- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fred F.
- Dec 05, 2007, 08:05 PMNoPoly,
I agree with you on that point. There have been many innocent men who have spent large amounts of their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. Kudos to Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project for proving these men were the victims of overzealous prosecution and poor police investigations.
Another point to consider is that the polygraph may have been involved in these cases too. Operator bias may be a key to the mens being found deceptive, simply because the polygrapher may have presumptions of guilt. They don't want to be a "stand up" person for the "criminal element" who was actually guilty. It would be safe to assume that this is a minority of those who "work the box"
Fred F.
I agree with you on that point. There have been many innocent men who have spent large amounts of their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. Kudos to Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project for proving these men were the victims of overzealous prosecution and poor police investigations.
Another point to consider is that the polygraph may have been involved in these cases too. Operator bias may be a key to the mens being found deceptive, simply because the polygrapher may have presumptions of guilt. They don't want to be a "stand up" person for the "criminal element" who was actually guilty. It would be safe to assume that this is a minority of those who "work the box"
Fred F.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 05, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: Fred_F. on Dec 04, 2007, 11:39 PM[
That is why defense lawyers make so much money nowadays, They will twist, bend, manipulate, and retool evidence to mislead the jury.
Don't forget the police and prosecution... I have seen amazing lengths the police and prosecution will go to for the hopes of a conviction, only to have convicted the wrong individual. DNA is clearing these victims of police/prosecutor misconduct daily.
Posted by Fred F.
- Dec 04, 2007, 11:39 PMQuote from: nomegusto on Dec 03, 2007, 03:19 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 06:29 PMWithout a confession a guilty verdict is only a possibility?QuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
Are you serious?
In some cases that is true, but in many others it is not. A blanket statement like that without any qualifiers attached is intentionally misleading. It attempts to link the polygraph with the court system in order to gain credibility the polygraph simply does not have.
A polygraph result without a confession is ALWAYS merely a possibility. Regardless of a confession or lack thereof, a guilty verdict in a trial is very often the result of incontrovertible physical evidence.
Sarge, Barry
That is why defense lawyers make so much money nowadays, They will twist, bend, manipulate, and retool evidence to mislead the jury. The right statement at the right time will make a difference.
Also a guilty verdict can be the result of poor defense too.(a little devils advocacy there)
Fred F.
Posted by ecchasta
- Dec 03, 2007, 11:07 PMActually he said "....a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly."
Hello?
Hello?
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 03, 2007, 06:11 PMSarge,
Wake up and get with the program. He said without a confession then a polygraph result of DI is only a possibility. In other words, it's not a sure thing. I said the same is true of a jury verdict of guilty without (and some would argue even with) is the same reasoning. Hello!
Wake up and get with the program. He said without a confession then a polygraph result of DI is only a possibility. In other words, it's not a sure thing. I said the same is true of a jury verdict of guilty without (and some would argue even with) is the same reasoning. Hello!
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 03, 2007, 03:19 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 06:29 PMWithout a confession a guilty verdict is only a possibility?QuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
Are you serious?
In some cases that is true, but in many others it is not. A blanket statement like that without any qualifiers attached is intentionally misleading. It attempts to link the polygraph with the court system in order to gain credibility the polygraph simply does not have.
A polygraph result without a confession is ALWAYS merely a possibility. Regardless of a confession or lack thereof, a guilty verdict in a trial is very often the result of incontrovertible physical evidence.
It would be far more accurate to compare the polygraph to a trial system where a jury of one spoke with the accused for an hour or two and then rendered a verdict, without a defense counsel, rules of evidence, witness statements, investigating officer's reports, or physical evidence.
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 01, 2007, 12:38 PMQuote from: nomegusto on Dec 01, 2007, 12:31 PMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 05:24 PMNom:
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
NoPoly,
Your statement is very valid at the local LE level. At the Federal level, The top agencies, the DEA, ATF, DOJ, and FBI, all require a 4 year college degree before applying.
It is also safe to assume that many polygraphers have NO formal education beyond high school. This, in my opinion only, creates a feeling of inferiority. That may lead to operator bias.
While there surely is many educated polygraphers at the local level, Being a polygrapher may not be the path to promotion above rank and file.
