- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 13, 2003, 04:51 AMThe Peel Regional Police's refusal to comment on the Hamdani case may be related to an Ontario Superior Court judge's order sealing all records in the case. See Ottowa Citizen reporter Shannon Kari's 7 Jan. 2003 article, Judge seals all files of wanted man: Even date, place of Michael Hamdani's extradition hearing are unknown."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 10, 2003, 05:16 AMBeech Trees,
The Peel Regional Police gag order to its media relations office is intriguing, considering that the Hamdani case now seems to be a common criminal case with no apparent national security ramifications.
If the polygraph interrogation of Hamdani was not done by the Peel police, then it might have been conducted by Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP website includes the following list of telephone numbers for Ontario:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/telephone/generalcont_on_e.htm
The Peel Regional Police gag order to its media relations office is intriguing, considering that the Hamdani case now seems to be a common criminal case with no apparent national security ramifications.
If the polygraph interrogation of Hamdani was not done by the Peel police, then it might have been conducted by Canada's national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP website includes the following list of telephone numbers for Ontario:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/telephone/generalcont_on_e.htm
Posted by beech trees
- Jan 09, 2003, 04:34 PMThe Peel Regional Police flatly and with extreme prejudice refused to discuss *any* aspect of Mr. Hamdani's polygraph interrogation. They would not confirm nor deny they were the interrogating agency.
The Media Relations Dept. was bluntly ordered to respond with nothing save 'No comment' to any questions posed to them, even by a legitimate journalist. They also mentioned that never before in their experience (the Media Relations Officer) had they ever been told not to comment in such fashion. Never.
The Media Relations Dept. was bluntly ordered to respond with nothing save 'No comment' to any questions posed to them, even by a legitimate journalist. They also mentioned that never before in their experience (the Media Relations Officer) had they ever been told not to comment in such fashion. Never.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 09, 2003, 04:43 AMIsn't it curious that the FBI is characterizing the Canadian-administered polygraph examination of Michael Hamdani as "seriously flawed?"
In July 2001, after Congressman Gary Condit passed a private polygraph examination administered by retired FBI polygrapher Barry Colvert regarding the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the FBI issued a statement declaring, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." (See the message thread, FBI Doubletalk on Condit's Polygraph Results for details.)
In July 2001, after Congressman Gary Condit passed a private polygraph examination administered by retired FBI polygrapher Barry Colvert regarding the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the FBI issued a statement declaring, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." (See the message thread, FBI Doubletalk on Condit's Polygraph Results for details.)
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 08, 2003, 04:20 PMBeech Trees,
Here's a lead: the events leading to the abortive manhunt began with Hamdani's 31 October 2002 arrest on fraud charges by Peel, Ontario police. Phone numbers are listed here.
Here's a lead: the events leading to the abortive manhunt began with Hamdani's 31 October 2002 arrest on fraud charges by Peel, Ontario police. Phone numbers are listed here.
Posted by beech trees
- Jan 08, 2003, 02:53 PMI plan on finding out the answers to the following questions:
What was the Canadian law enforcement agency that administered the polygraph?
What was the format of the polygraph exam?
From what institutions did the polygraph examiner receive his training?
What if any 'quality control reviews' took place within the Canadian polygraph administering law enforcement agency?
When precisely in the time line did the FBI first raise doubts as to the polygraph interrogation and the results?
Any leads accepted.. either here or in private messages.
What was the Canadian law enforcement agency that administered the polygraph?
What was the format of the polygraph exam?
From what institutions did the polygraph examiner receive his training?
What if any 'quality control reviews' took place within the Canadian polygraph administering law enforcement agency?
When precisely in the time line did the FBI first raise doubts as to the polygraph interrogation and the results?
Any leads accepted.. either here or in private messages.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 08, 2003, 02:35 PMQuote from: Marty on Jan 08, 2003, 02:26 PM
The popular perception that the polygraph is foolproof is so strong that a radio show in LA, while ridiculing the government's handling of this, plaintively said: "Why didn't they polygraph this guy before launching this manhunt."
Sigh.
You could rock the host's world if you called in and pointed out they did.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Jan 08, 2003, 02:26 PMThe popular perception that the polygraph is foolproof is so strong that a radio show in LA, while ridiculing the government's handling of this, plaintively said: "Why didn't they polygraph this guy before launching this manhunt."
Sigh.
-Marty
Sigh.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 08, 2003, 01:42 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 08, 2003, 09:37 AM
In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.
I don't suppose the FBI will be eager to supply the actual polygraph recordings any time soon for double-blind analysis?
