- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by furedy
- Jul 27, 2006, 10:19 AMEthazi,
Exactly. Even more importantly, and confession that occurs during the "post-test interview" phase is not only admissible, but has considerable surface validity, given that the polygrapher's testimony does not include an account of what the so-called "test" involved (and cross examination of this issue usually does not occur, as without an expert psychophysiologist who is also familiar with the polygraph [for some 20 years of doing research and teaching in psychophysiology, I did not posses that familiarity until the mid eighties when I wrote my first chapter on it: Furedy, J.J. (1986). Lie Detection as Psychophysiological Differentiation: Some Fine Lines. In M. Coles, E. Donchin, & E. Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications--A Handbook (pp. 683-700). Guilford] and is prepared to lose many friends in this profession). Much of the surface validity comes form the fact that most people think it unlikely that anyone would confess to a serious crime even though they had not been subject to any physical abuse (but see a paper I wrote with a defense lawyer about the polygraph as a "psychological rubber hose": http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Cconfess.doc).
So, in summary, the polygapher usually is able to enter his evidence in a way that is not subject to effective cross examination (the usual one he gets is that the polygraph is not 100% reliable, and to this he can answer that this is true, but in this case, with his vast experience and the clear quantitative results of this particular "test" he is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the examinee was "deceptive", a conclusion that has been buttressed by the confession made by the examinee. Even expert psychophysiologists like Dr. David Raskin, who are one of the few psychophsyiologists who support the polygraph, appear to believe that confessions constitute proof of the polygraph's accuracy.
It's for this reason that admissibility of polygraph evidence is of relatively minor significance, although, of course, the polygraphic profession would like to get this admissibility in order to bolster the perceived scientific status of what is, in reality, a pseudo-scientific interrogatory interview whose sole real purpose is to induce confessions, with the polygraph used as an interrogatory prop.
All the best, John
Exactly. Even more importantly, and confession that occurs during the "post-test interview" phase is not only admissible, but has considerable surface validity, given that the polygrapher's testimony does not include an account of what the so-called "test" involved (and cross examination of this issue usually does not occur, as without an expert psychophysiologist who is also familiar with the polygraph [for some 20 years of doing research and teaching in psychophysiology, I did not posses that familiarity until the mid eighties when I wrote my first chapter on it: Furedy, J.J. (1986). Lie Detection as Psychophysiological Differentiation: Some Fine Lines. In M. Coles, E. Donchin, & E. Porges (Eds.), Psychophysiology: Systems, Processes, and Applications--A Handbook (pp. 683-700). Guilford] and is prepared to lose many friends in this profession). Much of the surface validity comes form the fact that most people think it unlikely that anyone would confess to a serious crime even though they had not been subject to any physical abuse (but see a paper I wrote with a defense lawyer about the polygraph as a "psychological rubber hose": http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/Cconfess.doc).
So, in summary, the polygapher usually is able to enter his evidence in a way that is not subject to effective cross examination (the usual one he gets is that the polygraph is not 100% reliable, and to this he can answer that this is true, but in this case, with his vast experience and the clear quantitative results of this particular "test" he is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the examinee was "deceptive", a conclusion that has been buttressed by the confession made by the examinee. Even expert psychophysiologists like Dr. David Raskin, who are one of the few psychophsyiologists who support the polygraph, appear to believe that confessions constitute proof of the polygraph's accuracy.
It's for this reason that admissibility of polygraph evidence is of relatively minor significance, although, of course, the polygraphic profession would like to get this admissibility in order to bolster the perceived scientific status of what is, in reality, a pseudo-scientific interrogatory interview whose sole real purpose is to induce confessions, with the polygraph used as an interrogatory prop.
All the best, John
Posted by markcleary
- Jul 27, 2006, 08:41 AMI just found this site last night, what a suprise to find my article in it. Thank you George for posting it and bringing this issue out. Sad but true i totally believed all the hype about lie detectors being so great and helpful. Against my lawyers advice I took it and you see what happened from there. Polygraphs are not accurate and I believe can be swayed by the person giving the exam. I will never trust a polygraph and I will advise against it if a friend comes up against something like that.
Posted by retcopper
- Sep 19, 2005, 12:04 PMGelb:
I am not referring to the case specifically but in cases like this it is politically incorrect to take action agasint the accuser. Feminist groups like NOW would have your head. They say that it would discourage rape vicitms from coming forward.
I am not referring to the case specifically but in cases like this it is politically incorrect to take action agasint the accuser. Feminist groups like NOW would have your head. They say that it would discourage rape vicitms from coming forward.
Posted by gelb disliker
- Sep 18, 2005, 02:43 AMBottom line, this man lost 16 years of his life behind bars. Why isn't there any repercussions to the accuser, now that she's of legal age? Do we just let things go by and wish they all disappear? What are we to do?
Posted by Etharzi
- Sep 17, 2005, 10:29 PMA little more info:
Question:
I have a general question on lie-detector tests. How much credibility does a judge give to this? Is it admissible in court? The police routinely use this as part of their investigative arsenal. I would assume that the reliability of such a test would depend on the person who administers the test. . . . I was curious about your opinion on this.
Response:
I acknowledge receipt of your email inquiry to "Ask the Chief Judge". You have asked about polygraph tests and whether they are admissible in court. You have also asked about their reliability. I will first point out that as a general rule, lie detector test are not admissible in court proceedings, on the basis that evidence of this type may not supersede the role of the court to decide the credibility of a witness: Regina v. Beland & Phillips
While police officers may rely upon such tools to assist them in an investigation, lie detectors operate on the basis that the person is conscious about what is true and what is not, and that a person will react differently when telling a lie than when telling the truth. Testimony in court is often not so simple as the truth or a lie. The ability to observe, record, retain, recall and articulate [that is, put the recollection into words] may intervene to colour or taint a person's testimony. There is sometimes a tendency to "fill in the gaps" in the memory, often without being conscious of doing this. In such a case, the witness would give a sincere, but inaccurate, description of what happened.
Also witnesses may "see" an event differently. For example, a Canucks fan may tend to "see" the calls made against the other team more than the calls made against the Canucks. A fan of the other side would have a different point of view and might have a different recollection of fairness or competence of the officiating.
The lie detector presumes that a person who is lying will have an elevated level of anxiety and exhibit physical symptoms like sweating, increased blood pressure or breathing or heart rates. A sincere but inaccurate or unreliable witness would not believe that what he or she was saying was false so would not react like a person who was intentionally and consciously deceiving. A psychopath, having no conscience, might not be anxious and might appear to be truthful to the lie detector. In each case, the lie detector operator would report that the witness was truthful. As you suggest, the reliability and accuracy of a polygraph may also be dependent on the expertise of the person administering the test.
In court an expert might testify as to the scientific basis of the lie detector and to its validity in detecting liars. Once science has pronounced a witness to be truthful then the judge or jury may tend to accept that witness's testimony without considering whether, in spite of the sincerity of the witness and the expert testimony, there are other factors that may affect the witness's reliability or accuracy.
In this way the lie detector may introduce into the trial an unquantifiable potential for prejudice which would outweigh its value in assisting the judge or jury to come to a just conclusion. In short, polygraphs speak not so much to guilt or innocence but rather to the veracity of the witness.
For more information on the law relating to the credibility of witnesses, you may refer to Chapter 10 of the Legal Compendium on the BC Courts website, at www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter10.asp.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Carol Baird Ellan
Chief Judge
Provincial Court of British Columbia
Question:
I have a general question on lie-detector tests. How much credibility does a judge give to this? Is it admissible in court? The police routinely use this as part of their investigative arsenal. I would assume that the reliability of such a test would depend on the person who administers the test. . . . I was curious about your opinion on this.
Response:
I acknowledge receipt of your email inquiry to "Ask the Chief Judge". You have asked about polygraph tests and whether they are admissible in court. You have also asked about their reliability. I will first point out that as a general rule, lie detector test are not admissible in court proceedings, on the basis that evidence of this type may not supersede the role of the court to decide the credibility of a witness: Regina v. Beland & Phillips
While police officers may rely upon such tools to assist them in an investigation, lie detectors operate on the basis that the person is conscious about what is true and what is not, and that a person will react differently when telling a lie than when telling the truth. Testimony in court is often not so simple as the truth or a lie. The ability to observe, record, retain, recall and articulate [that is, put the recollection into words] may intervene to colour or taint a person's testimony. There is sometimes a tendency to "fill in the gaps" in the memory, often without being conscious of doing this. In such a case, the witness would give a sincere, but inaccurate, description of what happened.
