- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 22, 2001, 01:12 PMQuote from: John on Jul 21, 2001, 11:21 PM
Beech_trees,
Read my mind. Maybe you're the only one who needs to be polygraphed.
'Needs'. Nice choice of word. It reminds me of the rubber hose treatment. Sorry John, I'm out of your reach, thank God.
A note to everyone else: Can you imagine what a powerful tool for the defense Joh(m)n's posts on this forum would be in successfully appealing or suing over a false positive in a polygraph test administered by him? Joh(m)n, would you say that your attitude is typical of your ilk?
Posted by John (Guest)
- Jul 21, 2001, 11:21 PMBeech_trees,
Read my mind. Maybe you're the only one who needs to be polygraphed.
Read my mind. Maybe you're the only one who needs to be polygraphed.
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 21, 2001, 12:50 PMQuote from: Johm on Jul 20, 2001, 11:04 PM
Of course, it would be absurd to polygraph all 25 employee's. This would be what I call abuse of the polygraph instrument. The polygraph instrument wasn't intended to be, and shouldn't be used as an elimination tool. I will guarantee you that 22 out of the 25 employee's, if interviewed properly, will be eliminated right off the bat as suspects. You might find that one of the employee' was probably on vacation when this incident occurred. If the investigator who is assigned this case does what he or she should do, then at the most, only two or three employees should be polygraphed. The polygraph instrument is a great and reliable investigative tool, that's right, investigative tool, if used properly. So stop bashing the polygraph and support it. All of you who have taken polygraphs and failed, blame yourselves. Let the truth be known, you got caught lying. End of story
It reads as if you don't even NEED the polygraph, Johm. You have done the investigative work without even hooking anyone up to your machine. You have, over the internet mind you, read the minds of 25 employees whom you have never even met and dismissed all but two or three of them as potential suspects. Tell me, can you read my mind now? Guess what *I'm* thinking, Johm?
bwwwaaaahhaaaahaaahaaaaa
Posted by Fred F.
- Jul 20, 2001, 11:55 PMQuote from: Johm on Jul 20, 2001, 11:04 PM So stop bashing the polygraph and support it. All of you who have taken polygraphs and failed, blame yourselves. Let the truth be known, you got caught lying. End of story
John,
You are obviously a polygrapher and normally I respect opinions of those who do believe in what they do.
However, You have to answer the fundamental question "how can a polygraph be deemed a useful and reliable "tool" when there is no scientific basis for the readings and that its "accuracy" has NEVER been proven by scientific method.
You call everyone who fails the poly a "liar" and that they should blame themselves. What is your explanation on how Aldrich Ames, a convicted spy, PASSED a polygraph "test" given by the "cream of the crop" polygraphers of the FBI and CIA? How can you explain why the police officers who post on this site and have successfully passed polygraphs in the past and who are seeking employment in other departments have their integrity and honesty compromised by someones interpretation of "readings" that are calling them "deceptive" or their results called "inconclusive?
You should read the stories of Captain Jones, Mark Mallah, False+ and the others who have had their careers ruined by someone who basically flips a coin based on "readings" of normal body functions. If the polygraph was as "accurate" and "reliable" as you would like everyone to believe it is, why is it relegated to such remedial functions as preemployment and convincing unsophisticated criminals that they all are guilty based on what you have "read"
John, the polygraph has no value to those who know the truth and have educated themselves to
The Lie Behind The Lie Detector
Fred F.
Posted by Johm
- Jul 20, 2001, 11:04 PMOf course, it would be absurd to polygraph all 25 employee's. This would be what I call abuse of the polygraph instrument. The polygraph instrument wasn't intended to be, and shouldn't be used as an elimination tool. I will guarantee you that 22 out of the 25 employee's, if interviewed properly, will be eliminated right off the bat as suspects. You might find that one of the employee' was probably on vacation when this incident occurred. If the investigator who is assigned this case does what he or she should do, then at the most, only two or three employees should be polygraphed. The polygraph instrument is a great and reliable investigative tool, that's right, investigative tool, if used properly. So stop bashing the polygraph and support it. All of you who have taken polygraphs and failed, blame yourselves. Let the truth be known, you got caught lying. End of story
Posted by Administrator
- Jul 20, 2001, 02:11 PMMike,
Please re-post your question in a new message thread on the CVSA forum:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=10.0
That way, it will be more noticed than it will hidden here in an unrelated message thread.
Please re-post your question in a new message thread on the CVSA forum:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=10.0
That way, it will be more noticed than it will hidden here in an unrelated message thread.
