- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Feb 12, 2008, 01:16 PMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 12, 2008, 11:20 AMI said what I had to say concerning the matter. Just because you ask a self proclaimed "direct and honest question", then answered it yourself, does not in any way require me to respond to it.
Have a nice day.
It's always a nice day when a polygrapher gets trapped by his own words..
Posted by sackett
- Feb 12, 2008, 11:20 AMI said what I had to say concerning the matter. Just because you ask a self proclaimed "direct and honest question", then answered it yourself, does not in any way require me to respond to it.
Have a nice day.
sackett
Have a nice day.
sackett
Posted by nopolycop
- Feb 12, 2008, 11:11 AMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 09, 2008, 07:47 PMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 09, 2008, 01:48 PMnopolycop,
I am referring to the physical and mental fitness of the examinee at the time of the testing. "Fit" meaning, they are free from illness, injury, abnormal distraction, etc at the time of the examination. Not obesity or having trouble paying their electric bill...
This is interesting. Would being accused of a heinous crime be considered an abnormal distraction? I would think it would, which, under this theory, should remove a person who is being offered a polygraph to clear his name after being accused of a heinous crime from fitness to take that polygraph to begin with.
Sackett...
I see you posting on other threads, did you decide to back out of this one for some reason, or just missed the direct and honest question to you?
Posted by sekzyme39
- Feb 10, 2008, 01:32 PMI will talk to my lawyer, who is a state representative....I don't have much faith in the public defender system....mine tried to get me to do a blind plea to 7 years, for something I didn't even do!!!! My new lawyer chewed him out for it. I will also talk to the lawyer that has been giving me advice on his case. Thank you for your suggestions. Nice to know I have people to talk to about this.
Posted by Twoblock
- Feb 10, 2008, 10:51 AMGetting real, to me, is getting your husband much needed medical attention which is now being refused by corrections. If he is in the same condition, or worse, now, how can you expect him to pass another poly?
If you are in pauper status, a judge should appoint a federal lawyer or you might find a contingency lawyer. Either way the state owes your husband prompt medical attention. He is a "ward" of the state. If you are close to a law school, you might get a law student to do your motion for legal appointment. Make sure this is filed as a "Due Process" case. Just one other thought. A jailhouse lawyer (another inmate who works in the legal library) can help him file the first action.
If you are in pauper status, a judge should appoint a federal lawyer or you might find a contingency lawyer. Either way the state owes your husband prompt medical attention. He is a "ward" of the state. If you are close to a law school, you might get a law student to do your motion for legal appointment. Make sure this is filed as a "Due Process" case. Just one other thought. A jailhouse lawyer (another inmate who works in the legal library) can help him file the first action.
Posted by sekzyme39
- Feb 10, 2008, 08:24 AMYeah, butt those guys cost even more than Cody's lawyer does, and I'm tapped out. I had a heck of a time getting the $$ for the poly....and now it looks like I might have to pay for it again. I've been told that I have a good case to sue, right now, tho, I'm just trying to get him home!! He needs surgery, but the doc just wants to put him on antibiotics. For a blockage? Get real.
Posted by Twoblock
- Feb 10, 2008, 04:53 AMsekzyme39
You should be looking for a good federal lawyer instead of a good polygrapher. Not getting medical attention is a violation of his due process (plus). There is a plethora of case law covering exactly this type of violation. Estle (? spelling) v. Gamble for starters. You could wind up owning a good chunk of the county.
You should be looking for a good federal lawyer instead of a good polygrapher. Not getting medical attention is a violation of his due process (plus). There is a plethora of case law covering exactly this type of violation. Estle (? spelling) v. Gamble for starters. You could wind up owning a good chunk of the county.
Posted by sekzyme39
- Feb 09, 2008, 08:25 PMDoes anybody know any good, honest testers in the state of Oklahoma, so I can get him re-tested when he's healthy? By the way he has both the flu and bronchitis, and our county jail won't even give him tylenol without the Dr.'s ok, who only comes in once a month. :-?
Posted by nopolycop
- Feb 09, 2008, 07:47 PMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 09, 2008, 01:48 PMnopolycop,
I am referring to the physical and mental fitness of the examinee at the time of the testing. "Fit" meaning, they are free from illness, injury, abnormal distraction, etc at the time of the examination. Not obesity or having trouble paying their electric bill...
This is interesting. Would being accused of a heinous crime be considered an abnormal distraction? I would think it would, which, under this theory, should remove a person who is being offered a polygraph to clear his name after being accused of a heinous crime from fitness to take that polygraph to begin with.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 09, 2008, 01:48 PMnopolycop,
I am referring to the physical and mental fitness of the examinee at the time of the testing. "Fit" meaning, they are free from illness, injury, abnormal distraction, etc at the time of the examination. Not obesity or having trouble paying their electric bill...
Referring to this string of postings, an examinee who arrives for the testing who is sick with the flu, bronchitus, broke their leg on the way in, etc, is not fit. In this example, the examination should have been postponed until he returned to his normative health..
Segeant1107,
you posted from Justice Thomas:
"Quote:
Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."
