Starlyn Klein of KBCI News in Boise, Idaho reports:
QuoteBOISE - Before the Boise police officers voted no-confidence in their chief, Don Pierce refused to take a polygraph test requested by the police union.
They wanted to ask him questions about the shake-up at City Hall. Pierce also refused to meet with the entire union body. "All we're saying is why not and we're assuming that his reason is that he doesn't trust the polygraph if that's the case let's be fair and not apply it to anyone," said Boise Police Union Attorney, Brian Donesley.
For the rest of the story, see "Boise Police Union Wants to Get Rid of Polygraphs." (http://www2.kbcitv.com/x5154.xml?ParentPageID=x5157&ContentID=x45098&Layout=KBCI.xsl&AdGroupID=x5154)
If the polygraph is not good enough for the Supreme Court and Congress then it is not good enough for LE!!!
Hats off to the boys and girls in blue, in Boise!!
I'm pretty sure there is only one polygrapher in all of Boise. My husband was forced to take one with him as a result of a false accusation. The guy basically botched the test, but told my husband's PO he failed it. (By botching I mean asking mutually exclusive questions, excluding the results for certain questions in his formal "report", and then refusing to give up the formal score sheets for each question (as our attorney would have noted the discrepancy in the number of questions.)
Although we had to go to court and spent thousands on a (wonderful) lawyer, no one in the court room needed any kind of wacked out pseudo-scientific device to see that my husband's accuser was absolutely without a doubt lying through his teeth.
I don't blame the Boise police for wanting to be free of this incompetent boob's ministrations. Good riddance!
Note that regardless of how well the polygraph operator conforms to the accepted standards and practices of the polygraph community, polygraphy remains quackery. It is not a valid test for truth versus deception, and it is for this reason that it should not be relied upon (even if one has many polygraphers to choose from).
Right you are George - but the more that individual polygraphers marginalize themselves as quacks (as I believe the Boise man has done w/ the police force), the more the entire field will be discredited. Sort of a back-door way of achieving the same ends - if we can't discredit the entire field, then discredit all of its practitioners, one by one.
Would the polygraph examiner you mentioned be Detective Chip Morgan of the Boise P.D.'s Criminal Investigative Division (http://www.cityofboise.org/police/cid/new_admin.shtml)? He is also in private practice, running a company called Competency-based Systems, Inc:
http://www.focusedinterview.com
No - it was someone different. A retired cop. We were looking for someone in the state to administer a 2nd poly, but basically struck out. Det. Morgan's name never came up.
George
Nice try! You almost had a golden opportunity to publicly bash another polygraph examiner by name. Keep up the good work. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 08, 2003, 11:47 AMGeorge
Nice try! You almost had a golden opportunity to publicly bash another polygraph examiner by name. Keep up the good work. ;)
Yeah, I'd be lashing back too if I got spanked as hard as you did in this thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1246.msg10010#msg10010)-- dayum that's gotta sting saidme!
guest,
Dr. Richardson's post, to which you linked, was a reply to Public Servant, not Saidme.