- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Nov 01, 2008, 11:50 PMQuoteBTW I'm still waiting and have been waiting for months for you to provide any citation at all for the alleged Zimbardo quote you use for a signature line.
Alleged? Okay, let's make it interesting. I'll bet you $100 I can provide a cite for the above quote made by Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Ph'd, Standford University.
So who should we let hold our money until the bet it resolved?
By way of a "teaser". I found the following in about 5 minutes on the topic of Dr. Zimbardo and his learned opinion of the polygraph:
QuoteAs far as the polygraph being accepted as science in Kansas education, in the second episode of "Discovering Psychology," which is a semester long psychology video series used in community colleges to teach introductory psychology across Kansas, host Dr. Philip Zimbardo describes the polygraph as the type of pseudo-science which educated persons must reject. Kansas social science students are learning that the polygraph is pseudo-science. To the contrary, Kansas criminal justice students are learning (from lectures by polygraph examiners) that the polygraph is 85-95 percent accurate as a lie-detector.
I'm not going to provide the cite for the above. I refuse to do your research for you!
TC
Posted by notguilty1
- Nov 01, 2008, 05:22 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Nov 01, 2008, 05:12 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Nov 01, 2008, 04:29 PMIn this case, you tried to confuse conquistador (about to take the polygraph) about the employment of CMs, by cited a reference, and claiming it contained evidence which it didn't.Luckily, conquistador didn't all for it.
You know what, I clarified that post and provided full quote and citation. They say what they say. They are word for word quotes with accurate citations. Conquistador can read them before he fails his test or after. You guys are always paying lip service that what you are trying to do is help the innocent pass their polygraph exams by cheating. But none of you encouraged him to tell the truth and none of you bothered to ask why he thought he would need help passing the test. He could be attempting to conceal a criminal history. You didn't ask because you just don't really care. You didn't hesitate, you just coached him in counter-measures.
BTW I'm still waiting and have been waiting for months for you to provide any citation at all for the alleged Zimbardo quote you use for a signature line.
Sancho Panza
Unfortunately for many telling the truth does not affect poligraphy or polygraph operators in an advantageous way because......... It doesn't detect lies!!
Now, find a test that does and we can can this site and all go have a beer.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Nov 01, 2008, 05:12 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Nov 01, 2008, 04:29 PMIn this case, you tried to confuse conquistador (about to take the polygraph) about the employment of CMs, by cited a reference, and claiming it contained evidence which it didn't.Luckily, conquistador didn't all for it.
You know what, I clarified that post and provided full quote and citation. They say what they say. They are word for word quotes with accurate citations. Conquistador can read them before he fails his test or after. You guys are always paying lip service that what you are trying to do is help the innocent pass their polygraph exams by cheating. But none of you encouraged him to tell the truth and none of you bothered to ask why he thought he would need help passing the test. He could be attempting to conceal a criminal history. You didn't ask because you just don't really care. You didn't hesitate, you just coached him in counter-measures.
BTW I'm still waiting and have been waiting for months for you to provide any citation at all for the alleged Zimbardo quote you use for a signature line.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Nov 01, 2008, 04:29 PMYou accuse people of doing the same thing you do.
In this case, you tried to confuse conquistador about the employment of CMs by citing a reference, and claiming it contained evidence which it didn't. Luckily, conquistador didn't fall for it.
After getting your pee-pee whacked, you go away for a day.
Now you're back a couple days later accusing people of doing the very same thing you had just done! You'd make a fine politician!
TC
In this case, you tried to confuse conquistador about the employment of CMs by citing a reference, and claiming it contained evidence which it didn't. Luckily, conquistador didn't fall for it.
After getting your pee-pee whacked, you go away for a day.
Now you're back a couple days later accusing people of doing the very same thing you had just done! You'd make a fine politician!
