- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 17, 2003, 03:16 AMFor more background on the Smart kidnapping investigation, see Salt Lake Tribune staff writers Kevin Cantera and Michael Vigh's 12 March 2003 article, "Smarts Frustrated with Police Progress." It was published just before Elizabeth Smart was found.
Posted by orolan
- Mar 16, 2003, 12:06 PMDetJIM,
This is an exercise, not a recounting of the actual events. At this point nobody really knows what happened. If you can't supply any constructive ideas or opinions, kindly take your remarks elsewhere.
This is an exercise, not a recounting of the actual events. At this point nobody really knows what happened. If you can't supply any constructive ideas or opinions, kindly take your remarks elsewhere.
Posted by DetJIM
- Mar 16, 2003, 12:35 AMWow Batman I'm soooooo impressed. Did you get all this info from just reading the paper? You should be a detective. Or maybe you got all this info from the news. Either way we all know that both are usually 100% accurate.
Very good
Very good
Posted by orolan
- Mar 15, 2003, 11:46 PMBatman,
OK. It is true that family members are first on the list of suspects, followed by those that know the layout and routines of the household. Suspecting the parents is a very long shot in this case. The odds of the sister not recognizing her father are slim, and the timeline is entirely too short. If the father did it, and he put her in the car and took her somewhere, then somebody in the house would have heard the car either leaving or coming back. Either the sister or the mother. If he didn't take her in the car, then the dogs have already found her.
So I've eliminated the parents, at least temporarily. So we turn our attention to the uncle. Does he have an alibi? Any reasonable suspicions about him? We can't just make him a suspect because he thinks we're botching the investigation. Assuming no verifiable alibi, we can question him further. We need something a lot stronger than lack of cooperation to justify making him a suspect. What do we have?
We also have this handyman, Ricci. He's a real piece of work. Evasive, nervous, no verifiable alibi, knowledge of the house and people in it. And he has priors along with an outstanding warrant. Assume that we searched his house and truck, and we found nothing related to Elizabeth. We quickly realize that he may have been responsible for the burglary a few months ago, so we zero in on that. He says he didn't do it, so we ask him to submit to a polygraph. An incident-specific poly, about the burglary only, for now. We could do a GKT, if we have a qualified operator, about Elizabeth. Are we on the right track?
OK. It is true that family members are first on the list of suspects, followed by those that know the layout and routines of the household. Suspecting the parents is a very long shot in this case. The odds of the sister not recognizing her father are slim, and the timeline is entirely too short. If the father did it, and he put her in the car and took her somewhere, then somebody in the house would have heard the car either leaving or coming back. Either the sister or the mother. If he didn't take her in the car, then the dogs have already found her.
So I've eliminated the parents, at least temporarily. So we turn our attention to the uncle. Does he have an alibi? Any reasonable suspicions about him? We can't just make him a suspect because he thinks we're botching the investigation. Assuming no verifiable alibi, we can question him further. We need something a lot stronger than lack of cooperation to justify making him a suspect. What do we have?
We also have this handyman, Ricci. He's a real piece of work. Evasive, nervous, no verifiable alibi, knowledge of the house and people in it. And he has priors along with an outstanding warrant. Assume that we searched his house and truck, and we found nothing related to Elizabeth. We quickly realize that he may have been responsible for the burglary a few months ago, so we zero in on that. He says he didn't do it, so we ask him to submit to a polygraph. An incident-specific poly, about the burglary only, for now. We could do a GKT, if we have a qualified operator, about Elizabeth. Are we on the right track?
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 15, 2003, 09:35 PMBatman,
I would have been happy (following your fictional account) if law enforcement had used polygraph on day one let alone day three as long as the examination(s) was restricted to concealed information testing. Although Ricci (and other family members, workers, staff, etc) would have been familiar with the victim's home he should not have known (had appropriate investigation been conducted and information properly protected by law enforcement) from which room she was abducted, what she was wearing, etc unless he was involved in the abduction. Ricci and others could have been eliminated (as much as is possible with any polygraph exam) as suspects rather quickly and not have endured the hell described by various family members who must have been subjected to lie tests of one sort or another. Because he (Ricci) was the subject of national attention and was de facto already convicted of kidnapping/abduction in the eyes of the national media via an admission of burglary, there was no way he could have been given a control question test absent his fear of the consequences associated with his having been found deceptive on a lie test. Again, no problem with polygraph, and, in fact, sooner is better than later, just do it right!
