- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 25, 2007, 08:02 AMToday's (Sunday, 25 November 2007) New York Times includes a feature article about Jeffrey Mark Deskovic. See, "Vindicated by DNA, but a Lost Man on the Outside" by Fernanda Santos.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 20, 2007, 03:17 AMJeffrey Deskovic now has a website with articles that he's written and a discussion forum:
http://www.jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org
http://www.jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:20 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 09, 2007, 10:15 PMSummertime ended September 22nd Einstein. Time for meds?
Its still summer in my mind! but....
Einstein? how did you know my name wow you ARE good and no.. i took my meds already! wait.. NO i dont take meds orrr do I
''tbld'' aka ''einstein''
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:15 PMSummertime ended September 22nd Einstein. Time for meds?
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 10:04 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 09, 2007, 09:36 PMtbld: Are you still riding Sarge's coat tail?
WW: Its still summer time why would Sarge have a coat let alone tails
''tbld''
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 09, 2007, 09:36 PMtbld: Are you still riding Sarge's coat tail?
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 09:22 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:28 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 12:20 PM.....only a pussy would compare a mere polygraph examination to a generalized lengthy interrogation.When you resort to name calling it does not indicate you are debating from a position of strength.
Sarge said it best btw.....
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 09:20 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 09, 2007, 08:55 PMQuote from: tbld on Oct 09, 2007, 08:40 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:33 PMThe name calling stems from the fact that for many years now our ranks have been dragged through the mud over and over and over and over----and again. When you ask so incredulously "why all the name calling" you remind me of an American white man asking foolishly "why do black folks seem so angry?" Incidentally, I am proud of much of the restraint of my brethren, considering that many of the ranks around here disrespect their life's work and their want for safer streets. No brutality, just strictures mind you.
This site extends beyond criticisms and lampooning of polygaph examiners. This site is one great big ad hom attack on every examiner who seeks to conduct fair tests in order to insure safer streets---and once more this site empowers sex offenders to disengage from their treatment and supervision protocol under false pretense. So, my question to you oh "tbld" activist against polygraph----is, why are you reminded of a kid? Do you like "little kids" Woody?
First its ''polygraph'' not polgaph( you think you would know how to spell it since you are a pg...you are arent you?)Someone needs a nap oh cranky crankifier...Got to love the ''quotations'' i know i ''do'' and what happened to buck-o?
Regards
''tbld''
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 09, 2007, 08:55 PMQuote from: tbld on Oct 09, 2007, 08:40 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:33 PMThe name calling stems from the fact that for many years now our ranks have been dragged through the mud over and over and over and over----and again. When you ask so incredulously "why all the name calling" you remind me of an American white man asking foolishly "why do black folks seem so angry?" Incidentally, I am proud of much of the restraint of my brethren, considering that many of the ranks around here disrespect their life's work and their want for safer streets. No brutality, just strictures mind you.
so have lawyers and many other professions....grow up no need for the ''ad hom'' attacks. you remind me of the little kid who doesnt get his way and takes his ball and goes home. go home.... PD go home...
This site extends beyond criticisms and lampooning of polygraph (corrected type-o)examiners. This site is one great big ad hom attack on every examiner who seeks to conduct fair tests in order to insure safer streets---and once more this site empowers sex offenders to disengage from their treatment and supervision protocol under false pretense. So, my question to you oh "tbld" activist against polygraph----is, why are you reminded of a kid? Do you like "little kids" Woody?
Posted by tbld
- Oct 09, 2007, 08:40 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:33 PMThe name calling stems from the fact that for many years now our ranks have been dragged through the mud over and over and over and over----and again. When you ask so incredulously "why all the name calling" you remind me of an American white man asking foolishly "why do black folks seem so angry?" Incidentally, I am proud of much of the restraint of my brethren, considering that many of the ranks around here disrespect their life's work and their want for safer streets. No brutality, just strictures mind you.
so have lawyers and many other professions....grow up no need for the ''ad hom'' attacks. you remind me of the little kid who doesnt get his way and takes his ball and goes home. go home.... PD go home...
Posted by Brettski
- Oct 09, 2007, 07:30 PMQuote from: Ludovico on Oct 06, 2007, 11:30 AMBrettski:QuoteThe interagator knew that he needed a confession to make a case against the kid. So he asked Jeffrey to take a little polygraph test, but the report makes a direct point that this test was arranged for the "sole purpose of obtaining a confession." The examiner graded Jeffrey as inconclusive, so the investigator decided to make a little white lie, and tell Jeffrey that he had failed.
Tell how you know these intimate details. This seems like self-serving embellishment.
Ludovico,
I did no such thing, I know these facts from carefully reading the Winchester county report on the false conviction:
https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Attachments/Jeffrey_Deskovic_Comm_Rpt.pdf
and Matt Elweig's article on the issue:
http://adowntownreporter.blogspot.com/2006/11/someone-elses-time-jeff-deskovic-spent.html
They were both posted by George on this thread some time ago. As the case report states that the polygraph examer, Investigator Stephens, proceeded with the "avowed purpose of which was to elecit a confession" [pg 14]. I mentioned the report in passing because I had assumed everyone knew what I was referring too, and had read the material for themselves. It is rediculous to argue that post test interviews occured in isolation of the polygraph test. Obtaining confessions has always been an important selling point of the polygraph profession; and they're dangerously effective.
I still remember Angela's name, Ludovico. I mention it sparringly out of respect for her family. Unlike certain individuals who would call them into public eye over and over again while ostensibly posing as there self-proclaimed protector. If you really cared about comforting her family, I would suggest leaving them out of this debate. You seem very informed about how people ought to behave. However, I do not see the direct connection between saying that Jeffrey's false confession was caused by a polygraph, and causing pain and suffering for the Angela's family.