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 08, 2003, 09:37 AMThe Hamdani case appears to be a prime example of investigatory misdirection resulting from misplaced reliance on polygraphy. Already, it appears that FBI "spin control" has swung into full gear, and that the Canadians are the designated fall guys. (Surely, "polygraph" could not have been in error!) The following commentary is from the Polygraph News page:
The FBI's nationwide dragnet for suspected terrorist infiltrators was based on an apparently bogus tip from accused Canadian forger Michael Hamdani. In a 3 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "F
ake-ID Arrest Led to FBI Hunt," staff writer John Mintz reported that U.S. and Canadian investigators had questioned Hamdani extensively using polygraph machines. U.S. President George W. Bush authorized a nationwide manhunt for the putative terrorist infiltrators based on Hamdani's polygraph-confirmed information. But in an 8 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "
Wanted: 5 Men -- The Terror Alert That Wasn't," Ruth Marcus and Dan Eggen report that the tip was bogus. Already, revisionists within the FBI have begun rationalizing the apparent false negative outcome of Hamdani's polygraph interrogation, assigning blame to the Canadians for a "seriously flawed" polygraph examination.
In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.
The FBI's nationwide dragnet for suspected terrorist infiltrators was based on an apparently bogus tip from accused Canadian forger Michael Hamdani. In a 3 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "F
ake-ID Arrest Led to FBI Hunt," staff writer John Mintz reported that U.S. and Canadian investigators had questioned Hamdani extensively using polygraph machines. U.S. President George W. Bush authorized a nationwide manhunt for the putative terrorist infiltrators based on Hamdani's polygraph-confirmed information. But in an 8 January 2003 Washington Post article titled "
Wanted: 5 Men -- The Terror Alert That Wasn't," Ruth Marcus and Dan Eggen report that the tip was bogus. Already, revisionists within the FBI have begun rationalizing the apparent false negative outcome of Hamdani's polygraph interrogation, assigning blame to the Canadians for a "seriously flawed" polygraph examination.
In a case with as serious national security implications as this one, why didn't the FBI promptly review the Canadian-administered polygraph examination? According to the Washington Post, U.S. investigators were in Canada. In a high priority case such as this one, surely a "quality control" review could have been completed within 24 hours. But it appears that it was only after Hamdani's story was seriously called into question by the testimony of a Pakistani jeweler whose picture Hamdani had falsely identified as that of one of the supposed "terrorists" that the FBI found any "problems" with Hamdani's polygraph examination. Such post hoc rationalizations of erroneous polygraph outcomes are standard fare from the polygraph community. But the real problem is that polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud. It has no scientific basis whatsoever, and unless the subject makes a confession or admission, the polygrapher can only guess as to whether he is telling the truth.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jan 07, 2003, 10:52 PMJust a clarification, I was quoting Mark Steyn, who, if anyone out there does not know of him, is an extraordinarily good columnist. He is at www.marksteyn.com.
Posted by triple x
- Jan 07, 2003, 10:01 PMMarty / Mark Mallah,
Mark Mallah wrote:
"the FBI should be a little less obvious about its cluelessness."
Mark, I personally couldn't have said it better. However, you would think the same idea would apply towards the "coin toss accuracy" with respect to FBI polygraph testing.
The FBI should be a little less obvious with the voodoo science surrounding polygraph testing.
Anyone who actually believes in polygraph testing accuracy, (with any agency) is very naïve and gullible. The very same people probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as well.
x
Mark Mallah wrote:
"the FBI should be a little less obvious about its cluelessness."
Mark, I personally couldn't have said it better. However, you would think the same idea would apply towards the "coin toss accuracy" with respect to FBI polygraph testing.
The FBI should be a little less obvious with the voodoo science surrounding polygraph testing.
Anyone who actually believes in polygraph testing accuracy, (with any agency) is very naïve and gullible. The very same people probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy as well.
x
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jan 07, 2003, 07:57 PMAs Mark Steyn wrote, the FBI should be a little less obvious about its cluelessness.
Posted by Marty
- Jan 07, 2003, 06:39 PMOops, guess this little "success" won't be touted by the polygraph community.
The recent manhunt for five supposed terrorists appears to be a hoax yet the Washington Post reported a few days ago that the "plot" was confirned by intensive polygraph interrogation. Here's an excerpt:
[from WAPO]
The source of the names and photos was Hamdani, who is facing charges of fraud and possession of instruments of forgery in Canada after his arrest in Canada. U.S. and Canadian investigators have questioned him extensively, using polygraph machines.
-Marty
The recent manhunt for five supposed terrorists appears to be a hoax yet the Washington Post reported a few days ago that the "plot" was confirned by intensive polygraph interrogation. Here's an excerpt:
[from WAPO]
The source of the names and photos was Hamdani, who is facing charges of fraud and possession of instruments of forgery in Canada after his arrest in Canada. U.S. and Canadian investigators have questioned him extensively, using polygraph machines.
-Marty