- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 29, 2009, 02:14 PMQuote from: licgan on Sep 28, 2009, 09:15 PMYou are also misguided about the "right" for an attorney.The "right" for an attorney only exists after a Miranda warning is issued by the police.Miranda is only necessary when two conditions exist (and both must be present):
1.The suspect is in custody and not free to leave.
2.The police want to question this person about the
specific reason why they are in custody.
After the warning has been issued, it is a decision the person in custody if he/she chooses to invoke Miranda.
This is not very clear. A person's right to avoid self incriminating statements and their right to counsel exist whether that person is advised of Miranda or not. The advisement is not what triggers the rights; custody and interrogation trigger the necessity of the advisement.
Also, a person need not be advised of their rights before choosing not to speak with the police. In any consensual encouner a person may choose to say nothing at all to the police. In an investigative detention, a person may choose to do nothing but identify themselves, and may respond to all other questions by invoking their fifth and sixth amendment rights. In a a custodial interrogation, regardless of whether the police have given the Miranda warning, a person need not say anything at all in regards to the offense they are being charged with.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Sep 28, 2009, 09:49 PMSir,
My outlandish statements are only equaled by your original assumption and conclusion that all who post here are aiding and abetting criminals. You made a blanket statement that those who post here are aiding and abetting criminals. That statement sir is "laughable." You immediately came to a conclusion without fact.
I am intimately aware of what victims go through. The reasoning that a "polygraph" is necessary to "get to the truth" is laughable. The fact that anyone is being asked to submit to a polygraph is tantamount to admitting that the suspect or witness is not believable. If a witness is asked questions and is "cooperating," why else would a law enforcement agency resort to a polygraph unless they do not believe the validity of the statement? If a sworn statement is not valid he could be subject to giving a false statement to law enforcement which can result in criminal penalties. Is the person subject to the polygraph being informed of this possibility? They can be telling the truth and the operator can falsely accuse them of being deceptive. What then? The water has gone under the bridge without proper legal representation.
Are you going to admit to the person being polygraphed that nothing that they say can and will be used against them? If anything that they say can be used against them then they are deserving of the Miranda rights and should thus be provided a legal representative.
I have yet to read of any one being subjected to a polygraph that was presented a written piece of paper stating that what they say or admit to will not be used against them.
They should have legal representation. That simple.
My outlandish statements are only equaled by your original assumption and conclusion that all who post here are aiding and abetting criminals. You made a blanket statement that those who post here are aiding and abetting criminals. That statement sir is "laughable." You immediately came to a conclusion without fact.
I am intimately aware of what victims go through. The reasoning that a "polygraph" is necessary to "get to the truth" is laughable. The fact that anyone is being asked to submit to a polygraph is tantamount to admitting that the suspect or witness is not believable. If a witness is asked questions and is "cooperating," why else would a law enforcement agency resort to a polygraph unless they do not believe the validity of the statement? If a sworn statement is not valid he could be subject to giving a false statement to law enforcement which can result in criminal penalties. Is the person subject to the polygraph being informed of this possibility? They can be telling the truth and the operator can falsely accuse them of being deceptive. What then? The water has gone under the bridge without proper legal representation.
Are you going to admit to the person being polygraphed that nothing that they say can and will be used against them? If anything that they say can be used against them then they are deserving of the Miranda rights and should thus be provided a legal representative.
I have yet to read of any one being subjected to a polygraph that was presented a written piece of paper stating that what they say or admit to will not be used against them.
They should have legal representation. That simple.
Posted by licgan
- Sep 28, 2009, 09:15 PMFair Chance I respect your service to this Country but your logic is laughable. To stand and affirm the idea that law enforcement is "entrapping citizens" is ludicrous. You are also misguided about the "right" for an attorney. The "right" for an attorney only exists after a Miranda warning is issued by the police. Miranda is only necessary when two conditions exist (and both must be present):
1. The suspect is in custody and not free to leave.
2. The police want to question this person about the
specific reason why they are in custody.
After the warning has been issued, it is a decision the person in custody if he/she chooses to invoke Miranda.
You also grossly loss site of the fact that a child is the victim of a sexual assault. Take a moment and ponder this child's "Constitution rights".
The point I was trying to make is that it's appalling and irresponsible to cross the line from debating the merits/validity of the polygraph to giving garbage legal advice.
1. The suspect is in custody and not free to leave.
2. The police want to question this person about the
specific reason why they are in custody.
After the warning has been issued, it is a decision the person in custody if he/she chooses to invoke Miranda.
You also grossly loss site of the fact that a child is the victim of a sexual assault. Take a moment and ponder this child's "Constitution rights".
The point I was trying to make is that it's appalling and irresponsible to cross the line from debating the merits/validity of the polygraph to giving garbage legal advice.
Posted by DanielD
- Sep 28, 2009, 01:12 PMLet me back up a bit here. On advice of attorney, last May, I will not take a police polygraph test as my daughter wants.
What I wanted is to take this test outside of law enforcement such as an individual private tester,I don't have any fear of taking one cause NOTHING HAPPENED. I just wanted one to shove in her face and let her decide if she wants to accept it or not.