Also, I do not accuse the investigors responsible for this case of being evil... sigh.
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 08, 2007, 09:45 AMSo Gino,
Would you cite this case as an example of the need to ban police investigators from obtaining confessions? Or, would you suppose this is an example of the need for better oversight and protocol?
Would you cite this case as an example of the need to ban police investigators from obtaining confessions? Or, would you suppose this is an example of the need for better oversight and protocol?
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 06, 2007, 09:48 PMQuoteTell how you know these intimate details. This seems like self-serving embellishment.
He likely knew this because the police used a polygraph in the case--for the same reason it is almost always used.
They had a weak case that had no chance of a successful prosecution without a home-run confession.
Posted by Ludovico
- Oct 06, 2007, 11:30 AMBrettski:
Tell how you know these intimate details. This seems like self-serving embellishment.
Yes you do. Her name was Angela Correa. She was 15 years old. She had a family that missed her. She was rapped and strangled and beaten and killed.
This young man's name is Jeffrey Deskovic. He is now known to be a victim or casualty of a faulty investigation and faulty legal proceedings.
Unless you think them inherently evil, the investigators and courts were attempting to solve a murder.
No problem there.
Beliefs are fine, but they are just beliefs. Its not the polygraph test that got the false confession. Its the interrogation that followed.
If that interrogation was as flawed as has been presented, its quite possible the investigator would have pursued that matter with or without the polygraph.
Please honor the fact that these are people's lives, and stop with the self-serving embellishment. Its not at all compassionate or humane.
QuoteThe interagator knew that he needed a confession to make a case against the kid. So he asked Jeffrey to take a little polygraph test, but the report makes a direct point that this test was arranged for the "sole purpose of obtaining a confession." The examiner graded Jeffrey as inconclusive, so the investigator decided to make a little white lie, and tell Jeffrey that he had failed.
Tell how you know these intimate details. This seems like self-serving embellishment.
QuoteWe all understand that a girl died in this tragedy; I don't need a patronizing reminder.
Yes you do. Her name was Angela Correa. She was 15 years old. She had a family that missed her. She was rapped and strangled and beaten and killed.
This young man's name is Jeffrey Deskovic. He is now known to be a victim or casualty of a faulty investigation and faulty legal proceedings.
Unless you think them inherently evil, the investigators and courts were attempting to solve a murder.
QuoteThere's nothing shameful about trying to prevent it from happening again.
No problem there.
QuoteI believe the polygraph caused an innocent person to be convicted by playing a direct and prominent role in inducing a false confession.
Beliefs are fine, but they are just beliefs. Its not the polygraph test that got the false confession. Its the interrogation that followed.
If that interrogation was as flawed as has been presented, its quite possible the investigator would have pursued that matter with or without the polygraph.
Please honor the fact that these are people's lives, and stop with the self-serving embellishment. Its not at all compassionate or humane.
Posted by Brettski
- Oct 05, 2007, 01:09 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 09:41 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:28 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 12:20 PM.....only a pussy would compare a mere polygraph examination to a generalized lengthy interrogation.When you resort to name calling it does not indicate you are debating from a position of strength.
Granted, I was being flippent over the gross victimization of the ranks who compare the (albeit unpleasent) 3 hour polygraph test with smoke, soft drink, and bathroom breaks---compared with an 8 hour accusation fest, where the suspect is a pinata while the ego-smashing barbs from the mouths of detectives berate and echo repeated abuse.
To rephrase, only a self victimizing weakling would compare the relative "face slap" (poly test)to a piano falling on the head (marathon torture session.) Thanks for correcting me "Sarge", I must have had a headache when I wrote that.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; a step in the wrong direction is a step in the wrong direction.
As for isolating the polygraph's impact on the psyche from the less sophistacated means of confession extraction. I would once again point out that Jeffrey was interrogated on several occasions, with all the usual intimidation tactics being employed. There was a extremely hostile interrogation on both Jan 10th and Jan 25th if memory of the case report serves me. On both occasions, the investigator pushed HARD for that elusive confession, but on the 10th, all he got was a map of the crime scene [a.k.a. "the pit"]. The interagator knew that he needed a confession to make a case against the kid. So he asked Jeffrey to take a little polygraph test, but the report makes a direct point that this test was arranged for the "sole purpose of obtaining a confession." The examiner graded Jeffrey as inconclusive, so the investigator decided to make a little white lie, and tell Jeffrey that he had failed. Things then got very confrontational, and jeffrey confessed. In a sense, they repeated the same interrogation keeping all things constant except for the polygraph. How do you explain why Jeffrey was vehemently protesting his innocence on Jan 10th, but gave into oppresion and confessed on Jan 25th? All the same dirty tactics were used in both cases. Only one thing changed at the end of the day. Furthermore, if the investigator had no other intention other than to get a confession out of that kid, why did he go to trouble of getting a polygrapher. What was he hoping to achieve with the polygraph if not the classifaction of guilt or innocence? The report made it quite clear that there was no doubt in the investigator's mind that Jeffrey was guilty well into December.
We all understand that a girl died in this tragedy; I don't need a patronizing reminder. There's nothing shameful about trying to prevent it from happening again. I believe the polygraph caused an innocent person to be convicted by playing a direct and prominent role in inducing a false confession. I don't have a personal incentive or financial motive to end the polygraph profession, so I don't at all feel selfish by arguing my opinion to anyone who will listen. I feel it is my responsibility, as a free citizen, to do nothing less.
P.S. Sorry if that last part was a little patronizing.