Also witnesses may "see" an event differently. For example, a Canucks fan may tend to "see" the calls made against the other team more than the calls made against the Canucks. A fan of the other side would have a different point of view and might have a different recollection of fairness or competence of the officiating.
The lie detector presumes that a person who is lying will have an elevated level of anxiety and exhibit physical symptoms like sweating, increased blood pressure or breathing or heart rates. A sincere but inaccurate or unreliable witness would not believe that what he or she was saying was false so would not react like a person who was intentionally and consciously deceiving. A psychopath, having no conscience, might not be anxious and might appear to be truthful to the lie detector. In each case, the lie detector operator would report that the witness was truthful. As you suggest, the reliability and accuracy of a polygraph may also be dependent on the expertise of the person administering the test.
In court an expert might testify as to the scientific basis of the lie detector and to its validity in detecting liars. Once science has pronounced a witness to be truthful then the judge or jury may tend to accept that witness's testimony without considering whether, in spite of the sincerity of the witness and the expert testimony, there are other factors that may affect the witness's reliability or accuracy.
In this way the lie detector may introduce into the trial an unquantifiable potential for prejudice which would outweigh its value in assisting the judge or jury to come to a just conclusion. In short, polygraphs speak not so much to guilt or innocence but rather to the veracity of the witness.
For more information on the law relating to the credibility of witnesses, you may refer to Chapter 10 of the Legal Compendium on the BC Courts website, at www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter10.asp.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Carol Baird Ellan
Chief Judge
Provincial Court of British Columbia
Posted by Etharzi
- Sep 17, 2005, 10:19 PMJust to let you all know a little something here in Michigan: the RESULTS of the test are NOT admissable; but the testamony of the person giving the test IS!!!!
Posted by furedy
- Sep 14, 2005, 08:54 PMThis sort of case is particularly effective for the polygraphic profession, as there is always ambiguity concerning the relevant question, there being always some doubt in any father's mind concerning whether has got too close to his daughter. This is helpful both to generate relatively large reactions to the relevant questions among the (criminally) innocent, as well as for the confession-inducing stage, where the polygrapher conflates moral and criminal guilt during the so-called "post-test interview". And, of course, the whole issue concerns a crime about which non-polygraphic, external evidence is virtually absent.
In haste, John
In haste, John
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 14, 2005, 06:24 PMdarkcobra2005,
You write:
It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge one of the most thoughtful and forthright posts of any polygraph examiner in the five year history of this site. I have newly found respect for you personally and heightened confidence in your having the thinking process for serious graduate study. Good luck.
Retcopper,
Although I could answer you directly, I think I will let your colleague's thoughtful words serve this purpose. Again, read carefully.
You write:
Quote
Dr. Richardson,
Yes, I will agree that the polygraph in this case, based on the information we now have been presented with was incorrect and that particular examination was in error and did an injustice to the individual sentenced to prison.
George Maschke,
I was unaware that the judge became aware of the polygraph, and I am sure his decisions regarding testing of the mother and alleged victim by the defense was influenced by that knowledge. This was an injustice. Thank you for pointing this out and going further to investigate the case and presenting the facts.
Bill Crider,
Yes, I do understand that the majority of posts on this board are made by very serious minded individuals and they are relating truthful information regarding injustices of the polygraph and the procedure used during polygraph examinations.
I am concerned also about this problem. While I do not share the opinion of some that it be abolished, I support close scrutiny of polygraph and encourage laws that require accountability from polygraph examiners with severe consiquences for improper polygraph procedure.
I come to this board and read the posts so I better understand your problems with polygraph. I then have a better understanding of the reason for false positives and false negatives.
I do not deminish the purpose of the postings on this board, they are important and necessary. I wish more polygraph examiners would study the problems with polygraph, based on a number of posts on this board.
I am not one that believes all posters on this site are "Whiners and Whimps", there are a number that have been treated unfairly and I personally apolagize for the arrogance of some examiners that slam them.
Hope you better understand the reasoning behind my posts.
It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge one of the most thoughtful and forthright posts of any polygraph examiner in the five year history of this site. I have newly found respect for you personally and heightened confidence in your having the thinking process for serious graduate study. Good luck.
Retcopper,
Although I could answer you directly, I think I will let your colleague's thoughtful words serve this purpose. Again, read carefully.
Posted by polyscam
- Sep 14, 2005, 06:19 PMThe point that has been made, which by your statements has eluded you, is that the trial very well may not have occurred if not for the polygraph results. Therefore the polygraph plays quite a role in that: no charges, no jury, no conviction and no need to release an innocent man.