Posted by mike
- Jul 20, 2001, 01:40 PMCan anyone provide me with information regarding the validity of CVSA testing? I am currently the subject of an investigation where a vindictive Inspector conducted CVSA's on three fellow employees who have worked under my supervision at one time or another. They all passed even though I KNOW they are lying. The examiner is his fellow Inspector within the same agency. 6 months ago, A nurse alleged that I beat and choked an inmate and passed a CVSA. A videotape surfaced which captured the entire incident on tape and showed I did nothing like she alleged. How can she pass such a "reliable" test? Please help.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 20, 2001, 01:27 PMThe Caller Times article notes that the County Clerk is asking only those employees in the collections and treasury sections to submit to polygraphic interrogation. (It is not clear whether Mr. Briones counts himself among those whom he thinks should be polygraphed.)
Posted by beech trees
- Jul 20, 2001, 12:46 PMGee, polygraph 25 employees over a missing $4,700.00. Presuming the average cost of a polygraph is $300.00 (and I've read as high as $600.00), that means that they will spend $7,500.00 of the taxpayer's money on a useless test to determine how $4,700.00 went missing.
Must be New Math!
Must be New Math!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2001, 01:18 PMThe Corpus Christi Caller Times reports today (http://www.caller.com/2001/july/19/today/localnew/5683.html) that the Nueces County Clerk is "asking" employees to submit to polygraph "testing" in connection with missing funds. The entire article is reproduced below:
As noted on the AntiPolygraph.org Polygraph News page, Nueces County Clerk Ernest M. Briones is giving employees a devil's choice between agreeing to have their honesty assessed based on a pseudoscientific trial by ordeal or refusing and appearing to have something to hide. You can help set him straight on polygraph testing by sending a note through his office's web-based feedback form:
or by e-mail to countyclerk@nueces.esc2.net or by phone at (361) 888-0580 or by fax at (361) 888-0329.
I used the web form above to send the following note:
I encourage others to send Mr. Briones a note. It is to be hoped that he will take heed and abandon his plans for a polygraph dragnet. But if he goes through with it, he won't be able to later claim that he was never warned.
Quote
Thursday, July 19, 2001
County clerk's office employees asked to take polygraph tests
From staff reports
Employees at the Nueces County Clerk's office are being asked to submit to polygraph exams as investigators continue to probe the disappearance of $4,700, said County Clerk Ernest Briones.
The money, collected from court fees and fines, was found to be missing last month when office staff reconciled bank statements.
Sheriff Larry Olivarez said the investigation has been difficult because the money was missing for several days before his department was notified. "It's a difficult case because of the circumstances leading up to the disappearance of the money," he said.
The office has 25 employees but only employees in the collections and treasury sections of the office were asked to take the polygraph tests, Briones said.
"They do have a choice," Briones said. "I think the law is such that they can refuse to take it."
As noted on the AntiPolygraph.org Polygraph News page, Nueces County Clerk Ernest M. Briones is giving employees a devil's choice between agreeing to have their honesty assessed based on a pseudoscientific trial by ordeal or refusing and appearing to have something to hide. You can help set him straight on polygraph testing by sending a note through his office's web-based feedback form:
or by e-mail to countyclerk@nueces.esc2.net or by phone at (361) 888-0580 or by fax at (361) 888-0329.
I used the web form above to send the following note:
Quote
Dear Mr. Briones,
I am a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a website dedicated to exposing polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.
I read in the Caller Times that you are asking employees in your office to submit to polygraph testing in connection with $4,700 in missing funds.
You need to know that the validity of polygraph testing is unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific research. Polygraphy is fundamentally dependent on trickery -- not science, and while it has an inherent bias against truthful persons, it can be (and has been) easily beaten by deceptive persons through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers (despite their unsupported claims to the contrary) cannot detect.
These countermeasures are described in detail in AntiPolygraph.org's free on-line book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which may be downloaded as a PDF file or browsed in HTML format at:
http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
Perhaps your perpetrator (if indeed the money has been stolen) has read it. You should, too.
It would be prudent for you to abandon your ill-advised plan to resort to polygraphing your employees. At a minimum, you should draw no adverse inference against, and in no way retaliate against, those who prudently refuse to submit to this pseudoscientific nonsense to which you have unwisely decided to subject them.
Sincerely,
George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org
PS: A copy of this message will be posted to the AntiPolygraph.org message board at:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=5.0
I encourage others to send Mr. Briones a note. It is to be hoped that he will take heed and abandon his plans for a polygraph dragnet. But if he goes through with it, he won't be able to later claim that he was never warned.