I would have been happy (following your fictional account) if law enforcement had used polygraph on day one let alone day three as long as the examination(s) was restricted to concealed information testing. Although Ricci (and other family members, workers, staff, etc) would have been familiar with the victim's home he should not have known (had appropriate investigation been conducted and information properly protected by law enforcement) from which room she was abducted, what she was wearing, etc unless he was involved in the abduction. Ricci and others could have been eliminated (as much as is possible with any polygraph exam) as suspects rather quickly and not have endured the hell described by various family members who must have been subjected to lie tests of one sort or another. Because he (Ricci) was the subject of national attention and was de facto already convicted of kidnapping/abduction in the eyes of the national media via an admission of burglary, there was no way he could have been given a control question test absent his fear of the consequences associated with his having been found deceptive on a lie test. Again, no problem with polygraph, and, in fact, sooner is better than later, just do it right!
Posted by Batman
- Mar 15, 2003, 06:57 PMOrolan,
Lots of interviews to do, not much time to do them. Have to go on the worse case scenario theory. Have to assume Elizabeth has been abducted. But you also have to rely on statistical information. Statistically, when a child is either missing, injured, assaulted, or killed the subject is most likely either a family member, or known to the Victim. We can probably rule out the younger sister, and any other younger siblings, however we have to look at the parents and any close relatives or family friends, primarily males. The best thing to do is attempt to eliminate as many people from suspicion as quickly as we can while at the same time running other logical leads. Bringing in dogs may help, but I'm not real familiar with how successful that particular technique has been of late in finding abducted children. Reason being, most likely if Elizabeth was abducted she was taken to a vehicle not far from the house, so the dogs will only lead us to the curb. Still worth a try, you don't want to pass up any opportunity.
Lets jump ahead just a bit. We've done all the interviews, nothing really relevant has turned up except that we've identifed people who have worked around the house, etc... Unfortunately we have not had any luck actually turning up hard information as to where Elizabeth is. We're facing the real possibility that she may be dying or dead. We need to start getting information, any way we can, and fast. One particular interview, the handyman (Ricci) shows promise because he is evasive in a lot of his answers. We're also getting bad vibes from the uncle. He's reluctant to be forth coming with his assistance, and is making noises that the family may stop cooperating. He's going to the press, making our job a lot more difficult.
Do we turn to polygraph? If so who do we polygraph and why? What do we ask? Or do we not utilize polygraph? If not, then what's next? We may be looking down a dead end street right now, and we're no closer to finding Elizabeth. Now the heat is really on, we're in day three!
Batman
Lots of interviews to do, not much time to do them. Have to go on the worse case scenario theory. Have to assume Elizabeth has been abducted. But you also have to rely on statistical information. Statistically, when a child is either missing, injured, assaulted, or killed the subject is most likely either a family member, or known to the Victim. We can probably rule out the younger sister, and any other younger siblings, however we have to look at the parents and any close relatives or family friends, primarily males. The best thing to do is attempt to eliminate as many people from suspicion as quickly as we can while at the same time running other logical leads. Bringing in dogs may help, but I'm not real familiar with how successful that particular technique has been of late in finding abducted children. Reason being, most likely if Elizabeth was abducted she was taken to a vehicle not far from the house, so the dogs will only lead us to the curb. Still worth a try, you don't want to pass up any opportunity.
Lets jump ahead just a bit. We've done all the interviews, nothing really relevant has turned up except that we've identifed people who have worked around the house, etc... Unfortunately we have not had any luck actually turning up hard information as to where Elizabeth is. We're facing the real possibility that she may be dying or dead. We need to start getting information, any way we can, and fast. One particular interview, the handyman (Ricci) shows promise because he is evasive in a lot of his answers. We're also getting bad vibes from the uncle. He's reluctant to be forth coming with his assistance, and is making noises that the family may stop cooperating. He's going to the press, making our job a lot more difficult.
Do we turn to polygraph? If so who do we polygraph and why? What do we ask? Or do we not utilize polygraph? If not, then what's next? We may be looking down a dead end street right now, and we're no closer to finding Elizabeth. Now the heat is really on, we're in day three!
Batman
Posted by orolan
- Mar 15, 2003, 11:09 AMBatman,
Since we aren't actually conducting a real investigation, we will now need to make some assumptions. Possibly the abductor warned the sister not to tell and she was afraid. Doubtful though that he said anything to her. More than likely, the poor girl was just terrified. But we can't discount the possibility that she is lying to protect her sister.