Posted by retcopper
- Sep 14, 2005, 06:04 PMNo matter how everyone here wants to so blame the polygraph the fact of the matter is still this: The accuser testified and the jury beleived her. The jury never heard anything about a polygraph. What is so hard about this to understand?
Posted by Bill Crider
- Sep 14, 2005, 03:42 PMcobra, do you not understand yet that the people that post on this board are very serious individuals making very serious arguments about a process that is routinely causing havoc in people's lives.
This is not just idle banter on an internet board. as for how the poly affected this case, its clear it affected the judge, it may have affected the DA decision to bring the case and you can bet that had he passed the poly his attorney wouuld have presented the evidence, so his bogus failure hurt him in many ways. Years in jail for nothing and your magic box had a hand in it.
This is not just idle banter on an internet board. as for how the poly affected this case, its clear it affected the judge, it may have affected the DA decision to bring the case and you can bet that had he passed the poly his attorney wouuld have presented the evidence, so his bogus failure hurt him in many ways. Years in jail for nothing and your magic box had a hand in it.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 14, 2005, 03:29 PMI contacted David Ashenfelter at the Detroit Free Press and inquired whether he knew more about the circumstances surrounding Mark Cleary's polygraph examinations. He wrote back that while he did not know whether the prosecutor's decision to file charges was based on polygraph results, "failing on the second one prompted the judge to deny his request to have his daughter, ex-girlfriend and her mother undergo a defense-administered psychological exam."
So, while the jury may not have heard testimony regarding Mr. Cleary's polygraph results, it appears they directly -- and wrongly -- influenced the judge's procedural decision-making in his case.
So, while the jury may not have heard testimony regarding Mr. Cleary's polygraph results, it appears they directly -- and wrongly -- influenced the judge's procedural decision-making in his case.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Sep 14, 2005, 02:31 PMdarkcobra2005,
You write in part in your last post to me:
We appear to have more than a sufficient basis for condemning these polygraph results as erroneous independent of whether we have knowledge of the extent to which these results caused damage in the adjudication of the matter. Hopefully this is a sufficient basis for condemnation on your part as well.
You write in part in your last post to me:
Quote
...We don't have all the facts in this case. How then can we condemn the "POLYGRAPH DI"...
We appear to have more than a sufficient basis for condemning these polygraph results as erroneous independent of whether we have knowledge of the extent to which these results caused damage in the adjudication of the matter. Hopefully this is a sufficient basis for condemnation on your part as well.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 14, 2005, 04:33 AMQuote from: darkcobra2005 on Sep 14, 2005, 04:13 AMWe can make WAG'S (wild ass guesses) on this case all day. It does not deminish the value of polygraph if used properly.
Please explain why your DI results should be trusted any more than the DI result in this case.
QuoteI have seen cases filed even with a NDI call having been made by a polygraph examiner. Not one time but many. Prosecutors don't rely on polygraph, they look at all the case facts and determine if charges should be filed.
While prosecutors may not always rely on polygraph results, they often do, despite your unsupported blanket assertion to the contrary. AntiPolygraph.org frequently hears from individuals accused of crimes who have been offered a deal by prosecutors: take a police-administered polygraph, and if you pass, no charges will be filed. One recent case that comes to mind involved a person from Michigan. He took the proffered polygraph, passed (using countermeasures that somehow went undetected), and the prosecutor subsequently declined to press charges.
QuoteWith a six or seven year old victim giving testimony, Polygraph becomes irrelevant. As a Doctor would you expect a child of that age to make up a story such as this and testify in court. Children generally do not make false accusations without prompting from others and generally get discovered if they do. Not in all cases but in many.
I don't see how the age of the alleged victim makes the polygraph results irrelevant.
Posted by polyscam
- Sep 14, 2005, 03:44 AMLike many, if not all, I do not know all of the facts of this case. However, if I am to take what I have learned about polygraphy and its use in criminal investigation, I would understand this story to mean that after all other leads were exahausted, polygraph was suggested. Most likely with the promise that a NDI would relieve the defendant of any charges but that a DI would bring the prosecutor to level charges. Therefore, the polygraph examination would indeed play a crucial part in this person's conviction as no charges would have been filed without a DI. Without the DI this case likely would never have been heard by a jury, much less seen the light of day.