- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by stefano
- Jan 30, 2012, 10:56 PMQuote from: Drew_Richardson on Jan 30, 2012, 09:44 PMthis practice is nothing more than routine quackery.I concur with this; I guess I am just trying give them some tools to empower themselves--I grow weary of the stories where posters appear beaten down and powerless--totally at the mercy of the charlatan. How I wish I could go in incognito.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jan 30, 2012, 09:44 PMStefano,
You write in part:
These are questions whose answers might allow a case to be made for an aberration, i.e., an isolated case of malpractice. But they are irrelevant to the truth...this practice is nothing more than routine quackery.
You write in part:
Quote
"Ask him what your total cumulative score was for all charts. Ask him if you can have the testing format, questions and charts reviewed by someone else...."
These are questions whose answers might allow a case to be made for an aberration, i.e., an isolated case of malpractice. But they are irrelevant to the truth...this practice is nothing more than routine quackery.
Posted by stefano
- Jan 30, 2012, 03:50 PMQuote from: bhs779 on Jan 30, 2012, 09:14 AMI'll be brief. Steve Duncan gave me a polygraph. I told the truth. He said I failed the test. I think the polygraph is used to intimidate and coerce. I call BULLSHIT on the whole damn thing and Steve Duncan.Ask him what your total cumulative score was for all charts. Ask him if you can have the testing format, questions and charts reviewed by someone else. If he refuses, ask him "why?"
Posted by Bryan
- Jan 30, 2012, 09:14 AMI'll be brief. Steve Duncan gave me a polygraph. I told the truth. He said I failed the test. I think the polygraph is used to intimidate and coerce. I call BULLSHIT on the whole damn thing and Steve Duncan.
Posted by dhouse
- Sep 27, 2010, 02:19 PMBirkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.
Which of the questions on Birkbeck's "test" would have been considered control?
Which of the questions on Birkbeck's "test" would have been considered control?
Posted by dhouse
- Sep 27, 2010, 12:28 PMQuote from: 7A727B7F4B0 on May 29, 2007, 12:11 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on May 04, 2007, 01:36 AMUPDATE: Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to prosecutor Kevin McMurray, the polygraph "evidence" (portions of which are demonstrably untrue) "helped a lot." See Reply #4 below.
It appears that Steven D. Duncan, a polygraph examiner with the Georgia State Patrol, past president of the Georgia Polygraph Association, and member of the American Polygraph Association's Board of Directors, did some "testilying" in a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday, 2 May 2007. According to a Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald report by Elizabeth Richardson, in response to a defense argument that the defendant may have truthfully answered a control question regarding falsification of documents, "Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar." (emphasis added)
Who in the polygraph community actually believes this to be true? Who among you can cite any peer-reviewed research that would support Duncan's claim?
On the contrary, it is widely recognized -- even by polygraph examiners -- that Control Question Test polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful and that false positives are more likely than false negatives. Fear of the consequences of not being believed may cause truthful persons to react strongly to the relevant questions, and, perversely, the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.
If Elizabeth Richardson's reporting is accurate, I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve Duncan lied on the stand.
Here is the relevant portion of the Times Herald article (a PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purposes):QuotePolygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com
New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.
Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.
"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."
Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.
The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.
On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.
Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.
Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."
Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.
Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.
In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.
Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.
Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."
Is this the same Steve Duncan whom was/is associated with American International p/g school?
An associate that attended one AI p/g satellite schools had SD as an Instructor. Reportedly, Duncan
used to hand out answer sheets with each Friday 'test' and tell the class not to achieve 100% so as
not to arouse suspicions.
Yip. sounds like the same Steve.
In Birkbeck's "test", which question(s) would be considered control questions?
Posted by 1904
- May 30, 2007, 04:54 PMQuote from: Lienot on May 11, 2007, 08:01 AMAll the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did. Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor. In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved? This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?
What about the people whose lives, careers, future hopes and realtionships that have been trashed because of the p/g and cvsa...?
Does that sit okay with you? (If we catch 1 then its okay to screw up the other 9 ) Is that your credo?
Yip - you are a typical, narrow minded p/g examiner. Traffic Cop mentality.
Bless your soul. Hell has a stadium full of people like you, waiting for you.
Dont forget to take your p/g downstairs...............................