NoMeGusto,
Thanks for your candid insight,
Fred F.
Fred:
YOur statement about promotions is very logical. Afterall, what chief wants to promote someone who knows all is secrets?
Regarding education, perhaps there should be a college requirement for polygraphers, even so much as one must have a Masters in Polygraphy, much like Psychologists must have a Masters before engaging in their profession. I suspect such a requirement would go a long way towards legitimizing the field of polygraphy.
Posted by Fred F.
- Dec 01, 2007, 12:31 PMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 05:24 PMNom:
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
NoPoly,
Your statement is very valid at the local LE level. At the Federal level, The top agencies, the DEA, ATF, DOJ, and FBI, all require a 4 year college degree before applying.
It is also safe to assume that many polygraphers have NO formal education beyond high school. This, in my opinion only, creates a feeling of inferiority. That may lead to operator bias.
While there surely is many educated polygraphers at the local level, Being a polygrapher may not be the path to promotion above rank and file.
NoMeGusto,
Thanks for your candid insight,
Fred F.
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 29, 2007, 06:44 PMBut normally it's hard to make an arrest stick with possible cause. JAJAJA...
Sorry if I offended you. I thought it was funny... Have a great evening...
Sorry if I offended you. I thought it was funny... Have a great evening...
Posted by Barry_C
- Nov 29, 2007, 06:29 PMQuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 29, 2007, 06:17 PMNopoly:
I'm not assuming good faith, I'm assuming professionalism. You can't go in there thinking the polygrapher is your friend, nor is he your enemy.
On the contrary most investigators whom become polygraphers do have some sort of degree. I'll admit to being off on the psychological, but it was a guess on my part...
I'm not assuming good faith, I'm assuming professionalism. You can't go in there thinking the polygrapher is your friend, nor is he your enemy.
On the contrary most investigators whom become polygraphers do have some sort of degree. I'll admit to being off on the psychological, but it was a guess on my part...
Posted by nopolycop
- Nov 29, 2007, 05:24 PMNom:
I don't disagree with your comments, with the caveat that you are assuming good faith by all polygraphers. I think this assumption would be naive. For one example, refer to the thread about the ethics complaint against Louis Rovner...
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
I don't disagree with your comments, with the caveat that you are assuming good faith by all polygraphers. I think this assumption would be naive. For one example, refer to the thread about the ethics complaint against Louis Rovner...
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 29, 2007, 03:52 PMNopoly:
But the opinion comes with a lot of wieght and expierence my friend. Assuming the history of a LEO polygrapher. That person is a detective, or a an experienced Special Agent. More then likely with a degree in psychology and has a tremendous amount of expierence in interviewing and interrogation. He/She will use all of that knowledge and expierence to make the best decision possible. Will they make a mistake, sure. Hec, I've made them too. But I had probable cause to do the things I did. Was I wrong for the mistake. It just didn't work out that time. However the next officer that felt the same way I did got the goods (lucky bas*&^%).
I've been fortunate to have skilled, and ecellent interrogators who polygraphed me. When I've talked to other VSA/Polygraphers, I get the same answer. They hate each other, but at the same time they won't make a determination until after reading the charts, looking at the video, and listening to the recording. Once they have the totality of the situation they'll make there judgement. Meaning you could use countermeasures during a polygraph. But those darn NVI's you can't mask can and will fail you.
I've never gone through any type of polygraph training. Again, thats interview/interrogation 101.
If a subject keeps telling me no no no, but his NVI's are showing me yes yes yes. Am I gonna stop asking? Will I believe his no's. I stated to painful the other day, I'm skeptical as soon as I hear I'm a religous person. So, are priests who committed sexual abuse on minors, or jihadists blowing things up.
Am I synical? Nah... I have a job to do.
I've heard that polygraphers are lying about how the machine detects lies. Well, no polygrapher has ever told me that. It shows your BP, respitory, and sweatiness etc etc. However again it's the totality of the situation that will dictate that a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly. For prescreeners unfortunatly that could be enough NOT to get a job (which is why I don't like them), but at the same time there are a literally thousands of LEA's throughout the country. If your a criminal, and you go tightlip afterwards, well I'd say thats a clue. I guarantee the investigators will be working harder to complete the job.