TC
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Nov 01, 2008, 02:43 PMThe NAS study is an often quoted staple of postings on this board and can hardly be considered archeology. You among others seem to treat their words like the sermon on the mount when you think it supports your argument. You also seem to ignore the fact, when it has been pointed out to you that it is years old and may not represent the most recent available information. Now you want to call it archeology. This begs the question. Do you consider the NAS study Archeology or cutting edge? Do you plan to have it either way or both?
As to Dr. Maschke's comments on that particular post. I contend that it is dishonest to mislead people into believing that they can read his little book and by practicing what he advises pass a polygraph test when there is not a single solitary study that supports such a contention. Yet he wants to criticize the studies that have been done because they don't follow his book to the letter.
Just because he has gathered together a hodgepodge of countermeasures he thinks might work and attempted to construct a unique paradigm, it isn't responsible to claim that it works unless he tests it. It is actually less valid than mixing Chicken soup with Nyquil and claiming to have a cure for the common cold. He cannot even claim with any conviction that he can make his technique work if he is the one taking the polygraph. I think he needs to put up or shut up. The NAS challenged his contention and he has left their challenge unanswered for years.
The NAS called him on it when they said
Sancho Panza
As to Dr. Maschke's comments on that particular post. I contend that it is dishonest to mislead people into believing that they can read his little book and by practicing what he advises pass a polygraph test when there is not a single solitary study that supports such a contention. Yet he wants to criticize the studies that have been done because they don't follow his book to the letter.
Just because he has gathered together a hodgepodge of countermeasures he thinks might work and attempted to construct a unique paradigm, it isn't responsible to claim that it works unless he tests it. It is actually less valid than mixing Chicken soup with Nyquil and claiming to have a cure for the common cold. He cannot even claim with any conviction that he can make his technique work if he is the one taking the polygraph. I think he needs to put up or shut up. The NAS challenged his contention and he has left their challenge unanswered for years.
The NAS called him on it when they said
QuoteAuthors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of "beating" the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research.
Sancho Panza
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Nov 01, 2008, 02:05 PMQuoteI just pointed it out because you and others here often engage in documentary archeology digging through tomes rather than tombs seeking scraps that support your preconceived notions about polygraph.
You did the same exact thing recently with (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001) in the following thread, trying to make the above cite "support your preconceived notion" that using CMs as prescribed in GM's book, has been show to hurt the polygraph results of innocent people:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4125.msg31480#msg31480
SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 27th, 2008, 7:25pm:
QuoteExcuse me the complete quote should be
Quote:
Some examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for innocent examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001). Also, several agencies that use the polygraph in screening job applicants or current employees have indicated that examinees who are judged to be using countermeasures may, on these grounds alone, be subject to the same personnel actions that would result from a test that indicated deception The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) National Academy of Sciences
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) PG 140
GM replied:
QuoteIt is dishonest to cite the NAS report to support the notion that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector increase the risk of a truthful person being wrongly found deceptive. As discussed previously on this board, the foregoing passage refers to a study by Honts and Amato of the use of spontaneous (that is, untrained) countermeasures. See, Honts, C.R., S.L. Amato, and A.K. Gordon, "Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test." Polygraph Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, pp. 1-9.
In this study, the "countermeasures" were things that subjects ignorant of polygraph procedure did on their own in the belief that it might help them pass the polygraph. Such countermeasures are not comparable to those suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
With regard to the 1980 study by Michael E. Dawson ("Physiological Detection of Deception: Measurement of Responses to Questions and Answers During Countermeasure Maneuvers," Psychophysiology 17 (1), 8–17), as explained in the article abstract: "All subjects were trained in the Stanislavsky method of acting and were instructed to use this method to appear innocent on the polygraph test." Again, this is nothing at all like the countermeasures suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Simply put, there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.
At least when we data mine, we come up with factual material. We don't twist, distort, or lie about what is contained in our citations.
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Nov 01, 2008, 01:53 PMQuoteI just pointed it out because you and others here often engage in documentary archeology digging through tomes rather than tombs seeking scraps that support your preconceived notions about polygraph.
