- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 19, 2003, 06:40 PMQuote from: Public Servant on Jul 19, 2003, 04:52 AMI'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence. But this does not prove the person committed the crime. If a man has sex with a woman then departs; then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect? The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body. Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him. DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted. And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.
Yes, I see your point. This issue was a hot one during a cource I recently took on Criminal Procedure & Evidence. I think most in the LE field would agree that it is extremely foolhardy to rely soley on one piece of evidence when investigating a crime. While DNA and possibly even a polygraph (utilizing a GTK) might point in the direction of one suspect, it is very important that other investigative leads are aggressively pursued to ensure that there is other evidence to conclusively link the suspect to the crime. The reliability and accuracy of any procedure and evidence comes into play when we get into the area that you talked about.
I'm sure we'll all agree DNA evidence is extremely accurate, although not 100%. However, like you've pointed out, it cannot tells us whether or not someone committed a crime, only that they were present. So, once you have a positive DNA match, it is important to take into account several other factors. Did the suspect admit to being there prior to finding out the results of the DNA test? Did the suspect provide a reasonable explanation along with that admission? Or did the suspect lie and claim s/he was never there? If the latter most option is the case, now you have to figure out why the suspect lied, (i.e. afraid of getting caught, afraid of being falsely linked with the crime, etc). However, what you do have is conclusive evidence that they were there. There can be no denying that. Now it's time to figure out why they were there, and either investigate deeper or move on to other suspects.
With the polygraph, coming up with a DI chart is not conclusive evidence that they were there, or had anything to do with a crime, since as Saidme showed us, and the Molly Bish case demonstrates, the polygraph does not have an accuracy rate high enough to make that claim. As an interrogation tool, it is probably excellent for getting confessions out of the guilty, but absent a confession, I would not direct any investigation of mine in a certain direction based on the results of a polygraph test.
I'd also like to address the flip side of what you said, which is, a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene. I would not like to think that LE agencies are relying too heavily on DNA evidence to solve their crimes, even though DNA is extremely valuable in proving certain things. However, police have been solving crimes long before DNA evidence and polygraphs have been around, so a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene in no way exonerates a suspect from a crime. It probably just means they were either very careful or very lucky.
QuoteBecause polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used? Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove. Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.
I think the poly is much more dangerous than DNA, because it is not nearly as accurate in establishing a connection to the crime. Like I said, while a DNA match will establish someone was at a crime scene, it will not establish they committed the crime. Certain kinds of DNA evidence are more helpful than others, e.g., skin under fingernails, victim's hair in the trunk of a car, blood on a pant leg or shoe, etc., while others just prove contact with the victim occured, e.g., semen traces found in the victim.
Both the polygraph and DNA can be misused and detrimental to any investigation when utilized by an incompetent examiner, but I do not believe even a competent examiner can use a polygraph to conclusively link a suspect to a crime.
Posted by mrsg
- Jul 19, 2003, 12:59 PMOkay, here's the result. My hubby met with his attorney this week. He did fail the test, even though the questions they asked relating to my crime were ones that he had no knowledge of at the time I was doing it, but does have knowledge of it now. "Did you know your
wife was stealing money?" ...........he did not at the time I was
doing it, but it well aware now.
No report was issued to us or the attorney, just the verbal from the
FBI.
wife was stealing money?" ...........he did not at the time I was
doing it, but it well aware now.
No report was issued to us or the attorney, just the verbal from the
FBI.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2003, 05:16 AMPublic Servant,
You write, in part:
The reason polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in a court of law is not that it is less than 100%, but rather that it doesn't meet the judicial Daubert standard (or the previous Frye standard) for scientific evidence. See DaubertOnTheWeb.com.
In some cases, DI polygraph results have indeed been a key piece of "evidence" leading to conviction. For example, Floyd Fay was wrongly convicted of murder in Ohio in large part because he failed a stipulated polygraph examination. You'll find his case documented in the 2nd edition of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. More recently, an inconclusive polygraph outcome and the Kafaesque interrogations that followed led to a navy cryptologist's wrongly being locked up for more than a year in pre-trial confinement before all charges were dropped. See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of the case of Daniel M. King.
You write, in part:
QuoteBecause polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
The reason polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in a court of law is not that it is less than 100%, but rather that it doesn't meet the judicial Daubert standard (or the previous Frye standard) for scientific evidence. See DaubertOnTheWeb.com.
In some cases, DI polygraph results have indeed been a key piece of "evidence" leading to conviction. For example, Floyd Fay was wrongly convicted of murder in Ohio in large part because he failed a stipulated polygraph examination. You'll find his case documented in the 2nd edition of Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. More recently, an inconclusive polygraph outcome and the Kafaesque interrogations that followed led to a navy cryptologist's wrongly being locked up for more than a year in pre-trial confinement before all charges were dropped. See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of the case of Daniel M. King.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 19, 2003, 04:52 AMWOW! When I said attack at will, I never thought there'd be two more pages. I think the discussion has run it's course (and perhaps degraded), so let me apologize if I did not respond to anyone's questions. All seems to be covered.
I did want to comment on something sXe said
I'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence. But this does not prove the person committed the crime. If a man has sex with a woman then departs; then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect? The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body. Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him. DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted. And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.
Because polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used? Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove. Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.
I did want to comment on something sXe said
QuoteWhy would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever).
I'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence. But this does not prove the person committed the crime. If a man has sex with a woman then departs; then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect? The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body. Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him. DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted. And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.
Because polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used? Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove. Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 19, 2003, 01:48 AMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 18, 2003, 06:46 PMIf nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.
Why would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever).
QuoteNo serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first.
