- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 16, 2007, 10:00 AMSarge, I don't think anyone here has argued against Miranda while in custody - all COPS are aware of Miranda. Now back to to this thread Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 15, 2007, 10:22 PMParadiddle wrote the following:
It seems to me that an easy way to prove the polygraph is an interrogation is that Miranda is required before you can polygraph any suspect in custody. My questioning in this regard was reasonable and on point.
Whether you wish to call it interviewing, questioning, or interrogation, if you have a suspect in custody and are going to ask questions or do anything likely to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda is required. That includes the polygraph. It logically follows that the polygraph falls under the category of interrogation.
QuoteGino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview. If on the other hand a person such as yourself fails a polygraph---than yes, expect an ACCUSATION (INTERROGATION). Trust me, I am an examiner, not a sideline activist.
It seems to me that an easy way to prove the polygraph is an interrogation is that Miranda is required before you can polygraph any suspect in custody. My questioning in this regard was reasonable and on point.
Whether you wish to call it interviewing, questioning, or interrogation, if you have a suspect in custody and are going to ask questions or do anything likely to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda is required. That includes the polygraph. It logically follows that the polygraph falls under the category of interrogation.
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 15, 2007, 06:16 PMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 05:22 PMSarge,
I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.
Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.
Take care,
MM
Sarge, MM is right. If you were or are a cop, you wouldn't be discussing the difference between interview vs interrogation. Now back to Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph. BTW, besides seeing a picture of Drew, I would love to read his disertation...
Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 15, 2007, 05:22 PMSarge,
I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.
Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.
Take care,
MM
I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.
Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.
Take care,
MM
Posted by Hunter
- Oct 15, 2007, 05:22 PMIN CUSTODY is the key word. As far as a polygraph being an interrogation, it turns into an interrigation after a call of deception is given and questioning starts regarding the suspected deception. It is an interview prior to that. Miranda is required if the individual is restricted and cannot leave, that is IN CUSTODY.
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 15, 2007, 05:18 PMSarge,
Its just that your so eminently attackable...
Miranda is a matter of SOP.
That does not itself define anything in the epistemological sense.
The way you write, its sounds like you'd disagree that police should even question people.
This is like Plato allegory of the cave - its a bunch of people sitting around blowing smoke up each others a%^, about something ya'll seem to feel rather desperate about.
Remember this thread is about Drewie's fabricated expertise regarding the polygraph.
Its just that your so eminently attackable...
Miranda is a matter of SOP.
That does not itself define anything in the epistemological sense.
The way you write, its sounds like you'd disagree that police should even question people.
This is like Plato allegory of the cave - its a bunch of people sitting around blowing smoke up each others a%^, about something ya'll seem to feel rather desperate about.
Remember this thread is about Drewie's fabricated expertise regarding the polygraph.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 15, 2007, 04:57 PMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 02:38 PMSergeant,If you could explain to me how the polygraph is not an interrogation, but still cannot be administered to suspects in custody without Miranda I would certainly be willing to listen.
You wrote:
"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".
Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.
Get a life,
MM
If you could do it without the pointless ad hom attacks it might give you a bit more credibility.
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 15, 2007, 04:15 PMSarge,
(if you are a sarge, 'cause most sergeants don't whine about their tough experiences at every opportunity)
and D-Head (if you know anything about science and empirical matters)
This thread is not about whether the polygraph is an interrogation. By your broad definitions a job interview is an interrogation.
The thread is about the fact that Drew Richardson and the users of this board have grossly exaggerated his credentials and "expertise" as a polygraph examiner. It seems he's hardly qualified at all.
And now, there is speculation about whether he even exists.
Drewie = Lt. Kije
?
(if you are a sarge, 'cause most sergeants don't whine about their tough experiences at every opportunity)
and D-Head (if you know anything about science and empirical matters)
This thread is not about whether the polygraph is an interrogation. By your broad definitions a job interview is an interrogation.
The thread is about the fact that Drew Richardson and the users of this board have grossly exaggerated his credentials and "expertise" as a polygraph examiner. It seems he's hardly qualified at all.
And now, there is speculation about whether he even exists.
Drewie = Lt. Kije
?Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 15, 2007, 02:38 PMSergeant,
You wrote:
"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".
Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.
Get a life,
MM
You wrote:
"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".
Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.
Get a life,
MM
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 15, 2007, 12:48 PMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 11:20 AMSergeant,I have already expressed the idea contained in the highlighted text above. You are exhibiting classic troll behavior.
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
The text of Miranda v. Arizona uses the terms "questioning" and "interrogation" synonymously.
QuoteTo summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court defined "interrogation" as as "express questioning or its functional equivalent." The court went on to write that the functional equivalent of interrogation consists of "words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."
You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights. You could also ignore the Edwards Rule and polygraph a suspect in custody after he states he wants to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. In reality, you can do neither.
Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 15, 2007, 11:20 AMSergeant,
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 15, 2007, 10:19 AMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 15, 2007, 09:41 AMShucks,
Who is Drew Richardson........
Drew Richardson was an FBI chemical specialist who went to DODPI, and according to classmates, Barely graduated and didn't recieve his certification. Drew was defaulted to the poly lab at DODPI where he was reputted to be very disagreeable and perhaps unhappy with the FBI's demotion/ displacement. After emerging from DODPI, he testified before congress and the NAS that polygraph was not a valid tool for detecting deception---despite going on record of saying that polygraph GKT was a valid test. Since his testimony, he has challenged the polygraph community to detect his countermeasures in a mock crime lab setting. The challenge is poorly conceived via psychological construct, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone challenges Drew to a likewise empty countermeasure challenge involving his fMRI booby-tube. I would like to know how being a simple physiologist while analysizing neurological and neuro-linguistic activity is connected. I do however wish him luck and if he pioneers his field, I will praise his new work, but I will always lampoon his "reluctant activism," evident poor performance at DODPI, and subsequent fanboy indulgences. I submit that Drew's expertise in polygraph mirrors G W Bush's expertise in Ranching.
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 15, 2007, 07:49 AMQuoteI remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test.
...
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts.
My apologies to all
. Drew Richardson was clearly a spectacular :-/ examiner and theorist and was meritous of "superior expert witness" regarding polygraph methodology. GMAFB! No one squeezes out little brown stink-cakes like you folks-----no one. Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 15, 2007, 12:52 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 03:52 PMLet's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Actually, Mark Johnson in his statement did not characterize Dr. Richardson as "the single worst polygraph student" he had "ever seen," nor did he state that Dr. Richardson "lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures." Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson's performance is limited to the following two paragraphs of his statement:
Quote6.I remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test.
...
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts.
Note that Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson appears to be based on his observation of only one polygraph examination. While Johnson characterizes Dr. Richardson's polygraph examination as "the worst polygraph examination [he had] ever witnessed," he offers no specific criticism of it, which makes any rebuttal problematic. As for Johnson's only specific claim -- that Dr. Richardson canceled "five to seven" polygraph examinations that he (Johnson) was to supervise -- Dr. Richardson promptly addressed it, stating that "(w)ith regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me."
It is again worth noting that Mark Johnson's gross mischaracterization of statements made by former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah in such a serious national security matter as an espionage investigation calls his objectivity into question.
As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, Dr. Richardson fully responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely addressed your mockingly sarcastic follow-up questions. Despite your and your fellow polygraphers' ongoing histrionics, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials, nor (as alluded to by digithead) have you in any way impeached Dr. Richardson's credibility with regard to any matter on which he has testified.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 14, 2007, 11:11 PMI am going to assume from the frantic re-direction attempts by Paradiddle that no one is going to continue to falsely claim that a suspect in custody need not be Mirandized prior to being polygraphed.
As I already wrote, since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that certainly indicates that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.
If you have a suspect in custody, and you advise him of his rights, and he invokes his right to counsel, does the Edwards Rule apply with regards to a polygraph exam? Or are you going to try to claim that a suspect in custody who has asked for a lawyer can be polygraphed anyway since it is not an interrogation?
As I already wrote, since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that certainly indicates that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.
If you have a suspect in custody, and you advise him of his rights, and he invokes his right to counsel, does the Edwards Rule apply with regards to a polygraph exam? Or are you going to try to claim that a suspect in custody who has asked for a lawyer can be polygraphed anyway since it is not an interrogation?