged
sackett Moderator	posted 06-08-2010 05:13 PM could one of you "old guys" like Ted tell me what four channel analog he was using. Did it have a splitter for the movement sensor? I may try to get one of those before I bid for a TV show... Jim IP: Logged
eprice2956 Member	posted 06-08-2010 06:09 PM It also stated that someone "observed". There were several red flags. maybe it was just a case of bad reporting by the media. IP: Logged
Barry C Member	posted 06-08-2010 08:52 PM This is the reason Ray and others have been saying we need to know what a given score means, and the reason ESS has come about. Whereas we don't know enough about the scorer to determine any real numbers, a score should tell us something about the probability of such a score resulting from a truthful or deceptive subject. A +3 is indicative of truthfulness, but how much of a difference, probability wise, is a +4 or a +36 for that matter? Just because somebody set some arbitrary cut-off doesn't make it the one and only cut score anybody should apply. We need to get away from such rudimentary ways of thinking. We now have a scoring system (ESS) that will provide the info that is lacking in this story. There's not a whole lot I like about this story, but is does give us something to talk about and learn a lesson or two. IP: Logged
Ted Todd Member	posted 06-09-2010 11:38 AM Barry, Does this help? ! Ted Tuesday, Jun 8, 2010 12:30 ET Second alleged Nikki Haley beau takes polygraph By Alex Pareene AP/Patrick Collard South Carolina state Rep. Nikki HaleyBy the end of the day, Nikki Haley could be the Republican nominee for governor of South Carolina, running to replace the sex scandal-tarred Mark Sanford. But because this is South Carolina we're talking about, two men have come forward to say that they had extramarital affairs with Haley. The first one released phone call logs and text messages. The second has now taken a lie detector test. Larry Marchant, a local lobbyist and former strategist for Haley opponent (and dim-bulb bigot) Andre Bauer, says he had a one-night stand with Haley at a "school choice convention" in 2008. The local Fox affiliate applied the polygraph. The results: inconclusive: "I can tell you if I was going to bet my next paycheck as to whether or not he was telling the truth about the allegations he has made, I would bet that sooner or later he would pass that test successfully," says the second licensed examiner, Joseph Gallimore. Polygraph scores range from negative to positive based on whether a subject appears to be lying or telling the truth, said Davis. A score of +4 is required to "pass" a polygraph test. Marchant scored +3 on the question of whether he had sex with Nikki Haley during a trip to Salt Lake City, as he has publicly claimed. Yesterday -- again, because this is South Carolina -- Lt. Gov. Bauer himself released the results of the polygraph he took, which he said proves that he wasn't trying to push the affair story to damage Haley. (Marchant, suspiciously, "admitted" to the indiscretion the day he was fired from the Bauer campaign, less than a week before today's election.) Haley told the local media that all these allegations happened as soon as polls showed her with a lead over her rivals. She was with her husband, but he is not allowed to talk: A campaign worker literally stepped in-between Michael Haley and another reporter who started asking him questions, saying Michael Haley wouldn't do interviews even though he appeared like he was about to say something. Haley is ahead in all recent polls, but she still might have to endure a June 22 runoff if she can't crack 50 percent of the vote. As of yesterday, Public Policy Polling had Haley at 43 percent. [This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 06-09-2010).] IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place