- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 21, 2021, 04:52 AMIt turns out that months before Steve Wilkos publicly branded Anca Pennington as a liar, telling her that she was disgusting, would never see her kids again, and was going to go to jail—all based on polygraph results—which culminated in her attempted suicide, he had told a radio talk show host who asked him how credible lie detectors are that he would never take one:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2021/07/20/steve-wilkos-on-lie-detectors-hell-no-i-would-never-take-one/
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2021/07/20/steve-wilkos-on-lie-detectors-hell-no-i-would-never-take-one/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 19, 2020, 10:42 PMQuoteThanks for that. Can you refer me to any similar writings by Furedy?
You can review John Furedy's writings on polygraphy here:
http://www2.psych.utoronto.ca/users/furedy/polygraph.htm
Posted by Animal
- Jun 19, 2020, 06:23 PMThanks for that. Can you refer me to any similar writings by Furedy?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 19, 2020, 03:58 PMQuoteQuoteIndeed, how can standards exist for a device that has been proven to be ineffective.Can you cite the studies that came to this conclusion? I'd like to review them.
See William G. Iacono and Gershon Ben-Shakhar's article, "Current Status of Forensic Lie Detection With the Comparison Question Technique: An Update of the 2003 National Academy of Sciences Report on Polygraph Testing" in Law and Human Behavior and the sources cited therein:
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Flhb0000307
Posted by Animal
- Jun 19, 2020, 01:44 PMQuoteIndeed, how can standards exist for a device that has been proven to be ineffective.Can you cite the studies that came to this conclusion? I'd like to review them.
Posted by Anthony R
- Jun 18, 2020, 11:32 PMJoe, excellent and well thought out post. I would like to add however that the APA is more interested in collecting dues and selling icons for polygraphists to attach to their web sites and business cards than advancing the "ethics" of polygraphy. Indeed, how can standards exist for a device that has been proven to be ineffective. Anyone that utilizes a polygraph, CVSA or any related device either has to be an immoral, a liar or simply ignorant.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 14, 2020, 07:40 AMIn a recent Facebook post, Daniel Ribacoff denied that his polygraph results were wrong, but he deleted his denial when challenged:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/06/14/tv-polygraph-operator-daniel-ribacoff-denies-falsely-branding-steve-wilkos-show-guest-as-a-liar-but-deletes-posts-when-challenged/
Ribacoff has also recently made his Twitter account (@DanielRibacoff) private.
While Ribacoff's tweets were private earlier today, he has again made his Twitter feed public.
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/06/14/tv-polygraph-operator-daniel-ribacoff-denies-falsely-branding-steve-wilkos-show-guest-as-a-liar-but-deletes-posts-when-challenged/
While Ribacoff's tweets were private earlier today, he has again made his Twitter feed public.
Posted by Anonymous Deputy
- Feb 10, 2020, 11:54 PMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Feb 10, 2020, 08:51 AMYeah, and I'm not gonna give this joker Animal the time of day anymore. So ridiculously hostile and whatnot for no reason. And even if she did assault someone, that could be any range of physical assault. It may not even be that bad. Or even if it is, there are plenty of people easily prone to violence, but would never purposefully burn a child's leg!! I mean, my gosh. The burden of proof is with the accusers. That's how the justice system works. That's the beauty of the system.QuoteQuote from: 062825272F440 on Jan 30, 2020, 12:39 PMQuoteBeing exposed as a mother who burned her child's leg would seem more of an impetus to suicide than being falsely accused of lying. Just sayin.Did you even read the blog post? Medical professionals determined the marks on the little girl were not burn marks. And being falsely accused has a lot more weight than you give it credit for.
The woman has more issues than being falsely accused, and is probably a bad candidate for the antipolygraph poster girl. She should have never been exploited on a tv show. She needs psychotherapy.
This public record https://inmate.watch/details/68573/ seems to show that Miss Anca Pennington was arrested for assault and battery on Jan. 30 2020, held on $50,000 bail, and and released on Feb. 4. However the record is marked "Last update: Nov. 9, 2019" which undermines its reliability.
Even if this is true, it doesn't mean that Anca attacked anybody. She is the kind of person who gets arrested if somebody else attacks her.
I can't find any other news about this. Does anybody else know anything?
Posted by Animal
- Feb 10, 2020, 04:32 PMIt's dehumanizing to call someone a woman? Please list your full protocol so that I don't get your undies in a bunch.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Feb 10, 2020, 08:51 AMQuoteQuote from: 062825272F440 on Jan 30, 2020, 12:39 PMQuoteBeing exposed as a mother who burned her child's leg would seem more of an impetus to suicide than being falsely accused of lying. Just sayin.Did you even read the blog post? Medical professionals determined the marks on the little girl were not burn marks. And being falsely accused has a lot more weight than you give it credit for.
The woman has more issues than being falsely accused, and is probably a bad candidate for the antipolygraph poster girl. She should have never been exploited on a tv show. She needs psychotherapy.