You did the same exact thing recently with (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001) in the following thread:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4125.msg31480#msg31480
SanchoPanza wrote on Oct 27th, 2008, 7:25pm:
QuoteExcuse me the complete quote should be
Quote:
Some examinees who have not committed crimes, security breaches, or related offenses, or who have little to hide, might nevertheless engage in countermeasures with the intent to minimize their chances of false positive test results (Maschke and Scalabrini, no date). This strategy is not risk-free for innocent examinees. There is evidence that some countermeasures used by innocent examinees can in fact increase their chances of appearing deceptive (Dawson, 1980; Honts, Amato, and Gordon, 2001). Also, several agencies that use the polygraph in screening job applicants or current employees have indicated that examinees who are judged to be using countermeasures may, on these grounds alone, be subject to the same personnel actions that would result from a test that indicated deception The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) National Academy of Sciences
Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and Education (BCSSE)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) PG 140
GM replied:
QuoteIt is dishonest to cite the NAS report to support the notion that the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector increase the risk of a truthful person being wrongly found deceptive. As discussed previously on this board, the foregoing passage refers to a study by Honts and Amato of the use of spontaneous (that is, untrained) countermeasures. See, Honts, C.R., S.L. Amato, and A.K. Gordon, "Effects of spontaneous countermeasures used against the comparison question test." Polygraph Vol. 30 (2001), No. 1, pp. 1-9.
In this study, the "countermeasures" were things that subjects ignorant of polygraph procedure did on their own in the belief that it might help them pass the polygraph. Such countermeasures are not comparable to those suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
With regard to the 1980 study by Michael E. Dawson ("Physiological Detection of Deception: Measurement of Responses to Questions and Answers During Countermeasure Maneuvers," Psychophysiology 17 (1), 8–17), as explained in the article abstract: "All subjects were trained in the Stanislavsky method of acting and were instructed to use this method to appear innocent on the polygraph test." Again, this is nothing at all like the countermeasures suggested in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Simply put, there is no evidence to support the counterintuitive notion that countermeasure use as a rule increases the risk of a false positive outcome.
At least when we data mine, we come up with factual material.
TC
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Nov 01, 2008, 07:27 AMThe fact that you didn't live through it is not what calls your credibility into question in your analysis in this case. I just pointed it out because you and others here often engage in documentary archeology digging through tomes rather than tombs seeking scraps that support your preconceived notions about polygraph. This one goes back to interviews and a single polygraph test run almost 40 years ago.
If you were in fact drawing your information from Commission of Inquiry Into the Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard why did your first reference link to a news account? Were you afraid someone might read the report?
What you conveniently fail to note from the commission report in your misguided quest to discredit polygraph is that in this case the fact that Art Roberts was a polygrapher is more incidental than instrumental.
Roberts interviewed only 2 of the many witnesses against Milgaard. BOTH of which gave statements during various interviews implicating Milgaard in the murder prior to ever meeting Roberts. These statements followed a line of progression from complete denial to implication indicating to experienced investigators that more and more information was forthcoming at subsequent telling of their stories. In fact both continued to provide additional information (later proved to be false) further implicating Milgaard in the days following their interviews with Roberts when Roberts was no longer present.
One of these witnesses, Nicole John, never took a polygraph test. Nicole John never claimed that she was coerced or intimidated. While Ron Wilson did eventually make such a claim when he recanted some 20 years later, he then conceded in court that he never felt coerced or intimidated by police.
Since each subsequent interview continued to produce more detail from Wilson concerning Milgaard's involvement in the crime it is likely that his questioning would have continued and the intensity of the interviews would have increased regardless of whether or not anyone was given polygraphs.
