- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 31, 2006, 09:03 PMNoNombre,
I found much humor in your post. I snorted coffee out my nose and dam near fell out of my chair laughing on your last comment. thanks !!!
Regards
I found much humor in your post. I snorted coffee out my nose and dam near fell out of my chair laughing on your last comment. thanks !!!
Regards
Posted by nonombre
- Mar 31, 2006, 01:11 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Mar 30, 2006, 03:30 AMNoNombre,
Your post is most impressive, But the post presents an opportunity for some research. If you QC'd the charts on your kid, and you saw that they showed no deception, but the polygrapher who gave the test started into interrogation saying that the kid was deceptive. What is your recourse ? Can you intervene ?
Interesting supposition to answer ? Your reply should be most interesting ?
Regards ...
Eos,
Good question but the situation would probably not unfold that way. What would probably happen if the examiner found my kid deceptive, he would interrogate before any opposing interest reviewed the charts. The defense polygraph expert is generally not present during the original exam.
If my kid was not guilty and if the examiner had actually made a mistake, that would come out later.
Would I be worried that one of my kids would be browbeat into a "false confession?"..
Hmmm...
Naw, the little monsters don't even confess to the things they ARE guilty of...
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by retcopper
- Mar 31, 2006, 10:35 AMBill:
I guess we will have to bite the bullet until something else better comes along. (I know that is going to piss a lot of people off.) Like any other profession we continually have to improve training and upgrade standards. I respectfully disagree with you about the numbers of people who post here who say they have been wronged. While neither one of us can prove our point I would bet that many who complain here are not telling the "whole story" concerning their polygraph experiences. I am not defending any bad or renegade polygraphists. I know they exist. But, by the same token your side has to use commn sense when defending every anti poly story that appears here.
I guess we will have to bite the bullet until something else better comes along. (I know that is going to piss a lot of people off.) Like any other profession we continually have to improve training and upgrade standards. I respectfully disagree with you about the numbers of people who post here who say they have been wronged. While neither one of us can prove our point I would bet that many who complain here are not telling the "whole story" concerning their polygraph experiences. I am not defending any bad or renegade polygraphists. I know they exist. But, by the same token your side has to use commn sense when defending every anti poly story that appears here.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Mar 31, 2006, 03:00 AMretcopper,
I don't think anyone on even this board would say that the polygraph cannot aid in getting people to confess to things. WHat we are mostly saying is that while your anecdotal evidence is compelling for explaining why you find the polygraph a useful tool, the truth is you have no idea how many people over the years perhaps were judged falsely or got away with lying.
I suppose we could find a case for every one of your stories that would show where an innocent person was ravaged by police for failing a polygraph. You could find many links to such events on these forums. Many of us are angered by the notion that polygraphists are OK with this collateral damage.
I don't think anyone on even this board would say that the polygraph cannot aid in getting people to confess to things. WHat we are mostly saying is that while your anecdotal evidence is compelling for explaining why you find the polygraph a useful tool, the truth is you have no idea how many people over the years perhaps were judged falsely or got away with lying.
I suppose we could find a case for every one of your stories that would show where an innocent person was ravaged by police for failing a polygraph. You could find many links to such events on these forums. Many of us are angered by the notion that polygraphists are OK with this collateral damage.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Mar 30, 2006, 03:30 AMNoNombre,
Your post is most impressive, But the post presents an opportunity for some research. If you QC'd the charts on your kid, and you saw that they showed no deception, but the polygrapher who gave the test started into interrogation saying that the kid was deceptive. What is your recourse ? Can you intervene ?
Interesting supposition to answer ? Your reply should be most interesting ?
Regards ...
Your post is most impressive, But the post presents an opportunity for some research. If you QC'd the charts on your kid, and you saw that they showed no deception, but the polygrapher who gave the test started into interrogation saying that the kid was deceptive. What is your recourse ? Can you intervene ?
Interesting supposition to answer ? Your reply should be most interesting ?
Regards ...
Posted by nonombre
- Mar 29, 2006, 11:18 PMSergeant,
Of course you are right. My original answer was definately "tongue in cheek."
I would in fact advise my teenage child to undergo the polygraph examination. But in all fairness, I would advise him/her to take the advice of several of the folks who have posted on this site.
First of all, I would have my attorney monitor the examination. I have conducted MANY polygraph examinations with a defense attorney watching me from behind a two-way mirror. This has NEVER bothered me, for I am an ETHICAL polygraph examiner.
Since I record all my polygraph examinations, I would expect my child's examination to be recorded.