This "perfect"family of 40 years has been destroyed by these "allegations". The police are not involved since no charges have been made and the Children's and Family Dept dropped the case last month after investigating her complaint.
I love you guys for all the GREAT responses,you've all been amazing and Ive learned a LOT about this "stress machine"
What I wanted is to take this test outside of law enforcement such as an individual private tester,I don't have any fear of taking one cause NOTHING HAPPENED. I just wanted one to shove in her face and let her decide if she wants to accept it or not.
This "perfect"family of 40 years has been destroyed by these "allegations". The police are not involved since no charges have been made and the Children's and Family Dept dropped the case last month after investigating her complaint.
I love you guys for all the GREAT responses,you've all been amazing and Ive learned a LOT about this "stress machine"
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Sep 28, 2009, 04:18 AMQuoteWhy would anyone on this board encourage a witness, victim or suspect to not cooperate with a criminal investigation?
Reread my post. They should cooperate. They just should NOT take a polygraph. Why would NOT volunteering to take a polygraph, which IS VOLUNTARY be considered "not cooperating". If a suspect is read miranda rights, and told he has a right to remain silent, and the person decides TO REMAIN SILENT. Are they "not cooperating".
Since police polygraphs are nothing more than an effort to coerce a confession out of a suspect(hopefully not a false one), and examiners lie to suspects telling them the test is scientifically valid and 99% accurate, when it is not, then they would be wise NOT take it.
QuoteIf Daniel did not commit this act, I would argue he has an obligation to assist the police.
Everyone has an obligation to assist police when a crime has been committed to the extent they can. If a person is a "suspect", however, then they are not obligated to self incriminate themselves or take a polygraph, and should only talk to police with their lawyer present.
This is very basic, and any first year law school student would know that.
TC
Posted by Fair Chance
- Sep 27, 2009, 10:34 PMYour conclusion that the only logical answer would be that the posters on this board side with criminals and pedophiles of the world is ludicrous.
The last response states that the person of interest should only answer questions with their lawyer present. Since when in America is it assumed that one is aiding and abetting a criminal by advising them to have a legal representative present during police questioning?
I would advise anyone who is being questioned by police to have a lawyer present if they are in any way confused about why the police are talking with them unless the police provide a document in writing that anything they say cannot be used against them. Good luck in getting that type of document!
The polygraph exam represents police questioning a witness or suspect concerning matters which can have grave consequences to their lives. If polygraph examinations are on the up-and-up, I question you why so many examiners refuse to have a lawyer present and videotape the entire proceedings if it is on the true "up-and-up."
The same argument that you use that we are aiding and abetting criminals could be used that you are circumventing due process under the Constitution and entrapping citizens of the Unitied States under false pretenses.
I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic in the Armed Services. Anyone who circumvents the rights of citizens under the Constitution by the color of law constitutes a domestic enemy that must be resisted by rules and regulations encompassed by the Constitution.
I could easily make the outlandish statement that you and all people who advise a suspect to subject themselves to questioning without a legal representative present are treasonous traitors who do not believe in the Constitution or any of the rights that it confers upon the citizens of this country. It would be equally more outrageous that you would hide behind the color of law by doing so. I would expect anyone who professes themselves as "promoting the law" to act in highest of ethical conduct in such matters in proportion to their position and understanding of the laws in which they are responsible to enforce.
The last response states that the person of interest should only answer questions with their lawyer present. Since when in America is it assumed that one is aiding and abetting a criminal by advising them to have a legal representative present during police questioning?
I would advise anyone who is being questioned by police to have a lawyer present if they are in any way confused about why the police are talking with them unless the police provide a document in writing that anything they say cannot be used against them. Good luck in getting that type of document!
The polygraph exam represents police questioning a witness or suspect concerning matters which can have grave consequences to their lives. If polygraph examinations are on the up-and-up, I question you why so many examiners refuse to have a lawyer present and videotape the entire proceedings if it is on the true "up-and-up."
The same argument that you use that we are aiding and abetting criminals could be used that you are circumventing due process under the Constitution and entrapping citizens of the Unitied States under false pretenses.
I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic in the Armed Services. Anyone who circumvents the rights of citizens under the Constitution by the color of law constitutes a domestic enemy that must be resisted by rules and regulations encompassed by the Constitution.
I could easily make the outlandish statement that you and all people who advise a suspect to subject themselves to questioning without a legal representative present are treasonous traitors who do not believe in the Constitution or any of the rights that it confers upon the citizens of this country. It would be equally more outrageous that you would hide behind the color of law by doing so. I would expect anyone who professes themselves as "promoting the law" to act in highest of ethical conduct in such matters in proportion to their position and understanding of the laws in which they are responsible to enforce.
Posted by licgan
- Sep 27, 2009, 09:21 PMUnfortunately some of the advocates here on this forum often cross the line of "I hate polygraph and they don't work" to "Impede law enforcement and this is how you do it".
Daniel has been encouraged to read the post on this board and to decide for himself if he wants to subject himself to a polygraph. The bottom line is there is a pedophile that has yet to be caught. If Daniel did not commit this act, I would argue he has an obligation to assist the police. The interview with law enforcement would allow the investigator to better understand the family dynamics and move forward with the investigation.
Why would anyone on this board encourage a witness, victim or suspect to not cooperate with a criminal investigation? The only logical answer would be that some of the posters on this board side with the pedophiles and criminals of the world....... :-/
Daniel has been encouraged to read the post on this board and to decide for himself if he wants to subject himself to a polygraph. The bottom line is there is a pedophile that has yet to be caught. If Daniel did not commit this act, I would argue he has an obligation to assist the police. The interview with law enforcement would allow the investigator to better understand the family dynamics and move forward with the investigation.
Why would anyone on this board encourage a witness, victim or suspect to not cooperate with a criminal investigation? The only logical answer would be that some of the posters on this board side with the pedophiles and criminals of the world....... :-/
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Sep 27, 2009, 01:34 AMQuoteBut, I would encourage you to cooperate with a police investigation into this matter.
The police already lied to him when they claimed the polygraph was 99% accurate.
You can cooperate with the police without taking a polygraph. By explaining your "whereabouts", and answering legit questions with their attorney present to stop them from self incrimination...etc.
Police commonly ask people to be polygraphed to "eliminate" themselves as a "suspect". But we all know, and LE types have admitted on this board, that the real purpose of a police polygraph is to interrogate the suspect without having an attorney present when they have little if any evidence against them. Go FISH!
Since when do suspects have to "eliminate themselves as a suspect". Police need to get off their asses and find actually evidence (Dna...etc.) rather than try to coerce a possible FALSE confession out of a suspect who is just tired and is telling police what he thinks the police want to hear so he can go home and sleep!
Incidently. A retired Ponca City, OK police detective and current polygraph recommends to defense attorneys NOT to allow their clients (who submit to a police polygraph) to go through a "post test" interrogation. Also, he recommends clients terminate the polygraph if the police polygrapher gets "aggressive" or "accusatory".
That's good advice and comes from a polygrapher.
Posted by licgan
- Sep 26, 2009, 09:31 PMYou found this site...read its content. But, I would encourage you to cooperate with a police investigation into this matter. Children rarely make false allegations about sexual abuse. There is a definite need to resolve this and properly identify the person who committed this crime. 
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Sep 25, 2009, 11:28 PMQuoteGood, tell me how do I go about finding one that reliable,Im in central florida,east coast...I saw one in Merritt Island but dont know anything about this guy.
Daniel,
Let me be totally blunt with you. THE POLYGRAPH IS FREAKING BULLSHIT! It is NOT reliable. It can't tell whether you are telling the truth or not.
Don't believe me, don't believe the police, don't believe any polygraphers you happen to talk to. Believe the scientific community! Believe the people who have been scammed and falsely accused because of the polygraph. Unfortunately, they find this out the hard way, After taking the polygraph. I myself fall into that category.
There are No reliable polygraphers, if by "reliable" you mean finding out if you are "telling the truth". There are no "reliable" fortune tellers or "spirit trans-mediums", either.
I hope my frankness doesn't offend you.
And like I recommended in the past post, read what the NAS had to say about the polygraph. The machine measures fluctuations in your body's nervous system when asked questions. Not truth or falsehood. It is simply an interrogation tool used to con and intimidate you into saying what the polygrapher wants you to say.
If you DO end up taking a polygraph, please check back with us and get advise on how to take the test.
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Sep 25, 2009, 11:17 PMQuoteDaughter believes the police when they told her it was 99.99% effective so she might believe anyone that does this test.At lease thats what Im hoping...
That's ridiculous. Tell her that a body of top scientific researchers (National Academy of Sciences) disagrees and conclude the polygraph has NO scientific validity.
What did the police base their 99.99% accuracy rate on, anal gas?
I advise you to read "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" which can be downloaded from the home page of this website.
TC
Posted by DanielD
- Sep 25, 2009, 07:20 PMQuote from: Magnus on Sep 24, 2009, 02:25 PMNo on the police examiner. They are not there to help you. If you feel you really need to take a polygraph, go through a private examiner.
Good, tell me how do I go about finding one that reliable,Im in central florida,east coast...I saw one in Merritt Island but dont know anything about this guy.
Posted by DanielD
- Sep 25, 2009, 07:19 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Sep 24, 2009, 02:28 PMQuoteQuestion is "should I ?" I really want to clear all this up.
How would taking a polygraph clear things up?
TC
Daughter believes the police when they told her it was 99.99% effective so she might believe anyone that does this test.At lease thats what Im hoping...
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Sep 24, 2009, 02:28 PMQuoteQuestion is "should I ?" I really want to clear all this up.
How would taking a polygraph clear things up?
TC
Posted by Magnus
- Sep 24, 2009, 02:25 PMNo on the police examiner. They are not there to help you. If you feel you really need to take a polygraph, go through a private examiner.