According to Art Roberts, the results of Wilson's polygraph indicated that he was not telling the truth in his account of the crime. It is reasonable to presume that Art Robert's assessment of the polygraph results was correct. It now appears from everything that happened since that Ron Wilson and the truth were virtual strangers. The only real issue that reflects poorly on polygraph in this case does not reside in the test that was run; it resides in the tests that were not run. After the final statements were received from Wilson and John, investigators should have requested that polygraphs be conducted to verify the content of their statements. Since Art Roberts had conducted intense interviews/ interrogations with both subjects, another examiner should have run these final polygraphs.
If you want to lay part of the blame in this case on overzealous interrogation by Art Roberts, I would have to concede that, since his report has not been found, there exists sufficient reason to believe that he participated in that process but there is still no justification to blame polygraph for this miscarriage of justice. All we really know is that the final statements sworn to by both Wilson and John while outside the influence of Art Roberts were later found to be untruthful. There is even some evidence that Wilson and John colluded with each other to give false testimony implicating Milgaard in the murder.
I refer you to Volume I Chapter 3 , of the report you finally referenced.
Sancho Panza
If you were in fact drawing your information from Commission of Inquiry Into the Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard why did your first reference link to a news account? Were you afraid someone might read the report?
Quote from: 7A7473721D0 on Oct 31, 2008, 10:49 PMThe false confessions produced by polygraph operator Art Roberts were cited by this commission as "but for" cause of the wrongful convictionTheir statements, which were later proven to be at least partially false were not in any way "confessions" as the term is used in the vernacular of criminal investigation.
What you conveniently fail to note from the commission report in your misguided quest to discredit polygraph is that in this case the fact that Art Roberts was a polygrapher is more incidental than instrumental.
Roberts interviewed only 2 of the many witnesses against Milgaard. BOTH of which gave statements during various interviews implicating Milgaard in the murder prior to ever meeting Roberts. These statements followed a line of progression from complete denial to implication indicating to experienced investigators that more and more information was forthcoming at subsequent telling of their stories. In fact both continued to provide additional information (later proved to be false) further implicating Milgaard in the days following their interviews with Roberts when Roberts was no longer present.
One of these witnesses, Nicole John, never took a polygraph test. Nicole John never claimed that she was coerced or intimidated. While Ron Wilson did eventually make such a claim when he recanted some 20 years later, he then conceded in court that he never felt coerced or intimidated by police.
Since each subsequent interview continued to produce more detail from Wilson concerning Milgaard's involvement in the crime it is likely that his questioning would have continued and the intensity of the interviews would have increased regardless of whether or not anyone was given polygraphs.
According to Art Roberts, the results of Wilson's polygraph indicated that he was not telling the truth in his account of the crime. It is reasonable to presume that Art Robert's assessment of the polygraph results was correct. It now appears from everything that happened since that Ron Wilson and the truth were virtual strangers. The only real issue that reflects poorly on polygraph in this case does not reside in the test that was run; it resides in the tests that were not run. After the final statements were received from Wilson and John, investigators should have requested that polygraphs be conducted to verify the content of their statements. Since Art Roberts had conducted intense interviews/ interrogations with both subjects, another examiner should have run these final polygraphs.
If you want to lay part of the blame in this case on overzealous interrogation by Art Roberts, I would have to concede that, since his report has not been found, there exists sufficient reason to believe that he participated in that process but there is still no justification to blame polygraph for this miscarriage of justice. All we really know is that the final statements sworn to by both Wilson and John while outside the influence of Art Roberts were later found to be untruthful. There is even some evidence that Wilson and John colluded with each other to give false testimony implicating Milgaard in the murder.
I refer you to Volume I Chapter 3 , of the report you finally referenced.
Sancho Panza
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 31, 2008, 10:49 PMQuoteGino, Were you even born when this case occurred? January 1969 wasn't it?No, I was not.
I am curious as to what relevance that this may have to my comments on the case. Must one who writes a paper on the cause of the US Civil War have to have lived through it in order to be credible?
QuoteYou really shouldn't rely on the press for your research.
I don't think you can pin his wrongful conviction on polygraph either.
I didn't rely on the press. I based my opinion on information produced by the Commission of Inquiry Into the Wrongful Conviction of David Milgaard.
