- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by PapaBlueMarlin
- Jul 01, 2003, 09:07 PMI concur with the opinion that you should definitely not pay for the polygraph. Make the state pay for it and any additional testing (i.e. DNA analysis, psychological profiling, paper work trail, etc) that may need to be done. Once they submit their results, then you can counter with your own evidence.
You say that the incident took place 13 years ago. That would lead me to believe the case involves some kind of physical evidence in order to have sufficient probable cause to charge you with a crime. If so what is it? Blood spatter? DNA? Fibers? Fingerprints? If physical evidence exists is it only in trace amounts or can its presence be explained as purely circumstantial?
Instant message me again, I can be more helpful if you are a little more specific. We're all anonymous here.
You say that the incident took place 13 years ago. That would lead me to believe the case involves some kind of physical evidence in order to have sufficient probable cause to charge you with a crime. If so what is it? Blood spatter? DNA? Fibers? Fingerprints? If physical evidence exists is it only in trace amounts or can its presence be explained as purely circumstantial?
Instant message me again, I can be more helpful if you are a little more specific. We're all anonymous here.
Posted by guest from canada
- Jul 01, 2003, 02:13 PMEric,
Your lawyer sounds like an uneducated quack for wanting you to submit to a poly. My advise would be to get another lawyer. Don't put your life in the hands of a polygraph exam. You may as well flip a coin. Heads, confess and do your time (even if you are inocent), tails go to court and proclaim your innocence.
Your lawyer sounds like an uneducated quack for wanting you to submit to a poly. My advise would be to get another lawyer. Don't put your life in the hands of a polygraph exam. You may as well flip a coin. Heads, confess and do your time (even if you are inocent), tails go to court and proclaim your innocence.
Posted by eric
- Jul 01, 2003, 02:09 AMQuote from: Anonymous on Jun 30, 2003, 06:48 PMSaidme,
You write;
The poor individual who pays the ridiculous fees for a private exam is the one who is cheated...
$400.00 from my pocket. You bet I want a gaurantee
Posted by PapaBlueMarlin
- Jun 30, 2003, 07:15 PMeric,
First, of all, you are a defendant which means that it is never your responsibility to prove your innocence. By default, you are innocent until proven guilty. That is your constitutional right.
Review your case. What is the forensic evidence? Does it involve technologies involved with DNA, trace examination, or drug analysis? Is there a paper trail? Without articulable facts, there is no probable cause and without empirical evidence, there is no case.
Essential, from a forensic standpoint, I am skeptical of the polygraph as it mitigates the emphasis on having the police do their own background investigation. If they can intimidate you into conceeding that you may have had ANY involvement in a crime, they will.
Same goes for the psychological testing. The things that are in your head cannot be extracted. Unless, you made an admission, they cannot be held against you. The problem with psychological evidence is that it is too easily misdiagnosed and it cannot be qualitated and quantified like real evidence (meaning the degree as to which it is involved with the case has some certainty to it).
Don't be suprised if there seem to be no limitations in the polygraph questioning as far as your personal privacy. They may drill you on something completely irrelevant. Polygraph is not a science and as such the examiner is not required to have any objectivity. I had to learn that the hard way.
If you have any questions about forensic evidence, instant message me. I may not be able to address all your concerns but I can at least refer you to someone who can.
good luck
First, of all, you are a defendant which means that it is never your responsibility to prove your innocence. By default, you are innocent until proven guilty. That is your constitutional right.
Review your case. What is the forensic evidence? Does it involve technologies involved with DNA, trace examination, or drug analysis? Is there a paper trail? Without articulable facts, there is no probable cause and without empirical evidence, there is no case.
Essential, from a forensic standpoint, I am skeptical of the polygraph as it mitigates the emphasis on having the police do their own background investigation. If they can intimidate you into conceeding that you may have had ANY involvement in a crime, they will.
Same goes for the psychological testing. The things that are in your head cannot be extracted. Unless, you made an admission, they cannot be held against you. The problem with psychological evidence is that it is too easily misdiagnosed and it cannot be qualitated and quantified like real evidence (meaning the degree as to which it is involved with the case has some certainty to it).
Don't be suprised if there seem to be no limitations in the polygraph questioning as far as your personal privacy. They may drill you on something completely irrelevant. Polygraph is not a science and as such the examiner is not required to have any objectivity. I had to learn that the hard way.
