Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by railroaded
 - Jul 15, 2005, 06:35 PM
You don't like the fact that attorneys can hire experts to rebut prosecutor's experts?  I hope to God you are not a cop.

The investigator on my case actually had the nerve to tell my wife that he has never put an innocent man in jail, only to joke later that no one is truly innocent.  Har, Har.   :(

The entire legal system is corrupt...cops and prosecutors PAY legal experts to testify, attorneys PAY other experts to testify to the opposite, and the victim and defendant sit in the middle without a clue.  It all boils down to who can convince 12 otherwise un-extraordinary people that the other side is wrong.
Posted by polyscam
 - Jul 15, 2005, 02:30 PM
Spark,

Actually, this is an example of two "experts" finding differing results based on the same offense.  It is an example of the lack of continuity between two examiners.  Polygraphy does nothing to give more confidence in the officers on our streets.  It is no guarantee of integrity or worthiness of the badge.

Perhaps you may be interested in some beach front property in Arizona, if so...
Posted by spark
 - Jul 14, 2005, 11:30 PM
How is this any different than the normal everyday conflict between "expert witnesses" (both hired by the defense vs. those hired by prosecution) in an everyday criminal trial.  I always found it odd that a defense attorney can hire an expert to say the "sky is green" or the "glove don't fit."  I guess my only question is would you want a person who is sworn to protect to instead be spending his time actually casing your house while your gone, looking for an opportunity to victimize your wife or someone else's wife because you hate polygraph?  I know that example doesn't necessarily apply to this article.. but come on people.  Shall we cut off our nose to spite our face?    
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Jul 13, 2005, 04:38 PM
Actually it appears to be even more ridiculous than that.  From the article it appears that the officer only submitted to a single polygraph exam.  The examiner hired by his attorney looked at the charts and said there was no deception.  Another examiner, hired by the city, looked at the charts and said that there was deception.

This explanation for this example must fall into the rather lame category of 'there are bad polygraph examiners out there.'  Which one was "bad" in this case?  
Posted by polyscam
 - Jul 13, 2005, 03:52 PM
I happened on this news story and thought I would share it with everyone here:

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/12122456.htm

This police officer "passed" an examination he requested.  However, he "failed" a polygraph he was compelled to undergo.  Seems that there may be a little truth to the argument that the outcome depends on who pays for the examination.  Lack of industry-wide integrity?  Did the coin toss go both ways?