This public record https://inmate.watch/details/68573/ seems to show that Miss Anca Pennington was arrested for assault and battery on Jan. 30 2020, held on $50,000 bail, and and released on Feb. 4. However the record is marked "Last update: Nov. 9, 2019" which undermines its reliability.
Even if this is true, it doesn't mean that Anca attacked anybody. She is the kind of person who gets arrested if somebody else attacks her.
I can't find any other news about this. Does anybody else know anything?
Posted by Anonymous Deputy
- Feb 10, 2020, 12:08 AMQuoteI'm sorry, Mr. Animal, but there is a heck of a lot of a difference between 'has more issues' and 'she purposefully burned her child's leg'. I'm not denying she has issues, I am saying that you were dead wrong to insinuate she burned her child's leg when trained medical and law enforcement professionals cleared her of any wrong doing. And what is with the dehumanization? "The woman"? It sounds like you have some issues yourself, sir. Her name is Miss Pennington. And it seems to me that you have the most to say about 'the woman', but you are absolutely MIA when I and others clearly stated several times that she was found to be innocent of the crimes she was accused of doing. You won't argue specifics, you will only argue generics.Quote from: 062825272F440 on Jan 30, 2020, 12:39 PMQuoteBeing exposed as a mother who burned her child's leg would seem more of an impetus to suicide than being falsely accused of lying. Just sayin.Did you even read the blog post? Medical professionals determined the marks on the little girl were not burn marks. And being falsely accused has a lot more weight than you give it credit for.
The woman has more issues than being falsely accused, and is probably a bad candidate for the antipolygraph poster girl. She should have never been exploited on a tv show. She needs psychotherapy.
Posted by Animal
- Feb 09, 2020, 10:43 PMQuote from: 062825272F440 on Jan 30, 2020, 12:39 PMQuoteBeing exposed as a mother who burned her child's leg would seem more of an impetus to suicide than being falsely accused of lying. Just sayin.Did you even read the blog post? Medical professionals determined the marks on the little girl were not burn marks. And being falsely accused has a lot more weight than you give it credit for.
The woman has more issues than being falsely accused, and is probably a bad candidate for the antipolygraph poster girl. She should have never been exploited on a tv show. She needs psychotherapy.
Posted by Anonymous Deputy
- Feb 01, 2020, 11:07 PMThose are excellent questions to ask, Joe. I, of course, would also take the approach of his own personal honor. Mr. Wilkos was a cop at one point.
The show has always turned my stomach. I've never been able to watch it. One strong argument he has, unfortunately, is that there are a lot of instances where apparently his show caused valid investigations into folks, and folks were brought to justice for some heinous crimes.
However, notice, in Miss Pennington's case, law enforcement did get involved and did investigate and found no cause to pursue a case against her. And just because she was found innocent does not mean being falsely accused does not cause a lasting effect on a person. I know from personal experience, and mine was nowhere near on the scale her's is.
So that turns it into a 'well the positive results outweigh the negative results' type of situation, and I just do not believe in those. The show is faulty, fraudulent, and as a former law enforcement officer himself, Mr. Wilkos should be ashamed.
The show has always turned my stomach. I've never been able to watch it. One strong argument he has, unfortunately, is that there are a lot of instances where apparently his show caused valid investigations into folks, and folks were brought to justice for some heinous crimes.
However, notice, in Miss Pennington's case, law enforcement did get involved and did investigate and found no cause to pursue a case against her. And just because she was found innocent does not mean being falsely accused does not cause a lasting effect on a person. I know from personal experience, and mine was nowhere near on the scale her's is.
So that turns it into a 'well the positive results outweigh the negative results' type of situation, and I just do not believe in those. The show is faulty, fraudulent, and as a former law enforcement officer himself, Mr. Wilkos should be ashamed.
Posted by Joe
- Feb 01, 2020, 11:26 AM I sent the following questions to the Steve Wilkos show about 36 hours ago and never got a response. I am wondering if anyone has any input?
Do you see that it is a conflict of interest that Mr.Ribacoff has a financial interest in the show, given that certain results of the polygraph may drive viewership?
Has the show ever used a different polygraph examiner other than Mr.Ribacoff and his firm? If so who?
Other examiners at other agencies will have a quality control or an independent examiner look over the results of the polygraph before making a determination. Given the severity of the accusations and public nature of the show, has Mr.Ribacoff ever sent the results of a polygraph to a quality control or independent examiner? If so, how frequently?
Other examiners at other agencies such as CIA, NSA, and DIA, will give out an inconclusive result and have the person in question come back another day with another examiner. Has Mr.Ribacoff ever done this to a guest of the show?
Is the polygraph exam administered by Mr.Ribacoff recorded and archived? Video? Audio? For how long is a record kept?
Has Mr.Ribacoff ever publicly given out an inconclusive result on the show? If so when?
Mr.Ribacoff has stated that body language is a factor before the exam begins. Mr.Ribacoff has also claimed that he can tell if someone is going to fail or not based on how they enter the room. What assurances can Mr.Ribacoff provide that he is being partial and fair to someone who is innocent and just nervous?