We find no evidence in the house that indicated Elizabeth had some problems. No notes in her diary about possible sexual abuse, no references to "my life sucks". No e-mails that indicate a possible plan to run away with some guy she met in a chat room. Her parents say she didn't have a boyfriend. Or maybe she did. If so, we go talk to him. We also talk to her girlfriends. Girls tell each other everything (I know, I have 3 teenage daughters myself). Has she met any strangers, did she meet a cute guy at the skating rink Friday night, etc.
We're now running a two-pronged investigation, resources are being pulled from the case, the media is all over it, and my Captain says to get my ..s down to headquarters because he wants answers NOW. I have to make a decision, and it better be the right one.
At this point, I feel an abduction is the most plausible situation. The sister's two hours of silence is the only thread connected to a runaway at this time. Mr. Smart is a millionaire, so ransom is a viable motive. I have a team bring out the bloodhounds to try and track the route taken away from the house. I have the parents interviewed again, seeking information on anybody that would be familiar with the layout of the house, the Smart's habits, etc. Concentrate on handymen, the lawn guy, the pool guy, the appliance repair man that fixed the Viking range last week, etc. We need to know who these people are, and we need to know where they are. Limit the questioning to the last six months for now.
Since we aren't actually conducting a real investigation, we will now need to make some assumptions. Possibly the abductor warned the sister not to tell and she was afraid. Doubtful though that he said anything to her. More than likely, the poor girl was just terrified. But we can't discount the possibility that she is lying to protect her sister.
We find no evidence in the house that indicated Elizabeth had some problems. No notes in her diary about possible sexual abuse, no references to "my life sucks". No e-mails that indicate a possible plan to run away with some guy she met in a chat room. Her parents say she didn't have a boyfriend. Or maybe she did. If so, we go talk to him. We also talk to her girlfriends. Girls tell each other everything (I know, I have 3 teenage daughters myself). Has she met any strangers, did she meet a cute guy at the skating rink Friday night, etc.
We're now running a two-pronged investigation, resources are being pulled from the case, the media is all over it, and my Captain says to get my ..s down to headquarters because he wants answers NOW. I have to make a decision, and it better be the right one.
At this point, I feel an abduction is the most plausible situation. The sister's two hours of silence is the only thread connected to a runaway at this time. Mr. Smart is a millionaire, so ransom is a viable motive. I have a team bring out the bloodhounds to try and track the route taken away from the house. I have the parents interviewed again, seeking information on anybody that would be familiar with the layout of the house, the Smart's habits, etc. Concentrate on handymen, the lawn guy, the pool guy, the appliance repair man that fixed the Viking range last week, etc. We need to know who these people are, and we need to know where they are. Limit the questioning to the last six months for now.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2003, 08:53 AMQuote from: Boston Blackie on Mar 14, 2003, 05:33 PM
:-/ IS GEORGE MASCHE BEING PAID TO LEAD THE FIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE POLYGRAPH? (MAYBE BY THE BRAIN WAVE GUY)
I Also believe "THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS" that is why this is a question rather than a statement! However if some malcontent or rumor monger wants to jump on the bandwgon or soapbox and spread a story about George accepting money from D.R. for his "free" services, that is not my fault or my intent I am merely posing a question....
For the record, neither I nor anyone else associated with AntiPolygraph.org are being paid in cash or in kind for our efforts to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 15, 2003, 08:39 AMNoLieGuy,
Before addressing your post, I'd like to welcome you to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. You might wish to consider becoming a registered user. This will allow you to go back and edit your posts after posting them, to optionally receive e-mail notification when replies are posted to message threads in which you have posted, and to exchange private messages with other registered users.
You write in part:
You make a very good point. We are indeed working with limited, and sometimes contradictory, information. However, I think it is still possible to make some logical inferences, for example, that the Salt Lake City police relied on the polygraph as more than simply an interrogatory prop.
I don't believe my personal experience is relevant to the issue(s) at hand. If you believe that anything I've said or written is untrue or misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out.
You also write:
I disagree. CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. Misplaced reliance on it has caused and continues to cause serious harm to individuals, national security, and public safety. Exposing this fraud, and ending it, is a worthy goal in and of itself.
I believe that Anonymous has adequately addressed this point above.
No. Polygraph results have no statistical significance, because CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method: it is completely lacking in both standardization and meaningful control. It is not a valid diagnostic test. (See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.)
The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) and the Peak of Tension Test (POT) are qualitatively different from the "Control" Question "Test," and I believe that in some cases, it may be possible to draw logical inferences from GKT and POT results. These techniques are, however, vulnerable to countermeasures.
The problem of CQT polygraphy is not so much "unprofessional types" as the fact that the entire methodology is without validity.
Before addressing your post, I'd like to welcome you to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. You might wish to consider becoming a registered user. This will allow you to go back and edit your posts after posting them, to optionally receive e-mail notification when replies are posted to message threads in which you have posted, and to exchange private messages with other registered users.
You write in part:
QuoteIn the Smart case You / We are working with what little information has been released thus far, and not the complete information in what took place and the findings of all of the tests done. Further, Although the public has a right to know such things, it is only after a case has gone to trial or a claim that it has been solved that such information is released.
You make a very good point. We are indeed working with limited, and sometimes contradictory, information. However, I think it is still possible to make some logical inferences, for example, that the Salt Lake City police relied on the polygraph as more than simply an interrogatory prop.
QuoteAt some point you really have to take a step back, look at yourself and ask why, as an academic, you have become so obsessed with this polygraph thing. One has to wonder in your specific case where you claimed they told you that you failed such a test; whether you would have met the security clearance criteria under the Psyche exam given your level of obsessive behavior. Could your foreign travels also have played a part in your being assessed as not the most desireable candidate ? There are only so many openings in such agencies which you applied for, so why should we assume that you were otherwise the best qualified despite your polygraph result ? Did you get a private sector retest prior to your commitment to countermeasures ?
I don't believe my personal experience is relevant to the issue(s) at hand. If you believe that anything I've said or written is untrue or misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out.
You also write:
QuoteIt is a shame to see such an academic mind concentrate on the negative, rather than use your mind to improve such a system or replace it with something better. You have only criticisms and no solutions; the lowest form of academic participation.
I disagree. CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. Misplaced reliance on it has caused and continues to cause serious harm to individuals, national security, and public safety. Exposing this fraud, and ending it, is a worthy goal in and of itself.
QuoteI was also wondering, why would such a prestigious organization as the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory put their efforts and software scoring program in this field if they could not validate it and/or make it reliable ?
I believe that Anonymous has adequately addressed this point above.
QuoteDoesn't the forward movement of technology, as added to the polygraph hardware and software, make your arguments weaker with each passing addition. Surely there are too many confirmed D.I. and N.D.I. charts, vs. False Positives or False Negatives, not to give this profession merit to the realm of statistical significance.
No. Polygraph results have no statistical significance, because CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method: it is completely lacking in both standardization and meaningful control. It is not a valid diagnostic test. (See Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there.)
QuoteDoesn't guilty knowledge / peak of tension type testing on elements of the crime, unknown to all but the perpetrator and police, act as a clear indicated [sic] to the point of lottery odds in it being any other person in such a case ?
The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) and the Peak of Tension Test (POT) are qualitatively different from the "Control" Question "Test," and I believe that in some cases, it may be possible to draw logical inferences from GKT and POT results. These techniques are, however, vulnerable to countermeasures.
QuoteIn short, give credit where credit is due, weed out any unprofessional types as with any other profession, and let's get on with solving cases with this and other valuable investigative tools !!!!!!!!
The problem of CQT polygraphy is not so much "unprofessional types" as the fact that the entire methodology is without validity.
Posted by Batman
- Mar 15, 2003, 06:59 AMOrolan & 2Block:
OK, we tell our best interviewer to tuck in his shirt, suck in his gut, and put out the stogie.
Not bad, we need to determine when was Elizabeth last seen. Initial interviews of the parents go easy, however we have to ensure they are thorough. Remember, as in the Ramsey case, and what appears to be a growing trend, we may not have the full cooperation of the parents and extended family for very long. We need to get the most while we can. This family appears to be fairly cooperative though.
One of the key elements of our interviews has to be what type of girl is Elizabeth? We can not forget that she is a 14 year old and may have simply run off on her own. So the dynamics of the family is almost equally as improtant as other elements. We need to look at the extended family.
Side note: We also have a few murders, rapes, child abuse investigations, and general mayham still going on so a major consideration has to be allocation of manpower. Just how many folks do we put on this invstigation, at the expense of other ongoing investigations?
Given what we know about child abductions, if this girl was abducted and we don't locate her within the first 24-72 hours she may be killed, we push hard early. We need to really narrow the focus and we need to do it quickly. We have limited resources. The sister has indicated that someone has entered the room late at night and Elizabeth was taken out of the room by this person. We can't discount the fact this sister is only 10 years old so the accuracy of her information is suspect. Also, she did not tell her parents that her sister was taken out of the room for at least two hours after the fact so we are wondering if maybe Elizabeth enlisted the aid of her sister to cover her running away. Still a possibility, after all she is a 14 year old, the prime age for taking off. All of this really widens the possibilities. The press is on to this now, and the pressure ratchets up. Just got a call of a pretty serious domestic abuse, shit, one or two more guys gone. What's next?
Batman
OK, we tell our best interviewer to tuck in his shirt, suck in his gut, and put out the stogie.
Not bad, we need to determine when was Elizabeth last seen. Initial interviews of the parents go easy, however we have to ensure they are thorough. Remember, as in the Ramsey case, and what appears to be a growing trend, we may not have the full cooperation of the parents and extended family for very long. We need to get the most while we can. This family appears to be fairly cooperative though.
One of the key elements of our interviews has to be what type of girl is Elizabeth? We can not forget that she is a 14 year old and may have simply run off on her own. So the dynamics of the family is almost equally as improtant as other elements. We need to look at the extended family.
Side note: We also have a few murders, rapes, child abuse investigations, and general mayham still going on so a major consideration has to be allocation of manpower. Just how many folks do we put on this invstigation, at the expense of other ongoing investigations?
Given what we know about child abductions, if this girl was abducted and we don't locate her within the first 24-72 hours she may be killed, we push hard early. We need to really narrow the focus and we need to do it quickly. We have limited resources. The sister has indicated that someone has entered the room late at night and Elizabeth was taken out of the room by this person. We can't discount the fact this sister is only 10 years old so the accuracy of her information is suspect. Also, she did not tell her parents that her sister was taken out of the room for at least two hours after the fact so we are wondering if maybe Elizabeth enlisted the aid of her sister to cover her running away. Still a possibility, after all she is a 14 year old, the prime age for taking off. All of this really widens the possibilities. The press is on to this now, and the pressure ratchets up. Just got a call of a pretty serious domestic abuse, shit, one or two more guys gone. What's next?
Batman
Posted by orolan
- Mar 14, 2003, 09:13 PMBatman,
OK. Apparently somebody has told us that Elizabeth was taken by a person or persons unknown, otherwise we wouldn't know it was an abduction. That would be the little sister. At this point, she is our only witness and our primary source of information. Somebody starts on her, preferably a child psychologist and not a police detective with a cigar and a beer gut.
Somebody talks to the parents, asking the basics. Did you hear anything odd, what time did you go to bed, did you get up at all during the night, did you look in on the girls, what time did you wake up. The primary answer we're looking for is a timeframe for when the abduction could have occurred. Our questioning of the parents ends here, UNLESS we have seen or perceived a nervousness or evasiveness in one of the parents in answering our questions. Assuming for now that the parents appeared sincere and truthful, we would move on to the neighbors.
We now question the neighbors, in the typical "widening circle" fashion common in neighborhood canvassing. Questioning would be similar to the parents. Did you see any strange vehicles, any people you didn't know, anybody else from the neighborhood out walking or driving, when did you go to bed, when did you get up. Again, we are looking for information on timeframe, but now we are also looking for possible anomalies. For example, if neighbor A saw neighbor B out walking at midnight but neighbor B fails to mention his or her midnight stroll. Additionally, we have continued to keep our eyes and ears sharp on the lookout for nervousness or evasiveness.
By now, the psychologist has probably given up on the sister. She is having a hard time focusing, because she is emotionally traumatized by the entire event. She can't recall a thing, and the psychologist is probably advocating hypnosis.
OK. Apparently somebody has told us that Elizabeth was taken by a person or persons unknown, otherwise we wouldn't know it was an abduction. That would be the little sister. At this point, she is our only witness and our primary source of information. Somebody starts on her, preferably a child psychologist and not a police detective with a cigar and a beer gut.
Somebody talks to the parents, asking the basics. Did you hear anything odd, what time did you go to bed, did you get up at all during the night, did you look in on the girls, what time did you wake up. The primary answer we're looking for is a timeframe for when the abduction could have occurred. Our questioning of the parents ends here, UNLESS we have seen or perceived a nervousness or evasiveness in one of the parents in answering our questions. Assuming for now that the parents appeared sincere and truthful, we would move on to the neighbors.