As the Web site states...
This commission ran from January 2005 to December 2006, sitting a total of 191 hearing days. In total, there were 114 witnesses called and over 3,200 documents introduced in evidence.
The false confessions produced by polygraph operator Art Roberts were cited by this commission as "but for" cause of the wrongful conviction.
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Oct 31, 2008, 08:22 PMQuote from: 3A3433325D0 on Oct 13, 2008, 12:58 AMOne needs to look no further than than the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard to see what polygraph operators are capable of
Gino, Were you even born when this case occurred? January 1969 wasn't it? Didn't Nicole John, who didn't even take a polygraph, sign an 11 page detailed hand written, sworn statement that she saw Milgaard stab the victim repeatedly? Didn't other witnesses testify that Milgaard bragged that he did the stabbing and even reinacted it for entertainment at a party? Didn't Albert Cadrain another witness who has never recanted and also didn't take a polygraph testify that Milgaard showed up at his house within an hour of the discovery of the body wearing blood stained clothing?
You really shouldn't rely on the press for your research.
I don't think you can pin his wrongful conviction on polygraph either.
Well, not if you rely on facts.
Sancho Panza
Posted by Florida Lawyer
- Oct 31, 2008, 07:03 PMDISCLAIMER: I am a lawyer licensed in Florida. This does NOT constitute legal advice to anyone, and no attorney-client relationship, express or implied, exists simply by the statements contained herein. These thoughts are just my humble opinion on this subject (and are probably off-topic, as well).
If you have any questions or need legal advice about your particular circumstances, YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST MUST MUST consult with an attorney licensed in the state where you were charged and/or where the questioning is or will occur.
First things first: Miranda. If you are being questioned in police custody - meaning that you do not feel free to leave OR ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE - you have the following rights:
"[A suspect] 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." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 383-384 (1966)(emphasis supplied).
What does all of this mean? It means this:
(1) If you are in police custody, you have the right to remain silent and not answer any of their questions. Period. As soon as you mention the words, "I want a lawyer," the interrogation MUST stop IMMEDIATELY. (Some of you future police officers might do well to remember this - this is where I make my living.)
(2) However - if you VOLUNTARILY go to the police to answer their questions about your involvement in a crime, you are not in police custody (because you can leave) and MIRANDA WILL NOT APPLY.
Many people have gone to the police of their own free will and while there, confessed to crimes. At the time they're spilling their guts to the police, they start thinking, "well, they never Mirandized me, so they can't use my statement." This is WRONG! If you give an inculpatory statement to the police VOLUNTARILY and of your own accord and you were free to leave at the time, YOU'RE SCREWED.
The Miranda protections ONLY APPLY WHILE YOU ARE IN POLICE CUSTODY. Of course, the police are SUPPOSED to Mirandize you when you start making statements that sound like you are confessing to crime, but many times these people - now Defendants - spill their guts faster than the cops can Mirandize them! Now its too late, and your public defender or private counsel will go on to attempting to make a deal to keep your ass out of jail.
The take home message:
(1) The police ARE NOT GOING TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must do this yourself. This means ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS FROM THE BEGINNING and BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. Example of a clear assertion of your rights: I WANT A LAWYER NOW. If asked to sign their little form, write: I WANT A LAWYER NOW. And DON'T SIGN ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER PRESENT. Seriously.
(2) At the first sign of your being in police custody (meaning that you felt that you were not free to leave), ASK FOR A LAWYER AND THEN SHUT THE F**K UP.
(3) If the officers tell you that you are not in custody, or if you went to the police voluntarily, ask the police, "Am I free to leave?" If they say NO, then ASK FOR A LAWYER AND THEN SHUT THE F**K UP. If they say yes - STOP TALKING AND LEAVE.
(4) In all circumstances, if you feel that you are under investigation by the police - CALL A LAWYER BEFORE GOING TO SPEAK WITH THE POLICE.
Again the foregoing is NOT LEGAL ADVICE given to anyone,
Florida Lawyer
If you have any questions or need legal advice about your particular circumstances, YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST MUST MUST consult with an attorney licensed in the state where you were charged and/or where the questioning is or will occur.
First things first: Miranda. If you are being questioned in police custody - meaning that you do not feel free to leave OR ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE - you have the following rights:
"[A suspect] 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." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 383-384 (1966)(emphasis supplied).
What does all of this mean? It means this:
(1) If you are in police custody, you have the right to remain silent and not answer any of their questions. Period. As soon as you mention the words, "I want a lawyer," the interrogation MUST stop IMMEDIATELY. (Some of you future police officers might do well to remember this - this is where I make my living.)
(2) However - if you VOLUNTARILY go to the police to answer their questions about your involvement in a crime, you are not in police custody (because you can leave) and MIRANDA WILL NOT APPLY.
Many people have gone to the police of their own free will and while there, confessed to crimes. At the time they're spilling their guts to the police, they start thinking, "well, they never Mirandized me, so they can't use my statement." This is WRONG! If you give an inculpatory statement to the police VOLUNTARILY and of your own accord and you were free to leave at the time, YOU'RE SCREWED.
The Miranda protections ONLY APPLY WHILE YOU ARE IN POLICE CUSTODY. Of course, the police are SUPPOSED to Mirandize you when you start making statements that sound like you are confessing to crime, but many times these people - now Defendants - spill their guts faster than the cops can Mirandize them! Now its too late, and your public defender or private counsel will go on to attempting to make a deal to keep your ass out of jail.
The take home message:
(1) The police ARE NOT GOING TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must do this yourself. This means ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS FROM THE BEGINNING and BE CLEAR ABOUT IT. Example of a clear assertion of your rights: I WANT A LAWYER NOW. If asked to sign their little form, write: I WANT A LAWYER NOW. And DON'T SIGN ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER PRESENT. Seriously.
(2) At the first sign of your being in police custody (meaning that you felt that you were not free to leave), ASK FOR A LAWYER AND THEN SHUT THE F**K UP.
(3) If the officers tell you that you are not in custody, or if you went to the police voluntarily, ask the police, "Am I free to leave?" If they say NO, then ASK FOR A LAWYER AND THEN SHUT THE F**K UP. If they say yes - STOP TALKING AND LEAVE.
(4) In all circumstances, if you feel that you are under investigation by the police - CALL A LAWYER BEFORE GOING TO SPEAK WITH THE POLICE.
Again the foregoing is NOT LEGAL ADVICE given to anyone,
Florida Lawyer
Posted by G Scalabr
- Oct 13, 2008, 12:58 AMQuote from: 4D766E61030 on Oct 11, 2008, 11:14 AMIt's too late for me. I took the polygraph knowing that I am innocent and to help the police rule me out so that they could get on with their investigation. I am now the prime suspect. I am just sick. They are now investigating me! I am crying all the time. I can hardly go to work. I need to tell my parents about this, but they are in their 80's and in poor health.....how can I burden them with this kind of worry? I AM TOO OLD AND SICK for this kind of man-made unnatural disaster! And I thought I suffered depression before.....looks like it's getting worse now. How "good" people can put the innocent through this is mind boggeling. Does the end justify the means? Hurting the innocent to get to the guilty? Oh My God....I can't believe this is happening to me. anguish
Numb,
One thing you can take solace in is the fact that law enforcement agencies rarely employ the polygraph charade in cases where there is conclusive evidence against someone--they simply arrest that person and close out the case.
The fact that you were polygraphed (a test which is not admissible in court) is a sign that they have little to go on and cannot crack the case without a "home run" confession.
Hopefully, you were not berated into a false confession.
You need to (1) stop talking to the police and (2) get yourself a lawyer ASAP.
One needs to look no further than than the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard to see what polygraph operators are capable of.