Posted by sbirkbeck
- May 29, 2007, 11:40 PMIt might be interesting to note that Benjamin Birkbeck took a polygraph (when he was not sick) with a former FBI agent Cliff Cormany (not sure ot the spelling) and passed with flying colors. He was given the test 3 seperate times and passed each time. I would also like to mention that when watching the video of the test administered by Duncan Birkbeck started caughing in the middle of the test and the test was not stopped or started over. Birkbeck also made
Duncan aware of his concerns about being sick and taking medications and Duncan went ahead with the test and did not offer him an opportnity to take the test at another time.
Duncan met behind closed doors with ADA McMurry before administering the test. I wonder what that was for.
It is ashame that this young woman has made accusations against 7 different people now (one other that rape charges are still pending against) and that the Judge would not allow that evidence into the trial, nor the polygraph Birkbeck passed, nor medical or school records, or anything else that could have helped vendicate an innocent man.
Anyone who might could help us in this matter please reply.
Duncan aware of his concerns about being sick and taking medications and Duncan went ahead with the test and did not offer him an opportnity to take the test at another time.
Duncan met behind closed doors with ADA McMurry before administering the test. I wonder what that was for.
It is ashame that this young woman has made accusations against 7 different people now (one other that rape charges are still pending against) and that the Judge would not allow that evidence into the trial, nor the polygraph Birkbeck passed, nor medical or school records, or anything else that could have helped vendicate an innocent man.
Anyone who might could help us in this matter please reply.
Posted by 1904
- May 29, 2007, 12:11 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on May 04, 2007, 01:36 AMUPDATE: Benjamin Birkbeck was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to prosecutor Kevin McMurray, the polygraph "evidence" (portions of which are demonstrably untrue) "helped a lot." See Reply #4 below.
It appears that Steven D. Duncan, a polygraph examiner with the Georgia State Patrol, past president of the Georgia Polygraph Association, and member of the American Polygraph Association's Board of Directors, did some "testilying" in a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday, 2 May 2007. According to a Newnan, Georgia Times-Herald report by Elizabeth Richardson, in response to a defense argument that the defendant may have truthfully answered a control question regarding falsification of documents, "Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar." (emphasis added)
Who in the polygraph community actually believes this to be true? Who among you can cite any peer-reviewed research that would support Duncan's claim?
On the contrary, it is widely recognized -- even by polygraph examiners -- that Control Question Test polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful and that false positives are more likely than false negatives. Fear of the consequences of not being believed may cause truthful persons to react strongly to the relevant questions, and, perversely, the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence exhibits less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail.
If Elizabeth Richardson's reporting is accurate, I can come to no other conclusion but that Steve Duncan lied on the stand.
Here is the relevant portion of the Times Herald article (a PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purposes):QuotePolygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com
New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.
Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.
"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."
Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.
The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.
On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.
Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.
Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."
Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.
Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.
In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.
Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.
Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."
Is this the same Steve Duncan whom was/is associated with American International p/g school?
An associate that attended one AI p/g satellite schools had SD as an Instructor. Reportedly, Duncan
used to hand out answer sheets with each Friday 'test' and tell the class not to achieve 100% so as
not to arouse suspicions.
Yip. sounds like the same Steve.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 11, 2007, 10:36 AMQuote from: Lienot on May 11, 2007, 09:58 AMYou follow your instincts to discredit polygraph regardless of the consequences of the guilty.
My purpose in this message thread is not to discredit polygraphy. That has already been done in spades by the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and others. Rather, my purpose in this message thread is to discredit the reported testimony of American Polygraph Association board of directors member Steve Duncan. I do not pretend to know whether Benjamin Birbeck is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. I do know that Steve Duncan's reported testimony that false negatives are more common than false positives is patently untrue.
QuoteYou state he lied and then you posted statistics from polygraph sources that you totally disagree with, so where are your ethical standards at this time, in the toilet.
I cite Honts & Raskin's chapter in Kleiner's Handbook of Polygraph Testing to show that even the most pro-polygraph sources do not support Duncan's reported testimony, but rather refute it. I don't see how this reflects negatively on my ethical standards.
QuoteYou are quoting states that you totally disagree with to prove an examiner incorrect in his testimony, so challenge the decision of the court, not the examiner.
I don't necessarily disagree with every word written by pro-polygraph sources. I'm challenging Steve Duncan's reported testimony because it is untrue (and I think he either knew or should have known it).