If you have any questions about forensic evidence, instant message me. I may not be able to address all your concerns but I can at least refer you to someone who can.
good luck
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 30, 2003, 06:48 PMSaidme,
You write;
Actually it is the District Attorney who gets what he pays for (nothing to have a government employee conduct a polygraph examination). The poor individual who pays the ridiculous fees for a private exam is the one who is cheated...
You write;
Quote...Unfortunately, in the private sector, you get what you pay for.....
Actually it is the District Attorney who gets what he pays for (nothing to have a government employee conduct a polygraph examination). The poor individual who pays the ridiculous fees for a private exam is the one who is cheated...
Posted by Saidme
- Jun 30, 2003, 06:36 PMGeorge
I doubt seriously any lawyer is going to allow a post-test interview of their client.
Orolan
For once you've said something that made sense. You are correct, the District Attorney (or investigating agency) will most likely request another test with the investigating agency. Unfortunately, in the private sector, you get what you pay for.
I doubt seriously any lawyer is going to allow a post-test interview of their client.
Orolan
For once you've said something that made sense. You are correct, the District Attorney (or investigating agency) will most likely request another test with the investigating agency. Unfortunately, in the private sector, you get what you pay for.
Posted by orolan
- Jun 30, 2003, 12:16 PMEric, et al,
I think if your test is NDI then the prosecutor will want you to sit for another test, this time with their examiner.
I think if your test is NDI then the prosecutor will want you to sit for another test, this time with their examiner.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 30, 2003, 04:23 AMPublic Servant,
You will recall that the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for someone in Eric's position is to refuse the polygraph.
Your assumption that there will be no post-test interrogation ("interview" is a polygrapher's euphemism used when publicly discussing polygraphy) is not necessarily a sound one. Sometimes, lawyers who doubt their clients will arrange a polygraph "test" in an attempt to get at "the truth." Such a lawyer-arranged polygraph session may include a post-test interrogation.
While the result of any such polygraph seance would indeed be protected by attorney-client privilege, there is always the risk that the results might be leaked, even if the client chooses not to disclose them. This appears to be what happened, for example, with regard to O.J. Simpson's "practice" polygraph session with Edward Gelb, which was mentioned by the plaintiff's counsel while questioning Simpson in a civil trial.
In any event, it is unlikely that charges would be dropped, or an investigation turned to other suspects, based on the results of a polygraph examination that was paid for by the suspect in a case.
As for your suggestion that a polygraph examiner might "catch" Eric using countermeasures, recall that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kind of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Countermeasure "detection" consists of little more than guesswork, bluffery, bluster, and badgering the subject for an admission. If Eric agreees to submit to a polygraph interrogation, he runs the risk that he will be suspected/accused of countermeasure use whether or not he uses countermeasures.
Eric's lawyer may well be his best advisor, but some lawyers are as ignorant of the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing" as the public at large. I think it would be in his interest to bring the information he has learned about polygraphy to his lawyer's attention.
You will recall that the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for someone in Eric's position is to refuse the polygraph.
Your assumption that there will be no post-test interrogation ("interview" is a polygrapher's euphemism used when publicly discussing polygraphy) is not necessarily a sound one. Sometimes, lawyers who doubt their clients will arrange a polygraph "test" in an attempt to get at "the truth." Such a lawyer-arranged polygraph session may include a post-test interrogation.
While the result of any such polygraph seance would indeed be protected by attorney-client privilege, there is always the risk that the results might be leaked, even if the client chooses not to disclose them. This appears to be what happened, for example, with regard to O.J. Simpson's "practice" polygraph session with Edward Gelb, which was mentioned by the plaintiff's counsel while questioning Simpson in a civil trial.
In any event, it is unlikely that charges would be dropped, or an investigation turned to other suspects, based on the results of a polygraph examination that was paid for by the suspect in a case.
As for your suggestion that a polygraph examiner might "catch" Eric using countermeasures, recall that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kind of countermeasures explained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Countermeasure "detection" consists of little more than guesswork, bluffery, bluster, and badgering the subject for an admission. If Eric agreees to submit to a polygraph interrogation, he runs the risk that he will be suspected/accused of countermeasure use whether or not he uses countermeasures.
Eric's lawyer may well be his best advisor, but some lawyers are as ignorant of the fraudulent nature of polygraph "testing" as the public at large. I think it would be in his interest to bring the information he has learned about polygraphy to his lawyer's attention.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jun 30, 2003, 02:13 AMEric,
If you're doing this with your lawyer, there will obviously be no post-test interview, regardless of the result. You have little to nothing to lose, and a lot to possibly gain. If you're truly NDI, charges could be dropped or the investigation turned to other suspects.
