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 George W. Maschke
 - Jun 25, 2001, 07:19 AM
Mrs G,

Your d should save her money (she may well need it for a lawyer) and cancel her polygraph appointment. Polygraph testing is a sham and it cannot accomplish what she is seeking: to prove her innocence. You might ask her to read Chapters 1 and 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector so she can make an informed decision.

With regard to your d's bf's polygraph interrogation, I do not know how he might access his polygraph records under KY law. Did he make the mistake of agreeing before the "test" that the results would be admissible as evidence in court?

The following excerpt from pp. 252-53 of David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (Plenum Trade, 1998) will be of interest to you:

Quote
Francine Bronson (not her real name), a nurse in Yakima, Washington, was charged by the new wife of her ex-husband of sexually abusing her own four-year-old son. Because there was no real evidence of abuse, the district attorney offered Nurse Bronson a deal...: "If you can pass a polygraph test, we'll forget this thing but you have to agree in advance that, should you fail the test, we can use that result in evidence against you." Frantic to be freed of this outrageous allegation, Nurse Bronson agreed--and failed the test. The polygraph examiner testified that he had graduated from a recognized polygraph school (not mentioning that the entire course of instruction lasted only eight weeks) and that he had given hundreds of tests in the course of his career. He said that his determinations had never been proven to be wrong. He explained that he had administered a state-of-the-art-control question polygraph test to the defendant and that, in his professional opinion, she was clearly deceptive in denying having sexually abused her child. Called to testify for the defense, I thumbtacked the defendant's polygraph chart to an easel in front of the jury box together with the numbered list of the questions she had been asked. I showed the jurors how the examiner marked the chart in pen where he had asked the numbered questions and that most of them were followed by changes in Nurse Bronson's blood pressure, in her breathing patterns, and in the sweating of her palms.

Here is where the examiner asked her "Have you ever committed an unusual sex act?" and you can see that there was some reaction to that question. But here, where he asked, "On the date of May 14, did you take Johnny's penis in your mouth?" that was followed by a much larger reaction. As I explained earlier, you "fail" a polygraph test if you are more disturbed by the relevant question than you are by the control question. As you can see, Nurse Bronson was clearly more bothered by the accusation that she took her little boy's penis in her mouth than she was by the question about "unusual sex acts." That is why--that is the only reason why--the examiner concluded she was lying about abusing little Johnny.

I was standing close enough to see the jurors' eyes widen with shocked understanding at this news. And I was not surprised to learn that it had taken them all of an hour and a half to bring in a verdict of not guilty. But not every defendant in Nurse Bronson's situation has an attorney dedicated enough to bring in a competent rebuttal witness. And the expense, not to mention the emotional cost, of this trial was assuredly money for which Yakima County (and Nurse Bronson) had better uses.
Posted by Mrs_G
 - Jun 25, 2001, 01:01 AM
Recently my d's bf was polygraphed by KY state police (at his request) because of accusations of sexual abuse of my d's 4 yr old d (made by my d's ex) and backed up by the child, btw.
I don't want to get too wordy ( although I'm open to questions), so  let me say that the bf was told by the polygrapher that he failed the exam, help was available for him, etc. The bf was brought to tears and maintained his innocence. He's 21, if that matters to anyone. The S. P. detective then interrogated the bf, and got nowhere. The bf walked out after being told by him that he thought he (the bf) was guilty.  
I've read that the police are "trained" to lie to a suspect as far as their poly results, etc. are concerned--and I'd like to know how this young man can find out how he "truly" did on his poly.
My d has decided that she won't undergo a similar experience with a biased P D polygrapher--(she has been accused of "watching" the abuse) and has scheduled a private exam at her own expense. Now that I've read extensively about polygraph tests on this and other boards I wonder if she should bother investing $300.00 of her hard-earned money to prove a negative.
Plmk what you all think and ask any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Mrs G