QuoteFigures don't lie, but those that figure do lie, and you are one of them. You use polygraph statistics to prove your point, when you disagree with the premise that polygraph is in fact accurate. You argue with yourself not me or the stats. You are very confused and only wish to prove that polygraph does not work and is less than a coin toss. Try that on someone else. Your argument does not hold water IMHO. Argue with yourself, I tire of BS, and that is where your are. You want to prove your point regardless of the facts.
Why not just answer the questions I posed to all polygraphers in the initial post of this thread: Do you genuinely believe it is true that false negatives are more common than false positives? Can you cite any peer-reviewed research to support such a notion?
Posted by Lienot
- May 11, 2007, 09:58 AMYou follow your instincts to discredit polygraph regardless of the consequences of the guilty. You state he lied and then you posted statistics from polygraph sources that you totally disagree with, so where are your ethical standards at this time, in the toilet. You are quoting states that you totally disagree with to prove an examiner incorrect in his testimony, so challenge the decision of the court, not the examiner. Figures don't lie, but those that figure do lie, and you are one of them. You use polygraph statistics to prove your point, when you disagree with the premise that polygraph is in fact accurate. You argue with yourself not me or the stats. You are very confused and only wish to prove that polygraph does not work and is less than a coin toss. Try that on someone else. Your argument does not hold water IMHO. Argue with yourself, I tire of BS, and that is where your are. You want to prove your point regardless of the facts.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 11, 2007, 08:52 AMQuote from: Lienot on May 11, 2007, 08:01 AMAll the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did. Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor. In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved? This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?
So lying on the witness stand is A-OK with you, so long as it helps secure a conviction? What about being "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto)? I know Steve Duncan doesn't have peer-reviewed research to support his reported testimony that false negatives are more common than false positives because I follow the polygraph literature.
Posted by Lienot
- May 11, 2007, 08:01 AMAll the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did. Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor. In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved? This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 11, 2007, 01:25 AMBenjamin Birkbeck was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 40 years in prison. According to the prosecutor, polygrapher Steve Duncan's testimony -- significant details of which are, as shown above, demonstrably untrue -- "helped a lot":
A PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purpsoses.
Quotehttp://content.times-herald.com/296043988588920.bsp
Birkbeck guilty on all counts
Published 5/10/07 in The Times-Herald
By ALEX McRAE
alex@newnan.com
After a day and a half of deliberations, a Coweta Superior Court jury found East Point police officer and Coweta resident Benjamin Birkbeck guilty on six criminal charges involving sexual battery and child molestation.
Superior Court Judge Jack Kirby sentenced Birkbeck to a total of 40 years in prison plus 12 months in the Coweta County Prison work camp.
"We're satisfied with the verdict and think it is a good decision for the victim and all the citizens of Coweta County," said Coweta Judicial Circuit Assistant District Attorney Kevin McMurry, who tried the case. "Lots of people worked very hard on this case, and we are very pleased with the outcome."
This was the second trial for Birkbeck on the same charges. The first ended in a mistrial in February.
Before pronouncing sentence, Kirby asked the young woman accusing Birkbeck if she wished to speak. The woman — a relative — thanked court officials, law enforcement and the district attorney's office for their hard work. She also spoke of how much she had been hurt by the ordeal.
She said she was glad Birkbeck had been found guilty and that she hoped putting him in prison would prevent another victim from being harmed.
"It's good to know he won't be doing this to any other girls," she said.
Birkbeck was also allowed to speak before sentencing. He continued to maintain his innocence.
I did not do this," he said. "I don't know how someone could make up something like this."
Birkbeck also complained about not being able to present certain evidence in his defense. His remarks were cut short by Kirby, who presided over both trials. Kirby said he had seen all the evidence and was convinced jury members had the information they needed to reach the guilty verdicts.
McMurry said the state had a stronger case on the second go-round.
"We had much more good evidence and testimony," McMurry said. "We also had the polygraph evidence, and that helped a lot."
McMurry was referring to a polygraph taken by Birkbeck and presented as evidence during the trial. McMurry said Birkbeck "failed miserably" on the polygraph.
...
A PDF printout of the entire article is attached for reference purpsoses.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 04, 2007, 02:49 PMNote that the above tables also contradict Mr. Duncan's reported assertion that "Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive."