Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by ecordy75
 - Oct 18, 2009, 01:51 PM
The police officer at 19:50 admits that they are allowed to lie during an interrogation.  This proves the claims of those who say it is illegal to lie to get a government job to be false.  Government jobs ARE lying.
Posted by Al
 - Jul 25, 2009, 10:53 AM
I'm a new member and not certain of the format for new posts, but here goes. I recently interviewed for a civilian position with a law enforcement agency. I met with two LEOs, in a dimly lit room,one of whom sat, looking at his lap, and asking only one question during, about a 20 minute interview. The othe officer was the primary interviewer. I was not selected - not a problem. Question: Is it legal to use a portable voice stress analyzer, without notifying the interview subject? The reject letter I received stated that another applicant had been selected - not a more qualified, educated, or experienced applicant. I'm moving to supposition, but are these devices used to disqualify individuals for other reasons, i.e., age bias? I am pursuing the reason for disqualification through the proper channels, as I have successfully performed this type of work in the past, and there were 7 positions open. Any answer reference law will be appreciated. Thank you.
Posted by G Scalabr
 - Jun 16, 2009, 01:15 PM
Quote from: 363D3A3825550 on Jun 16, 2009, 02:28 AMGod I love antipolygraph.org! I've learned so much from this amazing website, so if lie detectors and cvsa test aren't admisable is court and are the exact oposite of science, why do they still even exist?

Thanks for the kind words.

These "tests" (actually interrogations in disguide) still exist for a simple reason.

While lie detector "tests" do not have validity, they still have tremendous utility.

They are a very powerful intimidation prop that is extremely effective in eliciting confessions from those ignorant of how the "tests"actually work.

This utility is fast decreasing as more and more people become aware of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector."
Posted by killroyxx3
 - Jun 16, 2009, 02:28 AM
God I love antipolygraph.org! I've learned so much from this amazing website, so if lie detectors and cvsa test aren't admisable is court and are the exact oposite of science, why do they still even exist?
Posted by Twoblock
 - Jun 14, 2009, 08:56 PM
NOT without your lawyer. Didn't you view the above videos? If they had hard evidence on you, you wouldn't be asked to come in. You would have already been arrested.
Posted by killroyxx3
 - Jun 14, 2009, 06:19 PM
Thank you for your help, the detective called me Friday afternoon and asked if id come in and I politely declined and told him I did a lot of research and found that the cvsa is not reliable and NOT a lie detector test, also I consulted with my lawyer and consulted me to not take it either and that nobodday, absolutely nobody has to take the test and it wouldn't be smart to, so the detective accepted my reply and asked if I still will come in Monday and talk to him, I said it would be fine and I'm going in there at nine tomorrow, is that wise?
Posted by Twoblock
 - Jun 09, 2009, 02:52 PM
kilroyxx3

Also look at he thread just above this one. Even the maker of the CVSA says it's not a lie dector.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 09, 2009, 01:18 PM
I'm not sure which post of mine you're referring to, but I think you would be wise to politely but firmly decline the CVSA "test" and not speak with anyone from the police without a lawyer present. If you don't yet have a lawyer, I think you should at least consult one with expertise in criminal defense, as it appears that you are under active criminal investigation.

If asked why you're refusing the CVSA, and you do have a lawyer, you should be able to state that your lawyer has advised against it. If you don't have a lawyer, you can briefly explain that you've researched CVSA and learned that it's not reliable. And you can mention this site if you like. But it would be a mistake to allow yourself to get drawn into a debate over your decision.

Regarding why you should not speak with investigators whether or not a CVSA (or other lie detector) is employed, see these presentations by law professor James Duane and police interrogator George Bruch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=channel_page
Posted by killroyxx3
 - Jun 09, 2009, 04:00 AM
So george and friends I would like some advice, anyones advice is welcome but I mostly like to hear from george... so this stupid idiotic detective wants me to take a cvsa upon his call, and I had no clue what the thing was, the detective just said its the most accurate, scientific, amazing lie detector test out there lol ha ha... so I did a hell of a lot of research and became a member to now my favorite website (antipolygraph.org) and found out it is the most in accurate piece of crap made by that croc dr. Humble, anyway george someone asked you awhile ago what exactly to say when asked to take the test, and what you replied to him was genius, it was polite but still putting my foot down and letting him know I know what a piece of garbage his cvsa is, could ya help me out to remember or just help me out on what to say, thank you much appreciated