However, I'd caution you about taking the advice of the TLBTLD. If the examiner were to catch you using counter-measures, you'd lose credibility with your attorney at a minimum, the prosecutor/investigating agency at the worst. Even if you were just trying to "ensure you passed" (as oppoosed to guilty and trying to "beat" the exam), how could you convince anyone that was the case.
Your attorney is your best advisor, not any of us here.
Regards.
Public Servant
If you're doing this with your lawyer, there will obviously be no post-test interview, regardless of the result. You have little to nothing to lose, and a lot to possibly gain. If you're truly NDI, charges could be dropped or the investigation turned to other suspects.
However, I'd caution you about taking the advice of the TLBTLD. If the examiner were to catch you using counter-measures, you'd lose credibility with your attorney at a minimum, the prosecutor/investigating agency at the worst. Even if you were just trying to "ensure you passed" (as oppoosed to guilty and trying to "beat" the exam), how could you convince anyone that was the case.
Your attorney is your best advisor, not any of us here.
Regards.
Public Servant
Posted by eric
- Jun 30, 2003, 01:27 AMI'm not looking to be deceptive, the poly. would be at my expense, only my lawyer would see the results. We're considering doing it in an effert to get the DA to drop the charges. They would only see them if it was in my favor and not intended to be used in court. I am going to read the book as well. I just don't trust my innocence to be based on the results of a machine that has been proven to be inaccurate.
Posted by Saidme
- Jun 29, 2003, 03:20 PMPK
You're so clever.
You're so clever.
Posted by Poly-Killer
- Jun 29, 2003, 02:56 PMSaidme,
I couldn't agree more...
you are talking about polygraphs exams (being a bunch of crap), right?
PK
I couldn't agree more...
you are talking about polygraphs exams (being a bunch of crap), right?
PK
Posted by Saidme
- Jun 29, 2003, 02:49 PMGeorge
You wrote: "If the police think you're their man, then there is a good chance that you will be found "deceptive" or at best "inconclusive."
What a bunch of crap.
You wrote: "If the police think you're their man, then there is a good chance that you will be found "deceptive" or at best "inconclusive."
What a bunch of crap.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 29, 2003, 05:28 AMEric,
First, you need to be aware that generally speaking, polygraph "test" results are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. In that sense, the polygraph cannot "clear" you.
In some states, polygraph results are admissible if the prosecution and defense both agree. Sometimes, for example, a prosecutor will tell a person suspected of a crime that no criminal charges will be filed if the person can pass a polygraph test, with the condition that the person must sign a written agreement beforehand that the results will be admissible in court. It would be foolish for you to sign any such agreement.
Educate yourself before you agree to submit to any polygraph "test." Download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I also suggest that you give your lawyer a copy, or tell him where to download it. While we explain how to pass (or beat) a polygraph "test," I strongly suggest that you refuse to submit. The "test" has no scientific basis and is actually an interrogation in disguise. If the police think you're their man, then there is a good chance that you will be found "deceptive" or at best "inconclusive." The polygraph results might then be leaked to the media to discredit you within your community.
Regarding the wisdom of submitting to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation, see the related discussion thread Fakegrah test (sic).
First, you need to be aware that generally speaking, polygraph "test" results are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. In that sense, the polygraph cannot "clear" you.
In some states, polygraph results are admissible if the prosecution and defense both agree. Sometimes, for example, a prosecutor will tell a person suspected of a crime that no criminal charges will be filed if the person can pass a polygraph test, with the condition that the person must sign a written agreement beforehand that the results will be admissible in court. It would be foolish for you to sign any such agreement.
Educate yourself before you agree to submit to any polygraph "test." Download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I also suggest that you give your lawyer a copy, or tell him where to download it. While we explain how to pass (or beat) a polygraph "test," I strongly suggest that you refuse to submit. The "test" has no scientific basis and is actually an interrogation in disguise. If the police think you're their man, then there is a good chance that you will be found "deceptive" or at best "inconclusive." The polygraph results might then be leaked to the media to discredit you within your community.
Regarding the wisdom of submitting to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation, see the related discussion thread Fakegrah test (sic).
Posted by eric
- Jun 29, 2003, 01:55 AMI'm beeing accused of a serious crime from 13yrs ago, that I did not commit. my lawyer suggested that I commit to a polygraph in an effert to make myself look better, as well as a psych. reveiw. I'm nervous becouse it can clear me but it could also discredit me. Any suggestions on how to help insure a positive polygraph.