David Milgaard spent 26 years in jail before he was released in 1997 after DNA evidence implicated another man.
Numerous accounts of this case conclude that the false conviction would not have been possible if polygraph operator Art Roberts had not pressured witnesses who were examined into giving false testimony that implicated Milgaard.
The polygraph is merely a ruse that allows for abusive questioning without a lawyer present. One would be wise to avoid this situation at all costs.
Posted by notguilty1
- Oct 12, 2008, 07:05 PMQuote from: 4D766E61030 on Oct 11, 2008, 11:14 AMIt's too late for me. I took the polygraph knowing that I am innocent and to help the police rule me out so that they could get on with their investigation. I am now the prime suspect. I am just sick. They are now investigating me! I am crying all the time. I can hardly go to work. I need to tell my parents about this, but they are in their 80's and in poor health.....how can I burden them with this kind of worry? I AM TOO OLD AND SICK for this kind of man-made unnatural disaster! And I thought I suffered depression before.....looks like it's getting worse now. How "good" people can put the innocent through this is mind boggeling. Does the end justify the means? Hurting the innocent to get to the guilty? Oh My God....I can't believe this is happening to me. anguish
Numb,
I know what your going through! I felt the same way.
I can tell you that:
1) The depression goes away. A machine cannot make you guilty of something you didn't do no matter what they tell you.
2) Even though your now the prime suspect they CANNOT convict you solely on the poly results.
3) If you can avoid it don't tell your aging parents find a friend to talk to or you can take George up on his offer. You can PM me as well and I would be happy to lend a ear.
4) Please listen to what George said and contact legal counsel before you talk any further to police. At this point BELIEVE me the are NOT your friends. It can only harm your case to talk to them any more.
Since you are innocent, keep that in your mind. All they have on you now is a Polygraph result that they WILL use to try to make you confess ( if they haven't done so already).
It is NOT as you said "to late for you"
You are not alone in this and we are here. Hang in there!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 11, 2008, 03:04 PMNumb,
I'm very sorry to learn of your unfortunate experience, and I understand well the feeling of numbness that comes with being falsely accused.
First, you need to understand that the fact that you wrongly failed the polygraph doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you. The problem is with the polygraph. The "test" has no scientific basis. It was developed by non-scientists, and it's inherently biased against the truthful. See AntiPolygraph.org's "Public Statements" page for the accounts of others who have told the truth and yet been falsely branded as liars based on this pseudoscientific procedure:
https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml
At this point, I think you would be wise to retain legal counsel and not speak with the police again without your lawyer present. If you'd like to discuss your experience privately, please feel free to e-mail me at maschke@antipolygraph.org.
I'm very sorry to learn of your unfortunate experience, and I understand well the feeling of numbness that comes with being falsely accused.
First, you need to understand that the fact that you wrongly failed the polygraph doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you. The problem is with the polygraph. The "test" has no scientific basis. It was developed by non-scientists, and it's inherently biased against the truthful. See AntiPolygraph.org's "Public Statements" page for the accounts of others who have told the truth and yet been falsely branded as liars based on this pseudoscientific procedure:
https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml
At this point, I think you would be wise to retain legal counsel and not speak with the police again without your lawyer present. If you'd like to discuss your experience privately, please feel free to e-mail me at maschke@antipolygraph.org.
Posted by Numb
- Oct 11, 2008, 11:14 AMIt's too late for me. I took the polygraph knowing that I am innocent and to help the police rule me out so that they could get on with their investigation. I am now the prime suspect. I am just sick. They are now investigating me! I am crying all the time. I can hardly go to work. I need to tell my parents about this, but they are in their 80's and in poor health.....how can I burden them with this kind of worry? I AM TOO OLD AND SICK for this kind of man-made unnatural disaster! And I thought I suffered depression before.....looks like it's getting worse now. How "good" people can put the innocent through this is mind boggeling. Does the end justify the means? Hurting the innocent to get to the guilty? Oh My God....I can't believe this is happening to me. anguish