Next, if I could not QC the polygraph exam myself (I would after all be the father of the suspect) I would ask for an independent QC of the charts. Once again, I have provided my charts to defense experts on many occasions. This has also never bothered me. The only thing I ask is that the examiner reviewing my work by properly licensed in the state and have all current training and certifications. If like so many other forensic sciences the situation deteriorates into a "battle of the experts," in court or other hearing, I can accept that.
Lastly, I would tell my child that if he fails, I would expect him to come clean with the examiner, the attorney, and me. After all, in the end, we all must take responsibility for our actions.
You might not believe what I said in my last paragraph, and that is of course your right, but I meant everything I just said.
Regards,
Nonombre
Of course you are right. My original answer was definately "tongue in cheek."
I would in fact advise my teenage child to undergo the polygraph examination. But in all fairness, I would advise him/her to take the advice of several of the folks who have posted on this site.
First of all, I would have my attorney monitor the examination. I have conducted MANY polygraph examinations with a defense attorney watching me from behind a two-way mirror. This has NEVER bothered me, for I am an ETHICAL polygraph examiner.
Since I record all my polygraph examinations, I would expect my child's examination to be recorded.
Next, if I could not QC the polygraph exam myself (I would after all be the father of the suspect) I would ask for an independent QC of the charts. Once again, I have provided my charts to defense experts on many occasions. This has also never bothered me. The only thing I ask is that the examiner reviewing my work by properly licensed in the state and have all current training and certifications. If like so many other forensic sciences the situation deteriorates into a "battle of the experts," in court or other hearing, I can accept that.
Lastly, I would tell my child that if he fails, I would expect him to come clean with the examiner, the attorney, and me. After all, in the end, we all must take responsibility for our actions.
You might not believe what I said in my last paragraph, and that is of course your right, but I meant everything I just said.
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 29, 2006, 02:36 PMQuote from: nonombre on Mar 23, 2006, 10:46 PM#3, Absolutely. You know when you have two small kids and they get into a fight, each blaming the other? Well, I just threaten them both with having to take daddy's polygraph test and the actual guilty party always fesses up. Every parent should be issued a polygraph instrument.Nonombre,
I believe the intent of the question was to determine if you would allow your child to undergo a polygraph examination if there were negative consequences should he or she fail.
Suppose, for example, you had a college-age child who attended school in a different state from where you live. For whatever reason, he or she became a suspect for a serious crime. The local police agency, with which you are completely unfamiliar, wants to polygraph your child during the course of their investigation.
Your child has told you they have absolutely nothing to do with this crime, and you fully believe them. Do you think you would unhesitatingly tell them to take the polygraph, knowing that as long as they tell the truth they will be eliminated as a suspect?
I don't see how an ethical polygraph examiner who truly believes in the accuracy of the polygraph process could give any advice other than, "Take the polygraph and tell the truth. If you do that you will be instantly exonerated and you can go on with your life."
Posted by Mr. Mystery
- Mar 25, 2006, 05:46 PMQuote from: retcopper on Mar 24, 2006, 04:44 PMAntrella:
I agree preemployments are less accurate than specific tests and a thorough background check should always attempt to resolve any contested issues. .
Many people never get this opportunity.
Posted by polyfool
- Mar 25, 2006, 04:56 PMQuote from: retcopper on Mar 23, 2006, 03:51 PMLike you add substance. You never gave a poly test in your life and now you are an expert. BTW I do very well recognizing counter measures.
Grow up. I never said I was an expert nor have I ever implied such. However, I know enough about polygraphs to know they don't work. Of course, I've never given a polygraph. Why would I? I have a job that I can be proud of.
You do very well recognizing cm's? Yeah, that's what they all say.
BTW, I won't respond to any more of your posts as they are nothing but a total waste of my time.
Posted by retcopper
- Mar 24, 2006, 04:44 PMAntrella:
I agree preemployments are less accurate than specific tests and a thorough background check should always attempt to resolve any contested issues. I disageree with the firing of emplyees who fail periodic polys. These should aslo be backed up by some other evidence. But, this is only my opinion. I think the feds probably use more periodic testing than the city, county or state agencies. I would think that they have some other evidence in addition to the poly before they dismiss someone.
Could not connect to your link at bottom of your page.
I agree preemployments are less accurate than specific tests and a thorough background check should always attempt to resolve any contested issues. I disageree with the firing of emplyees who fail periodic polys. These should aslo be backed up by some other evidence. But, this is only my opinion. I think the feds probably use more periodic testing than the city, county or state agencies. I would think that they have some other evidence in addition to the poly before they dismiss someone.
Could not connect to your link at bottom of your page.