Why would you ascertain the truthfulness of an examinee by first giving them a test you yourself just demonstrated is not accurate?
QuoteThat way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.
Only if they confess though, right?
Quote from: Canadian Crusader on Jul 18, 2003, 06:48 PMWhy are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?
I can only speak for myself here, but I find it somewhat comical. I also think Saidme's attacks on other posters, and blatant unwillingness to address issues that would no doubt damage the reputation of his little box reflects poorly on the polygraph community. If I were just beginning to research polygraphy, and I came upon this board, seeing some polygrapher verbally attacking others, dodging reasonable questions, and outright dismissing the importance of scientific validity would certainly push me into the camp opposed to polygraphy.
So I guess I he is doing us a favor.
Posted by orolan
- Jul 19, 2003, 12:57 AMSaidme,
This is what I'm talking about:
And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.
This is what I'm talking about:
QuoteAs for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with youWhy not? Surely if these people you have polygraphed and obtained confessions from are real, they are now members of the prison population. And their criminal records are a matter of public record. So why can't you disclose that info?
And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:
QuoteHow many people have you accused of lying that did not give you a confession and were later found to be guilty in a court of law?To which Saidme replied that same day:
QuoteI can't give you an exact number but many. And you're right, they were all found guilty.(Emphasis added)
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 18, 2003, 07:28 PMSadime,
I have always been on the anti poly side when it comes to preemployment screening.
What are your stats if you don't mind me asking?
You must only be able to determine your efficacy with corraborating confessions. Or do maintain that indicated deception on the charts is without a doubt undisputed and proven indication of deception?
In the context of using a poly when it comes to a criminal investigation I can't see your deparment wasting valuable dollars on a poly when you have irrefutable evidence proving ones guilt. Irrefutable evidence of ones guilt would be the only other way, I see, that you could use to test your efficacy.
So..
What is your ratio for obtained DI's to confessions?
I have always been on the anti poly side when it comes to preemployment screening.
What are your stats if you don't mind me asking?
You must only be able to determine your efficacy with corraborating confessions. Or do maintain that indicated deception on the charts is without a doubt undisputed and proven indication of deception?
In the context of using a poly when it comes to a criminal investigation I can't see your deparment wasting valuable dollars on a poly when you have irrefutable evidence proving ones guilt. Irrefutable evidence of ones guilt would be the only other way, I see, that you could use to test your efficacy.
So..
What is your ratio for obtained DI's to confessions?
Posted by suethem
- Jul 18, 2003, 07:27 PMSaidme,
So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?
How many polygraphs have you given?
So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?
How many polygraphs have you given?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 18, 2003, 07:05 PMCC
You've taken sides! You should take your own advice. I truly believe polygraph's detect deception (through physiological changes brought about by psychological consequences). Why? Because I see it work everyday. The confession happens to be a bi-product of the polygraph which I see as an added bonus. For all you non-believers, I don't interrogate NDI suspects.
You've taken sides! You should take your own advice. I truly believe polygraph's detect deception (through physiological changes brought about by psychological consequences). Why? Because I see it work everyday. The confession happens to be a bi-product of the polygraph which I see as an added bonus. For all you non-believers, I don't interrogate NDI suspects.
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 18, 2003, 06:48 PMWhy are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?
I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans. I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.
Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.
Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?
I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans. I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.
Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.
Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 18, 2003, 06:46 PMEarth to Orolan
What are you talking about?
xes
If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.
No serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first. That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.
What are you talking about?
xes
If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.
No serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first. That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.
Posted by orolan
- Jul 18, 2003, 06:35 PMs-X-e,
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.
Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.
Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 18, 2003, 06:09 PMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 18, 2003, 04:42 PM
SEX (put it like you mean it)
But that's not what I mean....
QuoteNothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear. Blah Blah Blah
Yes, but what you described reflects an accuracy rate well below 100%. In the case of Molly Bish, I am reluctant to believe that 11 people had something to do with her murder.
Would I be correct in assuming that accuracy is just as useless as scientific validity, so long as you get some guilty people to confess?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 18, 2003, 04:42 PMOrolan
Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me. Maybe George has got a spell on me. Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it. As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway). I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand. As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.
SEX (put it like you mean it)
Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear. Blah Blah Blah
Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me. Maybe George has got a spell on me. Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it. As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway). I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand. As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.
SEX (put it like you mean it)
Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear. Blah Blah Blah
Posted by s-X-e
- Jul 18, 2003, 04:15 PMQuote from: Saidme on Jul 17, 2003, 05:16 PMLet's say you're going to polygraph a group of employees working at the 7-11 over the theft of $100. You're going to polygraph them on that specific issue. Let's say for arguments sake, only one in the group stole the money. Let's say the group consists of 11 people (I'll use your number). At the conclusion of the 11 polygraphs let's say 9 were DI. Obviously, one person stole the money, why would 8 others go DI? What might cause that is a little bleed over from other incidents. Maybe the other 8 people stole money from the 7-11 in the recent past, but they didn't steal that $100. That would explain why you had more than one DI. Of course you would interrogate them all equally. From an examiner's standpoint, not only might he/she solve the crime of the stolen $100, but could resolve many other thefts that went unreported. I've seen this very scenario occur.
Aren't you showcasing here the flaws in polygraphy? After all, the goal here is to resolve which one person stole the $100 from 7-11. If no one out of the 9 DIs admits to doing it, do you mark them all as DI? That would not seem fair, since the purpose of this particular test would be to locate a single perpetrator. The 8 examinees who answer "no" to the question "did you take the $100," should, regardless of "bleed over," not be marked deceptive since they are in fact telling the truth. What you've said is that an issue not directly related to the matter at hand can screw you up on your test. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.