- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Kalex
- Aug 02, 2007, 11:26 AMQuote from: InnocentWithPTSD on Aug 02, 2007, 08:07 AMThanks Kalex:
Here's a Q:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."
Oops, I am not asking you that Sir. I wrote that question down for the Police Lieutenant who gave me the polygraph.
Lloyd
I'll answer you just in case...." I haven't started yet"
Ambivalent..
Perhaps.
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 02, 2007, 08:07 AMThanks Kalex:
Here's a Q:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."
Oops, I am not asking you that Sir. I wrote that question down for the Police Lieutenant who gave me the polygraph.
Lloyd
Here's a Q:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."
Oops, I am not asking you that Sir. I wrote that question down for the Police Lieutenant who gave me the polygraph.
Lloyd
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 02, 2007, 08:03 AMThanks Kalex:
Here's a Q:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."
Lloyd
Here's a Q:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet."
Lloyd
Posted by Kalex
- Aug 02, 2007, 07:42 AMDear InnocentWithPTSD,
Your post is very distressing. I feel your pain.
The American Association Of Psychologists will back you up that
the collection of technologies claiming to be 'Lie - Detectors' are
not scientific and CAN harm the psyche of subjects being 'tested'.
Eminent Psychologists and Criminologists have for long pressured
governments to outlaw lie-detectors. The irony is that the 2 principle
technologies (polygraph and vsa) are better at detecting truth than lies.
I stand corrected, but the stats are in the order of 75% accurate in detecting
truth, and 55% accurate in detecting lies. IE - as lie detectors they are marginally
better than chance - chance being 50-50; same as a coin toss.
(There are many references to this research in Vrij's book, 'Detecting Lies & Deceit')
Where the APA et al get their 98% accuracy stat from is a mystery.
I would rather believe the research of unbiased, non industry funded criminal psychologists.
If you were tested by means of LVA, then you were totally prejudiced, because that
system has accuracy of <35% in detecting truth or lies - ie worse than 'chance'.
Regards,
Your post is very distressing. I feel your pain.
The American Association Of Psychologists will back you up that
the collection of technologies claiming to be 'Lie - Detectors' are
not scientific and CAN harm the psyche of subjects being 'tested'.
Eminent Psychologists and Criminologists have for long pressured
governments to outlaw lie-detectors. The irony is that the 2 principle
technologies (polygraph and vsa) are better at detecting truth than lies.
I stand corrected, but the stats are in the order of 75% accurate in detecting
truth, and 55% accurate in detecting lies. IE - as lie detectors they are marginally
better than chance - chance being 50-50; same as a coin toss.
(There are many references to this research in Vrij's book, 'Detecting Lies & Deceit')
Where the APA et al get their 98% accuracy stat from is a mystery.
I would rather believe the research of unbiased, non industry funded criminal psychologists.
If you were tested by means of LVA, then you were totally prejudiced, because that
system has accuracy of <35% in detecting truth or lies - ie worse than 'chance'.
Regards,
Posted by InnocentWithPTSD
- Aug 01, 2007, 01:30 PMRecently, I volunteered to take and was administered a polygraph. Shortly after my recent wedding, the remainder of my wedding cake was poisoned. I had swallowed a forkful before I realized this from the burning sensation in my mouth and throat. I stopped my wife from eating more than the frosting. We were both very sick for a time but survived.
It occurred that when we brought the cake into the Police Department the staff admitted it into the chain of custody for it had obviously been tampered with. Naturally, I, the victim was required by the Police and the Department of Youth and Family Services to remain awake for 42 hours while suffering the lingering effects of the poison.
It seems no one has admitted to tampering with my wedding cake. Thus, during my polygraph exam, I was accused of the evil deed.
Well, I informed the officer operating the polygraph that I had been diagnosed with PTDS as a result of 5 years of blindfolded beatings by the errant "child psychologist" Clarence McCormick as a child. Clarence had told my mother that I needed his operant conditioning (the operant being pain and fear) because I failed the psychological tests he gave me.
So, the equipment was calibrated for stress with the question: 7*3-16 = ? I answered truthfully with 5. Note 7*(3-16) = -91 as well...
When accused of poisoning the cake, my wife and myself during the questioning I may have exhibited stress. Duh Sherlock! Just like Clarence always did, the investigator claimed (and I do not know if this is true or not) that I "failed the test." An intense interrogation ensued with the polygraph officer claiming he had used his device to convict a long string of heinous criminals.
I did become a bit wroth at his self-deception (for I am a real scientist) and informed him that his device can only detect stress, not truth or falsehood. I asked the officers if they had ever considered that the culprit might be the one who a communications data warrant has recently revealed to have made 45 "restricted" phone calls to my cell phone containing death threats against my 3 sons and I. That shut them up a bit.
Okay, I do have a peculiar affect due to 5 years of regularly scheduled "stress school" and blindfolded torture as a child. I guess when I am under stress from unidentified assailants I am unlikely to seem normal to layered voice analysis either.
Since my polygraph I have done some reading and found your worthy organization. Did you guys know that the Journal of Forensic Science has identified the polygraph as a very useful tool to distinguish whether a person really has PTSD or is a malingerer seeking to capitalize on insurance and disability benefits?
I forgive that self important, deluded, under trained and undereducated copper though: When the uneducated are presented with what seems a sure conviction from the results of a "cold scientific device" a confession can even be browbeaten from the innocent. We must recall that Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, The Green River Killer, Charles Manson and O. J. Simpson all passed though.
It occurred that when we brought the cake into the Police Department the staff admitted it into the chain of custody for it had obviously been tampered with. Naturally, I, the victim was required by the Police and the Department of Youth and Family Services to remain awake for 42 hours while suffering the lingering effects of the poison.
It seems no one has admitted to tampering with my wedding cake. Thus, during my polygraph exam, I was accused of the evil deed.
Well, I informed the officer operating the polygraph that I had been diagnosed with PTDS as a result of 5 years of blindfolded beatings by the errant "child psychologist" Clarence McCormick as a child. Clarence had told my mother that I needed his operant conditioning (the operant being pain and fear) because I failed the psychological tests he gave me.
So, the equipment was calibrated for stress with the question: 7*3-16 = ? I answered truthfully with 5. Note 7*(3-16) = -91 as well...
When accused of poisoning the cake, my wife and myself during the questioning I may have exhibited stress. Duh Sherlock! Just like Clarence always did, the investigator claimed (and I do not know if this is true or not) that I "failed the test." An intense interrogation ensued with the polygraph officer claiming he had used his device to convict a long string of heinous criminals.
I did become a bit wroth at his self-deception (for I am a real scientist) and informed him that his device can only detect stress, not truth or falsehood. I asked the officers if they had ever considered that the culprit might be the one who a communications data warrant has recently revealed to have made 45 "restricted" phone calls to my cell phone containing death threats against my 3 sons and I. That shut them up a bit.
Okay, I do have a peculiar affect due to 5 years of regularly scheduled "stress school" and blindfolded torture as a child. I guess when I am under stress from unidentified assailants I am unlikely to seem normal to layered voice analysis either.
Since my polygraph I have done some reading and found your worthy organization. Did you guys know that the Journal of Forensic Science has identified the polygraph as a very useful tool to distinguish whether a person really has PTSD or is a malingerer seeking to capitalize on insurance and disability benefits?
I forgive that self important, deluded, under trained and undereducated copper though: When the uneducated are presented with what seems a sure conviction from the results of a "cold scientific device" a confession can even be browbeaten from the innocent. We must recall that Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, The Green River Killer, Charles Manson and O. J. Simpson all passed though.