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:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Jul 31, 2006, 05:41 PM
Believing that the users of this site have a resolute detestation of the polygraph is quite a close-minded statement in itself and I find it equally insulting.  I think I speak for many users when I state that I am more than willing to re-evaluate or change my views on the polygraph if shown sound, scientific evidence that supports the accuracy of the device.  

However, such information has not been presented.  If one wishes to claim that the polygraph is a scientific device then they must be willing to subject it to the scrutiny of the scientific process.  

I believe that the polygraphers that post on the site are very intelligent individuals and therefore base their personal believes on tangible evidence and well-thought out rational.  Perhaps we are simply unaware or undereducated regarding the polygraph and they posses forms of scientifically proven information that they have yet to share with us.  
I am ready to review any such information so long as the research follows the scientific process.  If the weight of the information is stronger than my current believes, then I would be foolish to cling to them. Are the pro-polygraph supports willing to do the same?  
Posted by retcopper
 - Jul 31, 2006, 04:56 PM
George:

I think you misunderstood noombre's post.  I took it to mean that no matter what pro poly people post it is going to be countered by people who already have thier minds made up.

Have a good day.
Posted by cesium_133
 - Jul 31, 2006, 05:48 AM
QuoteThe order of events went something like this.  Suspect can't be cleared with an alibi.  Suspect is questioned and polygraphed.  Suspect "fails" polygraph and confesses, tells the police where the body is, and describes the crime.

FBI-R, you described the one redeeming thing about polygraphs: that even in a lie based upon lies (they don't tell lie from truth, and only have a use if a subject believes the proffered lie that they -do-), you can draw the truth out -on occasion-.  It's fancy interrogation, nothing more.  If it's used as a ruse to get a confession to a murder, from a prime suspect who already has troubles with his story, I have a hard time being upset with it in that case.  It's the fact that the box is being used as an interrogation tactic, with prior suspicions in hand, which gives me less pause about it.  Plus, the guy could have refused to take it at any time.  If he has a corpse in his basement, he deserves whatever he gets.

However, indiscriminate use of the poly, lining up 20 suspects, testing them, and then reverse-engineering a case against the one found to be the biggest "failure" is flat wrong.  Leaking any results of a test is wrong.  Indeed, using it beyond the interrogation room, or using it as a threat in some way ("If you don't take this, we'll arrest you"), is improper.  It's too likely to finger the wrong guy, and it can lead authorities on a wild goose chase costing $$$.

Note that I am not advocating the poly's use for this reason, or any other.  It -might- be useful, but only as a parlor trick to a nobler end, and as a one-time shot.  It should be used sparingly, too.  In fact, the more I write, the more my reasoning tells me it should be reserved for the most severe or horrible acts.  That, or where a giant threat exists to national security...

For example, let's suppose George, founder of this site and righteous guy, got the job he should have gotten those years ago.  He's translating a conversation in Farsi that got recorded on a roving cell-phone tap.  What do you know, it's plans to hit NYC again, and definitive ones, listing names, locales, and times.  The FBI goes out and arrests 5 suspects named in the wiretap...

After George interrogates them (in Farsi, to best gauge their responses), presents them with the copies of the calls, and gets them to talk some, if the FBI wants to try the box on them to scare them, there might be an argument.  Not to build a case per se, but perhaps to save lives: you're speaking then of a higher duty.  Even then, it is a 10th-string tool, to be sure, and not to gauge truth.  That would have been more George's job, as he questioned the men.

I am also not going to bat for its accuracy, which I find to be 50% in most cases.  Anything higher than that would require analysis based on a subset of persons who have documented responses to certain questions and types of questions.  If you analyzed the prison population of San Quentin, taking 1000 guys whose guilt was not in doubt, and polyed them with the sham reasoning that they would go free if they passed, you'd probably get more than 500 right.  Of course, the polyman would have been informed of the subjects' guilt, etc.  Not very scientific...

Conclusion 1: it's still junk.

Conclusion 2: if 50 of those San Quentin guys knew how to beat the poly, the machine just got smacked down 50 times.  Not very good at all when you're dealing with people whose guilt was never questioned.

Conclusion 3: by FBI rationale, if applied to the suspects George interrogated :) as it is to FBI job applicants, and they knew how to beat it, the poly could set them loose... what a crazy world...
Posted by underlyingtruth
 - Jul 30, 2006, 09:25 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:53 PM

Triple x,

I would have weighed in on your last remark, but I have learned that no matter the facts, polygraph will never get a "break" on any website called:  "Antipolygraph.org"

Regards,

Nonombre :-/


But sites like thepolygraphplace.com allow fair and uncensored postings, right?  WRONG!  They delete ANY post that might provide negative information regarding the polygraph and they are ever quicker to delete legitimate research and articles opposing the polygraph.  
Antipolygraph.org more than welcomes opposing information.  We are not afraid of the TRUTH!

Can you explain to us, Nonombre, why they delete all opposing information and refuse to answer questions about research that invalidates the use of the polygraph?

Have you ever felt that you were unable to freely post any pro-polygraph information on this site regardless of the content?
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Jul 30, 2006, 05:26 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:53 PM

Triple x,

I would have weighed in on your last remark, but I have learned that no matter the facts, polygraph will never get a "break" on any website called:  "Antipolygraph.org"

Regards,

Nonombre :-/

Nonombre,

You always get to post your opinions, as not having them would make for a much less interesting venue on this board. We all need a hobby ....

Regards ...
Posted by triple x
 - Jul 30, 2006, 02:46 PM
nonombre,

I do believe that polygraph testing probably "bluff's" a confession out of the unsuspecting criminal on occasion. For those individuals that don't understand polygraph testing, the process could be fairly intimidating.

v/r
triple x
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jul 30, 2006, 02:43 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:53 PM

Triple x,

I would have weighed in on your last remark, but I have learned that no matter the facts, polygraph will never get a "break" on any website called:  "Antipolygraph.org"

Regards,

Nonombre :-/

You are as free as anyone else to post your views (and any facts supporting them) here. You are no doubt cognizant that none of your 200+ posts here have ever been censored in any way. Thus your lamentation about polygraphy never getting a "break" here seems misplaced. Your choice not to substantively respond to triple x's post is your own (and one I hope you might re-consider).
Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 30, 2006, 12:53 PM
Quote from: triple x on Jul 29, 2006, 10:03 PMFBI-Reject,

You said:

"I do not believe the polygraph provided any sort of magic that led the FBI to solve the crime."

I think the "magic" that helped the FBI solve this particular case was finding the little girls body in the suspects basement...

The polygraph played no role in this case. Rather, the murdered body in his basement sealed the suspects fate.


triple x

Triple x,

I would have weighed in on your last remark, but I have learned that no matter the facts, polygraph will never get a "break" on any website called:  "Antipolygraph.org"

Regards,

Nonombre :-/
Posted by triple x
 - Jul 29, 2006, 10:03 PM
FBI-Reject,

You said:

"I do not believe the polygraph provided any sort of magic that led the FBI to solve the crime."

I think the "magic" that helped the FBI solve this particular case was finding the little girls body in the suspects basement...

The polygraph played no role in this case. Rather, the murdered body in his basement sealed the suspects fate.


triple x
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Jul 29, 2006, 07:36 PM
FBI-Reject,

As far as the utility of the polygraph to nail this dirtbag, its good they got him, by what ever means. The only solice that can be brought from this is that he is heading for DeathRow and not a tear will I shead for the death of this child killer. I don't have a problem with the polygraph used to nail scum such as this.  Sometimes even junk science props may have utility.
 
Regards ....
Posted by FBI-Reject
 - Jul 29, 2006, 05:50 PM
The order of events went something like this.  Suspect can't be cleared with an alibi.  Suspect is questioned and polygraphed.  Suspect "fails" polygraph and confesses, tells the police where the body is, and describes the crime.

I do not believe the polygraph provided any sort of magic that led the FBI to solve the crime.  I think the FBI used its interrogation techniques to let the suspect believe they could in essence read his mind.  I think once they turned up the heat on him, he confessed.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the people questioned were led to believe they were "failing" the polygraph to see if a confession could be obtained.

I guess this opened my eyes a little bit to the utility of polygraphs as an interrogation tool.  Still little more than a prop, but at least in this case it got a confession.  At least in this case, the FBI did something right.

As for an end-all tool to determine a person's suitibility for FBI employment, and consequentially marking them for life, it's nonsense.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Jul 29, 2006, 01:25 PM
When the police have a suspect in a serious crime they didn't just select that person at random.  

Whether the suspect passes or fails a polygraph means little except in the press, where they love to use the polygraph to add drama.

I suspect that even fans of the polygraph (meaning polygraph examiners who are also law enforcement agents) don't automatically jump to the conclusion that a failed polygraph means that the suspect is guilty of the crime for which they are being questioned.  I would guess that they believe a failed poly means just that the suspect was lying or withholding information on something pertinent.

All police officers are unfortunately aware that the vast majority of people being questioned, guilty or not, will lie about something or withhold information about something.  Often it is something entirely trivial, but their obvious lies force the police to spend further time and effort investigating that person.

And that has nothing to do with the polygraph.
Posted by triple x
 - Jul 29, 2006, 02:17 AM
FBI-Reject,

The last sentence of the news story actually states: "capping off a day of intense questioning by the FBI, and a failed polygraph exam." Meaning the individual was already a suspect and was being questioned by the FBI prior to the polygraph. Obviously, failing the polygraph did not play to his advantage; as most people do not know the polygraph is basically a junk science.

In this particular case, I don't think the polygraph had any more influence on the individual being suspected for committing the alleged crime, as did the little girls body being found in his basement. Personally, I would be suspicious of any individual if the body of a little girl was found in their basement regardless if they passed or failed a polygraph exam.

It simply depends on how the news story is presented. Had the suspect passes the polygraph exam, the news story may have said that polygraphs are not reliable, nor or they allowed as evidence in criminal court cases.

Considering that the little girl's body was found in the individual's basement, I personally suspect that he may have had something to do with her murder. In this case, failing the polygraph didn't hurt him anymore than finding the little girls body in his basement.


triple x
Posted by FBI-Reject
 - Jul 28, 2006, 12:39 AM
This crime has been big news around my parent's hometown.  One of the most disgusting things I've encountered.

The suspect was zeroed in on in part because he "failed" an FBI polygraph.  What's the opinion here as to the utility of polygraphs for criminal investigations?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0706/2702_destiny_norton.html

For all my disdain for the FBI, I'm glad the polygraph was of some usefulness in this case.