I agree. I personally do not believe polygraph results should be blindly admitted into any court. As opined, too many variables DO exist within my profession (and with the examination/examinee, as well) to blindly give credit to polygraph as being absolute. But then again, when dealing with people and human nature, what is absolute?
Fortunately, this has led the polygraph community to begin addressing standardization to reduce many of these variables. But, like the psychological community (and many other social sciences) for example, the various schools have an influence on behaviors which affect the process of standardization.
Sackett
I am referring to the physical and mental fitness of the examinee at the time of the testing. "Fit" meaning, they are free from illness, injury, abnormal distraction, etc at the time of the examination. Not obesity or having trouble paying their electric bill...
Referring to this string of postings, an examinee who arrives for the testing who is sick with the flu, bronchitus, broke their leg on the way in, etc, is not fit. In this example, the examination should have been postponed until he returned to his normative health..
Segeant1107,
you posted from Justice Thomas:
"Quote:
Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."
I agree. I personally do not believe polygraph results should be blindly admitted into any court. As opined, too many variables DO exist within my profession (and with the examination/examinee, as well) to blindly give credit to polygraph as being absolute. But then again, when dealing with people and human nature, what is absolute?
Fortunately, this has led the polygraph community to begin addressing standardization to reduce many of these variables. But, like the psychological community (and many other social sciences) for example, the various schools have an influence on behaviors which affect the process of standardization.
Sackett
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Feb 09, 2008, 04:21 AMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 08, 2008, 11:47 AMsekzyme39,
regardless of any opinion on this board by others, as a polygraph examiner I will tell you that an examinee MUST be fit, mentally and physically to undergo the examination. If not, the results can not be relied upon and the test should be rescheduled.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in the decision of U.S. v. Scheffer:
QuoteAlthough the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams.
In my own opinion, the results of any polygraph exam should not be relied upon, regardless of the health or physical condition of the person who was tested.
Posted by nopolycop
- Feb 08, 2008, 10:03 PMQuote from: sekzyme39 on Feb 08, 2008, 11:47 AMsekzyme39,
regardless of any opinion on this board by others, as a polygraph examiner I will tell you that an examinee MUST be fit, mentally and physically to undergo the examination.
Sackett:
Are you saying that people who are not physically fit, (like obese) not good candidates for a polygraph? If so, why? If not, please clarify.
NPC
Posted by sackett
- Feb 08, 2008, 11:47 AMsekzyme39,
regardless of any opinion on this board by others, as a polygraph examiner I will tell you that an examinee MUST be fit, mentally and physically to undergo the examination. If not, the results can not be relied upon and the test should be rescheduled.
If your husband was sick ("as can be"), talk to whomever requested the examination and advise them of the circumstances and request he be retested by another, qualified examiner at a later date and when he is healthy.
Advise him/her that a highly, well-qualified examiner has advised you that testing under the conditions you presented here on this board ("sick as can be") was ill-advised and (potentially) professionally inappropriate.
Good luck,
Sackett
regardless of any opinion on this board by others, as a polygraph examiner I will tell you that an examinee MUST be fit, mentally and physically to undergo the examination. If not, the results can not be relied upon and the test should be rescheduled.
If your husband was sick ("as can be"), talk to whomever requested the examination and advise them of the circumstances and request he be retested by another, qualified examiner at a later date and when he is healthy.
Advise him/her that a highly, well-qualified examiner has advised you that testing under the conditions you presented here on this board ("sick as can be") was ill-advised and (potentially) professionally inappropriate.
Good luck,
Sackett
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 08, 2008, 10:08 AMThere is little guidance on the polygraphing of persons suffering from illness in the polygraph literature. The federal polygraph handbook is silent on this question. The American Polygraph Association's model polygraph policy is scarcely more informative, vaguely stating (at para. IV.3.C):
So it is essentially left to the polygrapher's discretion whether the examinee is in fit condition to be polygraphed. Keep in mind, however, that polygraph "testing" has not been proven to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions in persons without any illness. Polygraphy has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. Polygraph chart readings, like astrological chart readings, are simply not to be relied upon.
QuoteThe polygraph examiner shall make such inquiries of the subject's health, medical history and/or use of medications as necessary to determine his/her ability to take the examination. Polygraph examinations shall not be conducted on any person whom the examiner reasonably believes to be physically or emotionally unsuitable for testing. This may include but is not limited to persons with heart conditions, women who are pregnant and individuals taking certain types of medication that may interfere with test results. When in doubt, the examiner may seek guidance from medical or psychological professionals as authorized by this agency and/or request the examinee to obtain a medical certificate from an appropriate health care provider.
So it is essentially left to the polygrapher's discretion whether the examinee is in fit condition to be polygraphed. Keep in mind, however, that polygraph "testing" has not been proven to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions in persons without any illness. Polygraphy has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. Polygraph chart readings, like astrological chart readings, are simply not to be relied upon.
Posted by sekzyme39
- Feb 07, 2008, 07:30 PM My husband is incarcerated, and his lawyer wanted him to take a lie detector test. Since he has nothing to hide, he said ok. Trouble is, when they showed up today, he was sick as can be, and the results are borderline. Shouldn't they redo the test?