Mr. Johnston: nice analagy... Please again as a polygrapher let me know if I'm not writing this impartially...
But the opinion comes with a lot of wieght and expierence my friend. Assuming the history of a LEO polygrapher. That person is a detective, or a an experienced Special Agent. More then likely with a degree in psychology and has a tremendous amount of expierence in interviewing and interrogation. He/She will use all of that knowledge and expierence to make the best decision possible. Will they make a mistake, sure. Hec, I've made them too. But I had probable cause to do the things I did. Was I wrong for the mistake. It just didn't work out that time. However the next officer that felt the same way I did got the goods (lucky bas*&^%).
I've been fortunate to have skilled, and ecellent interrogators who polygraphed me. When I've talked to other VSA/Polygraphers, I get the same answer. They hate each other, but at the same time they won't make a determination until after reading the charts, looking at the video, and listening to the recording. Once they have the totality of the situation they'll make there judgement. Meaning you could use countermeasures during a polygraph. But those darn NVI's you can't mask can and will fail you.
I've never gone through any type of polygraph training. Again, thats interview/interrogation 101.
If a subject keeps telling me no no no, but his NVI's are showing me yes yes yes. Am I gonna stop asking? Will I believe his no's. I stated to painful the other day, I'm skeptical as soon as I hear I'm a religous person. So, are priests who committed sexual abuse on minors, or jihadists blowing things up.
Am I synical? Nah... I have a job to do.
I've heard that polygraphers are lying about how the machine detects lies. Well, no polygrapher has ever told me that. It shows your BP, respitory, and sweatiness etc etc. However again it's the totality of the situation that will dictate that a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly. For prescreeners unfortunatly that could be enough NOT to get a job (which is why I don't like them), but at the same time there are a literally thousands of LEA's throughout the country. If your a criminal, and you go tightlip afterwards, well I'd say thats a clue. I guarantee the investigators will be working harder to complete the job.
Mr. Johnston: nice analagy... Please again as a polygrapher let me know if I'm not writing this impartially...
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 29, 2007, 02:58 PMAlthough it didn't used to be the case, people who are drug- screened are now watched while they fill their specimen cups-----as it was eventually found out (among other countermeasures) that it was easy to render the tests as inconclusive by virtue of spitting in the samples. Such ease of countermeasures should in no way negate the use of drug tests---despite the relative ease of which people can render some of those tests as inconclusive. You don't have to be James Bond to spit in a cup.
Like other major retailers and or "advice givers"----this site has two products---the stated/virtual one, and the actual result....like this below :-/----
Like other major retailers and or "advice givers"----this site has two products---the stated/virtual one, and the actual result....like this below :-/----
Posted by nopolycop
- Nov 29, 2007, 02:14 PMNom:
Assuming you were responding to my post, I agree with what you say, it's not just the charts. In fact, that is exactly my point. If the charts could actually give the results, then that would be one thing, but a "pass" or "fail" is more than the recorded squiggly lines on a chart. It is the OPINION of the trade school graduate known as a polygrapher.
Added then to this human opinion is the issue of whether or not countermeasures can or are effective. The fact that polygraphers have started using butt pads, suggest that at least in the case of anal constriction, countermeasures can be effective.
The fact that the result of a polygraph exam is mere opinion, and that opinion is based on squiggly lines on a chart that might be susceptable to the use of countermeasures, might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the results of any polygraph exam are suspect.
Assuming you were responding to my post, I agree with what you say, it's not just the charts. In fact, that is exactly my point. If the charts could actually give the results, then that would be one thing, but a "pass" or "fail" is more than the recorded squiggly lines on a chart. It is the OPINION of the trade school graduate known as a polygrapher.
Added then to this human opinion is the issue of whether or not countermeasures can or are effective. The fact that polygraphers have started using butt pads, suggest that at least in the case of anal constriction, countermeasures can be effective.
The fact that the result of a polygraph exam is mere opinion, and that opinion is based on squiggly lines on a chart that might be susceptable to the use of countermeasures, might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the results of any polygraph exam are suspect.