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOywiFWpwQs&feature=emb_logo
Mr.Ribacoff has publicly made claims on the show that the polygraph is "99.4% accurate". Can Mr.Ribacoff provide a independent peer reviewed study that substantiates such a claim?
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOywiFWpwQs&feature=emb_logo
Given Mr.Ribacoff's claims of accuracy of the polygraph, why does the guest need to sign a defamation wavier?
Given Mr.Ribacoff's claims of accuracy, why isn't the scorecard or the charts shown publicly more often?
Are guest ever given the chance to explain reactions on the test during the test, such as being tired? How is this factored into the test?
Other polygraph agencies use words like: deception detected, significant response, inconclusive, ect. Why does the show choose to use "did not tell the truth" or "told the truth"?
In 1998 Justice Clarence Thomas of the supreme court stated in a ruling on the polygraph "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable". Fast forward to 2017 when Mr.Ribacoff publicly stated advancements have been made and was extremely accurate. Can Mr.Ribacoff please explain the advancements made?
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp040198.htm
Given Justice Clarence Thomas remarks and ruling, do you see that it is ethical and right to publicly shame and assume guilt to someone who refused to take the polygraph?
I've seen both Steve and Mr.Ribacoff make numerus accusations to guests based largely or solely on the results of the polygraph. Do you see this as circumventing the legal system by publicly shaming guests?
Do you ever follow up with guests after the show? Do you feel a sense of responsibility to those falsely accused? If so what steps have you taken to remedy the situation?
Has Steve ever taken a polygraph? Has Steve ever been certified as a polygraph examiner?
Has the American Polygraph Association or any other governing body corrected statements or raised concerns about events that have taken place on your show?
Just going though a number of episodes I can find numerous ethical code violations set forth by the APA. As a mater of personal opinion this is the most appalling show I have ever seen.
Do you see that it is a conflict of interest that Mr.Ribacoff has a financial interest in the show, given that certain results of the polygraph may drive viewership?
Has the show ever used a different polygraph examiner other than Mr.Ribacoff and his firm? If so who?
Other examiners at other agencies will have a quality control or an independent examiner look over the results of the polygraph before making a determination. Given the severity of the accusations and public nature of the show, has Mr.Ribacoff ever sent the results of a polygraph to a quality control or independent examiner? If so, how frequently?
Other examiners at other agencies such as CIA, NSA, and DIA, will give out an inconclusive result and have the person in question come back another day with another examiner. Has Mr.Ribacoff ever done this to a guest of the show?
Is the polygraph exam administered by Mr.Ribacoff recorded and archived? Video? Audio? For how long is a record kept?
Has Mr.Ribacoff ever publicly given out an inconclusive result on the show? If so when?
Mr.Ribacoff has stated that body language is a factor before the exam begins. Mr.Ribacoff has also claimed that he can tell if someone is going to fail or not based on how they enter the room. What assurances can Mr.Ribacoff provide that he is being partial and fair to someone who is innocent and just nervous?
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOywiFWpwQs&feature=emb_logo
Mr.Ribacoff has publicly made claims on the show that the polygraph is "99.4% accurate". Can Mr.Ribacoff provide a independent peer reviewed study that substantiates such a claim?
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOywiFWpwQs&feature=emb_logo
Given Mr.Ribacoff's claims of accuracy of the polygraph, why does the guest need to sign a defamation wavier?
Given Mr.Ribacoff's claims of accuracy, why isn't the scorecard or the charts shown publicly more often?
Are guest ever given the chance to explain reactions on the test during the test, such as being tired? How is this factored into the test?
Other polygraph agencies use words like: deception detected, significant response, inconclusive, ect. Why does the show choose to use "did not tell the truth" or "told the truth"?
In 1998 Justice Clarence Thomas of the supreme court stated in a ruling on the polygraph "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable". Fast forward to 2017 when Mr.Ribacoff publicly stated advancements have been made and was extremely accurate. Can Mr.Ribacoff please explain the advancements made?
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp040198.htm
Given Justice Clarence Thomas remarks and ruling, do you see that it is ethical and right to publicly shame and assume guilt to someone who refused to take the polygraph?
I've seen both Steve and Mr.Ribacoff make numerus accusations to guests based largely or solely on the results of the polygraph. Do you see this as circumventing the legal system by publicly shaming guests?
Do you ever follow up with guests after the show? Do you feel a sense of responsibility to those falsely accused? If so what steps have you taken to remedy the situation?
Has Steve ever taken a polygraph? Has Steve ever been certified as a polygraph examiner?
Has the American Polygraph Association or any other governing body corrected statements or raised concerns about events that have taken place on your show?
Just going though a number of episodes I can find numerous ethical code violations set forth by the APA. As a mater of personal opinion this is the most appalling show I have ever seen.
Posted by Anonymous Deputy
- Jan 30, 2020, 12:39 PMQuoteBeing exposed as a mother who burned her child's leg would seem more of an impetus to suicide than being falsely accused of lying. Just sayin.Did you even read the blog post? Medical professionals determined the marks on the little girl were not burn marks. And being falsely accused has a lot more weight than you give it credit for.