- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Skeptic
- Jun 04, 2003, 12:34 AMQuote from: Fed-up Fed on Jun 03, 2003, 07:43 PMYou're right, the advice on this site sucks.
You lose a job thanks to the polygraph, Fed-up? Sure seems like you have an axe to grind.
Skeptic
Posted by Fed-up Fed
- Jun 03, 2003, 07:43 PMYou're right, the advice on this site sucks.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jun 03, 2003, 12:27 AMGino, George, Seeker, et al,
It sounds like "Can't Say" and/or defense counsel have requested this. "Can't Say" said the attorney has selected the private examiner (or will do so). A private examiner, hired by a defense attorney, will not conduct a post exam interview, regardless of the results. No defense attorney worth his JD will allow a post test interview of his client. This is an exculpatory exam. As long as the exam results can't be used in court, it is a no lose situation. Sounds like Can't Say will likely be NDI. Why else would a person be so adamant about taking it?
Much to the contrary of what Gino is saying, when a subject with counsel requests an exam (or is agreeing to one), charges have been filed, or they are about to be. I run these types of exams for defense counsel quite often, and counsel never agrees to them unless prosecution is about to take it to court. Gino's assertion could only hold true if the investigating agency is pushing for a suspect to come while the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been filed (and there is little chance they will with existing evidence) . And even when the investigating agency asks for the exam early on, it does not always signify lack of evidence.
Just because there might be a strong case, doesn't mean Can't Say is guilty. The case might be based upon testimony, which can be strong evidence, yet not always 100% reliable. Perhaps someone else involved is lying about Can't Say's involvement. What other recourse is there to bolster credibiltity when it's one (or more) person's word against another's? An exculpatory poly could not hurt in such a situation.
Can't Say,
It's your decision and your future. Seek advice from your counsel, not any of us on this board.
Regards,
Public Servant.
It sounds like "Can't Say" and/or defense counsel have requested this. "Can't Say" said the attorney has selected the private examiner (or will do so). A private examiner, hired by a defense attorney, will not conduct a post exam interview, regardless of the results. No defense attorney worth his JD will allow a post test interview of his client. This is an exculpatory exam. As long as the exam results can't be used in court, it is a no lose situation. Sounds like Can't Say will likely be NDI. Why else would a person be so adamant about taking it?
Much to the contrary of what Gino is saying, when a subject with counsel requests an exam (or is agreeing to one), charges have been filed, or they are about to be. I run these types of exams for defense counsel quite often, and counsel never agrees to them unless prosecution is about to take it to court. Gino's assertion could only hold true if the investigating agency is pushing for a suspect to come while the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been filed (and there is little chance they will with existing evidence) . And even when the investigating agency asks for the exam early on, it does not always signify lack of evidence.
Just because there might be a strong case, doesn't mean Can't Say is guilty. The case might be based upon testimony, which can be strong evidence, yet not always 100% reliable. Perhaps someone else involved is lying about Can't Say's involvement. What other recourse is there to bolster credibiltity when it's one (or more) person's word against another's? An exculpatory poly could not hurt in such a situation.
Can't Say,
It's your decision and your future. Seek advice from your counsel, not any of us on this board.
Regards,
Public Servant.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jun 02, 2003, 06:55 AMQuoteThey don't have any evidence as I wasn't part of the felony anyway and I was never formally charged with the accusations, so for me to refuse the polygraph, gave them nothing to twist and turn around to form to what they were looking for.
When the prosecution asks a suspect to submit to a polygraph "test," it is often a strong indication that the potential case is extremely weak. The polygraph is often hauled out only in cases where there is a very minute chance for a conviction (or even an indictment) absent a "home run" confession. Defendants are extremely wise to refuse such foolishness.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 01, 2003, 04:04 AMI was accused of a felony crime, interrogated by the authorities and when asked to take a polygraph, I "Refused" the polygraph, hands down!! This is a mere tool for them to aquire other information from you, meaning, trick questions or answers from you whereby they can use any little word you use and twist it into any form they want to try and charge you with something. An officer told me the polygraph was 98% effective, while my lawyer told me, it was less than 90% and not used in a court of law.(at least for my state) I was also told that refusal doesn't mean guilt. After all, isn't there a shadow of quilt, just for being asked to take one? Yes there is! I also are not even remotely concerned over this even though its a potential felony crime as I know I didn't do it. I told the authorities, that I didn't have the time or loss of income to take off from work to even bother with it as its a 300 mile trip for the day. They don't have any evidence as I wasn't part of the felony anyway and I was never formaly charged with the accusations, so for me to refuse the polygraph, gave them nothing to twist and turn around to form to what they were looking for. Furthermore, ask the ones whom asked you to take the polygraph, that if it is(say 98% effective in your case also) to find the hidden deceptions, then it must only be 98% effective in preserving you innocence. Since it isn't 100% effective in preserving this innocence, then your not taking it. They cannot guarantee this either, your innocence that is. Consequently, I'm not even remotely bothered by it all. This site is the best and you should listen carefully
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 31, 2003, 03:00 PMCan't Say,
No, it's not a no lose situation, because, as I mentioned earlier, if you "fail," the results might be considered in such judicial proceedings as search warrant requests, bail or sentencing hearings, or in any civil litigation that might be brought against you. And again, there is the possibility that negative results might be leaked to the press to tarnish your reputation.
In addition, if the investigators actually believe in polygraphy (there are those in law enforcement who are true believers), they may well intensify their investigation of you.
No, it's not a no lose situation, because, as I mentioned earlier, if you "fail," the results might be considered in such judicial proceedings as search warrant requests, bail or sentencing hearings, or in any civil litigation that might be brought against you. And again, there is the possibility that negative results might be leaked to the press to tarnish your reputation.
In addition, if the investigators actually believe in polygraphy (there are those in law enforcement who are true believers), they may well intensify their investigation of you.
Posted by Can't Say
- May 31, 2003, 02:48 PMHere's the only thing. It's like a no-lose situation(I think). If I take the polygraph, and pass I'll be left alone with this whole matter. If I take it an fail, they will be investigating more trying to find evidence againts me.
If I refuse to take it, they will continue to investigate this and try to find evidence againts me. So it's like a no lose situation?
Posted by bird198384
- May 31, 2003, 02:44 PMKnowing what I have gone through regarding polygraphs I would NEVER submit to one again if given a choice.
Let me tell you this can't say;
I never even smoked a cigarrette and my application got dq'ed because the poly said I was deceptive.
I also agree with the idea that they probably do not have much evidence if they want to go on a fishing expedition called the polygraph. Its just another way for LE to interrogate you. Even though they will not administer the exam who do you think will be submitting the questions. It is a no win situation to take the polygraph.
Let me tell you this can't say;
I never even smoked a cigarrette and my application got dq'ed because the poly said I was deceptive.
I also agree with the idea that they probably do not have much evidence if they want to go on a fishing expedition called the polygraph. Its just another way for LE to interrogate you. Even though they will not administer the exam who do you think will be submitting the questions. It is a no win situation to take the polygraph.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 31, 2003, 06:00 AMThe questions to be asked will all be reviewed with you during the "pre-test" phase. There is no legitimate reason for not providing them to you in advance.
As for why taking a polygraph "test" in a criminal investigation is so widely advised against, it's because the "test" is a fraud. It doesn't detect lies. It doesn't detect deception. As used by many law enforcement agencies, it's little more than a ruse for getting a suspect to agree to an interrogation in the absence of counsel. And truthful people run a significant risk of "failing," as demonstrated in the Molly Bish case, where 11 different suspects "failed."
As for why taking a polygraph "test" in a criminal investigation is so widely advised against, it's because the "test" is a fraud. It doesn't detect lies. It doesn't detect deception. As used by many law enforcement agencies, it's little more than a ruse for getting a suspect to agree to an interrogation in the absence of counsel. And truthful people run a significant risk of "failing," as demonstrated in the Molly Bish case, where 11 different suspects "failed."