We now question the neighbors, in the typical "widening circle" fashion common in neighborhood canvassing. Questioning would be similar to the parents. Did you see any strange vehicles, any people you didn't know, anybody else from the neighborhood out walking or driving, when did you go to bed, when did you get up. Again, we are looking for information on timeframe, but now we are also looking for possible anomalies. For example, if neighbor A saw neighbor B out walking at midnight but neighbor B fails to mention his or her midnight stroll. Additionally, we have continued to keep our eyes and ears sharp on the lookout for nervousness or evasiveness.
By now, the psychologist has probably given up on the sister. She is having a hard time focusing, because she is emotionally traumatized by the entire event. She can't recall a thing, and the psychologist is probably advocating hypnosis.
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 14, 2003, 08:23 PMTheNoLieGuy
If you want to debate the validity/NOvilidity of the polygraph or attack someone, start a new thread. Batman has started us on an investigation of the Smart case and posts between his scenarios distracts from following.
Batman
I am interested in your investigation theory of this case because I think there was a number of mistakes made in the original investigation as was in the Ramsey case. However, little has been published of the beginning details and I doubt that they will make those public. You know, as a LEO, investigator "down and dirty" details are seldom made public. Even at trials, investigator mistakes are hard to gather.
If you want to debate the validity/NOvilidity of the polygraph or attack someone, start a new thread. Batman has started us on an investigation of the Smart case and posts between his scenarios distracts from following.
Batman
I am interested in your investigation theory of this case because I think there was a number of mistakes made in the original investigation as was in the Ramsey case. However, little has been published of the beginning details and I doubt that they will make those public. You know, as a LEO, investigator "down and dirty" details are seldom made public. Even at trials, investigator mistakes are hard to gather.
Posted by Batman
- Mar 14, 2003, 07:46 PMOrolan,
OK, we've secured the scene. Maybe we've been able to obtain some initial "evidence" but we're not exactly sure what we have. We probably seize more than we need, just to be safe, even though we know it will most likely lead to criticism by the family or those close to the family.
Now we do our initial interviews. Who do we talk to first? What are we asking? What are we trying to find out? What's the overall game plan/goal for our interviews?
Gotta go but will read and reply to yours ASAP.
Batman
OK, we've secured the scene. Maybe we've been able to obtain some initial "evidence" but we're not exactly sure what we have. We probably seize more than we need, just to be safe, even though we know it will most likely lead to criticism by the family or those close to the family.
Now we do our initial interviews. Who do we talk to first? What are we asking? What are we trying to find out? What's the overall game plan/goal for our interviews?
Gotta go but will read and reply to yours ASAP.
Batman
Posted by Anonymous
- Mar 14, 2003, 06:44 PMTheNoLieGuy,
The following is being re-posted in order to correct the number of scientists contributing to the report. The correct number of committee members is five, not three, as stated in my previous post. The corrected post:
TheNoLieGuy,
Because you mentioned the polygraph-related efforts of the APL of JHU, perhaps you might be interested in the following linked article authored by five very senior scientists (including two past Presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR)). The article can be found at http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygraph/peerreviewb.htm.
Contained within the summary are the following two statements:
The following is being re-posted in order to correct the number of scientists contributing to the report. The correct number of committee members is five, not three, as stated in my previous post. The corrected post:
TheNoLieGuy,
Because you mentioned the polygraph-related efforts of the APL of JHU, perhaps you might be interested in the following linked article authored by five very senior scientists (including two past Presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR)). The article can be found at http://www.stoeltingco.com/polygraph/peerreviewb.htm.
Contained within the summary are the following two statements:
Quote...Based on scientific peer-review criteria, the evaluation team viewed the JHU/APL effort inadequate in the application of scientific technology. The committee was perplexed by the theoretical and descriptive approach conducted by the research team, as well as their lack of understanding of physiology, psychophysiology, signal processing strategies, physiological monitoring hardware, and statistical theory....
Posted by orolan
- Mar 14, 2003, 06:38 PMTheNoLieGuy,
Were it not for the obsessions of academics, we would all still believe the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the moon was made of green cheese, ad infinitum. And GKT testing is not in widespread use at this time. Nor does it have sufficient historical scientific data to develop an opinion as to its effectiveness or lack thereof. At this point it remains an unproven technology.
Were it not for the obsessions of academics, we would all still believe the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the moon was made of green cheese, ad infinitum. And GKT testing is not in widespread use at this time. Nor does it have sufficient historical scientific data to develop an opinion as to its effectiveness or lack thereof. At this point it remains an unproven technology.