Posted by antrella
- Mar 24, 2006, 02:37 PMQuote from: retcopper on Mar 24, 2006, 11:35 AM
1. Polygraphed a subject who denied shaking an infant and killing him. He failed my poly and gave me a confession. Hold up man shot and killed two customers, failed my exam and gave a confession and two other homicides are solved.
...
Listen - few reasonable people would question the effectiveness of the polygraph as an interrogative tool. I agree it can be tremendously useful when used as part (not all) of an investigation - particularly on ignorant thugs who couldn't tell the difference between an fMRI and a colander (see below).
No question: the polygraph community has successfully built up this unflappable mythos that polygraphs somehow transcend the human mind to get to the truth. We all know that's not the case. The polygraph works best when the party being polygraphed believes it works best. If the examiners who browse this site disagree with that, you're either fools or facetious.
That said, I agree the polygraph has a place in society. I'm realistic enough to realize that the polygraph community, top to bottom, is a multimillion dollar one - from the equipment, to the schools, to the lucrative government work. This profession, like any other, puts food in mouths, and is a source of pride for the many folks who practice it.
But it's important to make sure that the poly's role in society is a limited one - one where 1) its use is "incident-specific" - for example, crimes where the GKT (which is less flawed than the CQT) can be used. And where 2) the benefit of passing is equal in weight to the potential harm of failing. In the criminal context, this is generally the case: if you pass, you're not exactly exonerated - the investigation continues if you're a suspect. If you fail, the information is inadmissible.
Use of the polygraph in a pre-employment screening situation is a gross misjudgment on the part of the government, however. Passing means the background check continues - you gain little of value other than continuing in the security screening. Failing, however, in many cases means a lifetime ban from reapplying with the agency (often incongruous with the agency's own screening policies), and sometimes a compete ban from sensitive gov't work. This is also the case for current gov't employees. You pass, you keep your job. Fail, and your career is effectively over.
Posted by retcopper
- Mar 24, 2006, 11:35 AM1. Polygraphed a subject who denied shaking an infant and killing him. He failed my poly and gave me a confession. Hold up man shot and killed two customers, failed my exam and gave a confession and two other homicides are solved.
2. I've taken 2 exams.
3. Would test my kids to see if they smoke. I'll let you have fun with this one and let you decide if my nose is growing.
4. What difference does that make.
5. I still do polys. I vist this site to be amused by people like you and to talk to mature people who have a genuine interest in poly.
Posted by Administrator
- Mar 24, 2006, 04:14 AMName calling, such as allegedliar's calling nonombre "Nobrain," "a dumbass," and "a creep" is inappropriate and a violation of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy. Nonombre's reply to you was also inappropriate, but it did not come without provocation.
All are requested to keep it civil. Strong disagreement and vigorous debate are welcome; personal attacks are not.
All are requested to keep it civil. Strong disagreement and vigorous debate are welcome; personal attacks are not.
Posted by nonombre
- Mar 24, 2006, 12:32 AMGeez,
Somebody PLEASE tell me what rock this slug crawled out from under...
Somebody PLEASE tell me what rock this slug crawled out from under...
Posted by nolehce
- Mar 23, 2006, 11:02 PMHi,
Nobody asked you, but since you butted in, Nobrain ...
#1 So, you're telling me that with all that evidence from the crime itself, you are that crappy of a cop that you still had to rely on a polygraph to crack a case? You must totally suck. Failed your appeal to the heartstrings.
#2 In your poly, you were in fact telling the truth then when you responded affirmatively that you are a dumbass who would faithfully rely on the polygraph to prosecute people, rather than physical evidence.
#3 And so polygraphy is child's play? You're a sick father figure and I'd never let my kids near you. If you parent by deception and intimidation, you're doing your children a real disservice, you creep.
#4 Ah, this question is the clincher -- and I think it's why Retcopper will not reply, at least honestly if he ever does. He knows what's up. So, retcopper, which coast do you live on? And don't lie now ...
Nobody asked you, but since you butted in, Nobrain ...
#1 So, you're telling me that with all that evidence from the crime itself, you are that crappy of a cop that you still had to rely on a polygraph to crack a case? You must totally suck. Failed your appeal to the heartstrings.
#2 In your poly, you were in fact telling the truth then when you responded affirmatively that you are a dumbass who would faithfully rely on the polygraph to prosecute people, rather than physical evidence.
#3 And so polygraphy is child's play? You're a sick father figure and I'd never let my kids near you. If you parent by deception and intimidation, you're doing your children a real disservice, you creep.
#4 Ah, this question is the clincher -- and I think it's why Retcopper will not reply, at least honestly if he ever does. He knows what's up. So, retcopper, which coast do you live on? And don't lie now ...