Posted by Can't Say
- May 30, 2003, 10:07 PM
On to a bigger issue, why is it so black balled to take a polygraph test in a criminal investigation? I mean it seems to me a some-what decent opportunity for exhonrating yourself. Esp, knowing that the primary goal tends to be a confession.
Posted by Can't Say
- May 30, 2003, 10:04 PM
Is there really even a remote possiblity that they'd actually GIVE me the questions before they ask?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 30, 2003, 04:32 AMUnstipulated polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in criminal cases. However, the results might be considered in such judicial proceedings as search warrant requests, bail or sentencing hearings, or in any civil litigation that might be brought against you. In addition, if you don't pass, the results could be leaked to the press to tarnish your reputation in your community.
I think it would be best to check with your lawyer regarding the circumstances under which the results of this polygraph examination might be used in judicial proceedings in your state. Bear in mind that any statements made by a suspect during a polygraph examination will generally be admissible, whether or not such is the case with regard to the polygrapher's interpretation of the polygraph charts.
I still believe that it is unwise for anyone suspected of a crime to submit to a polygraph interrogation. However, if you decide to go ahead with it, other reasonable safeguards that I think it would be wise for you to insist on include:
1) that you be provided with a list of the questions to be asked at least a full day in advance so that you may review them with your lawyer;
2) that your lawyer be with you throughout the entire procedure (pre-test, in-test, post-test);
3) that the entire procedure be audio or video recorded and that you be provided with a copy of the recording immediately upon completion of the examination.
I think it would be best to check with your lawyer regarding the circumstances under which the results of this polygraph examination might be used in judicial proceedings in your state. Bear in mind that any statements made by a suspect during a polygraph examination will generally be admissible, whether or not such is the case with regard to the polygrapher's interpretation of the polygraph charts.
I still believe that it is unwise for anyone suspected of a crime to submit to a polygraph interrogation. However, if you decide to go ahead with it, other reasonable safeguards that I think it would be wise for you to insist on include:
1) that you be provided with a list of the questions to be asked at least a full day in advance so that you may review them with your lawyer;
2) that your lawyer be with you throughout the entire procedure (pre-test, in-test, post-test);
3) that the entire procedure be audio or video recorded and that you be provided with a copy of the recording immediately upon completion of the examination.
Posted by Can't Say
- May 29, 2003, 09:34 PM :-/
Yes of course, the agreement is in writing. However, they have not yet asked to allow the test to be admissible. They might, in which case I would never take it. Is there a way to know wether or not polygraph's are admissible in my state? That'd be important information.
Yes of course, the agreement is in writing. However, they have not yet asked to allow the test to be admissible. They might, in which case I would never take it. Is there a way to know wether or not polygraph's are admissible in my state? That'd be important information.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 29, 2003, 01:55 AMCan't Say,
I agree with Seeker. The very fact that you've been asked to submit to a polygraph interrogation is clear indication that the detectives involved already suspect you. I think it would be wise for you to refuse the polygraph and to not speak with the police in the absence of legal counsel.
Did you receive the guarantee that the investigation would be dropped if you pass the polygraph in writing?
Does this guarantee by the police require you to sign a stipulation agreement whereby you provide advance consent that the polygraph results may be admitted as "evidence" in court?
I agree with Seeker. The very fact that you've been asked to submit to a polygraph interrogation is clear indication that the detectives involved already suspect you. I think it would be wise for you to refuse the polygraph and to not speak with the police in the absence of legal counsel.
Did you receive the guarantee that the investigation would be dropped if you pass the polygraph in writing?
Does this guarantee by the police require you to sign a stipulation agreement whereby you provide advance consent that the polygraph results may be admitted as "evidence" in court?
Posted by beech trees
- May 29, 2003, 12:39 AMQuote from: Can't Say on May 28, 2003, 11:57 PMSo the general consensus is despite im innonce even, armed with countermeasures, my safest bet is to avoid the polygraph.
Correct. It is *never* in your best interest to waive your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.