Jose Nazario, who has been criminally charged in federal court in connection with the killing of eight unarmed prisoners, passed pre-employment polygraph examinations with both the Los Angeles and Riverside, California police departments. One of the relevant questions asked during the LAPD polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg18618#msg18618) is, "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Quotehttp://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-marine16aug16,1,4973112,print.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Former Marine charged in killings of 8 Iraqi prisoners
The Murrieta resident, who worked as a Riverside police officer until last week, is expected to appear in court today.
By Joe Mozingo and Tony Perry
August 16, 2007
The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has filed charges against a former Marine sergeant for his alleged role in the killing of eight unarmed Iraqi prisoners during a November 2004 battle in Fallouja, according to military and civilian sources.
Jose Nazario, a Murrieta resident who worked as a sworn officer in the Riverside Police Department until his termination last week, is expected to appear in a federal courtroom in Riverside today.
The criminal complaint and affidavit detailing the exact charges are under seal but are expected to be made public at that time.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney declined to comment. Nazario could not be reached for comment.
The former sergeant is being charged in civilian court because he is no longer a Marine. Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents are examining allegations against other members of Nazario's squad, who are still in the Marine Corps, but referred Nazario's case to the U.S. attorney, sources said.
The investigation involves the same company -- Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment -- that is the focus of the worst alleged atrocity in Iraq, the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.
Marines have called the house-to-house fighting in Fallouja the most intense urban combat since Vietnam. One senior Marine officer who was in Fallouja said he was concerned that Nazario was being tried in a civilian court, where the jury might not "understand the reality of combat, understand the reality of Fallouja."
In three recent courts-martial at Camp Pendleton involving Marines accused of war crimes in Iraq, all the jurors were Iraq veterans, most of them from infantry battalions.
All three cases resulted in convictions, but two juries opted to release the Marines without additional prison time and the third gave a sentence that was half what the prosecutors sought.
Military investigators first became aware of the Fallouja incident when a member of the squad, Cpl. Ryan Weemer, took a polygraph examination as part of his bid to join the Secret Service.
In answer to a routine question -- if he had been involved in unjustified killings -- Weemer disclosed the prisoner killings. The disclosure touched off the Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe.
A spokesman for the service declined to discuss the investigation.
Sources say Nazario passed lie detector tests when he was applying for jobs with the Los Angeles Police Department and Riverside police.
Steven Frasher, a spokesman for the Riverside Police Department, confirmed that Nazario was terminated Aug. 7, but said he could not comment on the reasons for Nazario's departure or whether it was linked to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation.
"When it comes to personnel matters and investigations being handled by other agencies, there is really not much we can say," Frasher said.
Frasher said Nazario was employed by the department since November 2005, including his recruitment period. As a probationary police officer, he was in the field for some of that time but was still undergoing training, Frasher added.
Frasher said all recruits undergo a polygraph test before they are hired, but he said Nazario was not asked whether he took part in "wrongful killings." Nazario enlisted in the Marines in September 1997 and left as a sergeant in October 2005.
--
joe.mozingo@latimes.com
tony.perry@latimes.com
Times staff writers Maeve Reston and Julian Barnes contributed to this report.
George, I don't think the article will raise any outrage or defensiveness on the part of the polygraph community. The device worked precisely as they expect it to. The important part of the article is this:
Military investigators first became aware of the Fallouja incident when a member of the squad, Cpl. Ryan Weemer, took a polygraph examination as part of his bid to join the Secret Service.
They don't care that the pre-employment screening didn't reveal Nazario's alleged crime; that's not the main reason they use the polygraph. It's main importance is in getting applicants to reveal stuff they otherwise wouldn't, just like Weemer did.
Of course, the polygraph is also important for discouraging people with undesireable pasts from applying in the first place. In this regard, it apparently failed in Nazario's case. It will be interesting to see if he is convicted or acquitted (or what sort of plea deal he takes).
The other simple reason for him passing the test could also be that he truly believes himself to have NOT committed a serious crime or a crime at all. As you said, he's been "charged" but that doesn't mean he actually did anything.
The other thing I wonder about, and maybe some polygraph/psychology guru's here can speak to it. If a person has sociopathic tendencies and, as such, feels no guilt, can/will this translate into a passed polygraph? If the guy feels no remorse and doesn't believe he's done anything wrong, perhaps he won't have the same physiological response. And this could be the case here, but he could also simply be innocent.
Quote from: PentaFed on Sep 03, 2007, 02:52 AMThe other simple reason for him passing the test could also be that he truly believes himself to have NOT committed a serious crime or a crime at all. As you said, he's been "charged" but that doesn't mean he actually did anything.
It's certainly possible that Nazario is innocent, though at first sight, it seems implausible that Nazario's erstwhile squad mates would have fabricated such an allegation. If Nazario did indeed execute prisoners, or order others to do so, it is simply not plausible that he would have believed himself
not to have committed a serious crime (even if he felt no remorse). After all, executing prisoners is a blatant violation of the law of land warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_land_warfare). I don't think any serviceman has any doubt whatsoever regarding this point when it comes to enemy forces executing
our prisoners.
QuoteThe other thing I wonder about, and maybe some polygraph/psychology guru's here can speak to it. If a person has sociopathic tendencies and, as such, feels no guilt, can/will this translate into a passed polygraph? If the guy feels no remorse and doesn't believe he's done anything wrong, perhaps he won't have the same physiological response. And this could be the case here, but he could also simply be innocent.
It is a popular belief (sometimes promoted by polygraphers themselves (http://www.truthorlie.com/beatpoly.html)) that sociopaths have a special ability to pass the polygraph. However, the limited research that has been conducted on this subject suggests that sociopaths may enjoy no such advantage. Nonetheless, this research, which is discussed at pp. 267-271 of the 2nd edition of Professor David T. Lykken's book,
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (Plenum Trade, 1998), is far from conclusive, and "the thesis...that the psychopath [sociopath] may be better able than the normal subject to 'beat' a lie detector test administered in the course of real-life criminal investigation...remains to be disproven."
In any event, one needn't be a sociopath to fool the lie detector, as polygraph "tests" are easily beaten through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect. Even without using countermeasures, liars will sometimes "pass" simply as a result of the random error associated with this invalid test.
actually the article implies that the cpl applying for the secret service verbally disclosed the information, not neccessarily while hooked up to a polygraph machine, perhaps prelim questions? et it clearly states that Nazario was never asked that same question as an applicant to the police force, thus in reality, none of the trial has anything to do with polygraph tests ;)
Quote from: 5B4E5B462F0 on Aug 20, 2008, 04:19 AMactually the article implies that the cpl applying for the secret service verbally disclosed the information, not neccessarily while hooked up to a polygraph machine, perhaps prelim questions? et it clearly states that Nazario was never asked that same question as an applicant to the police force, thus in reality, none of the trial has anything to do with polygraph tests ;)
A pre-employment polygraph for a law enforcement agency routinely contains questions regarding any undisclosed crimes. If the polygraph and/or its operator is capable of detecting deception it stands to reason that a person who killed eight people should have shown some deception when asked if they'd ever committed any undisclosed crimes.
I guess then that Nazario would have winged it through an FBI or CIA polygraph screening.
What a joke. What a shame.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 03, 2007, 02:52 AMThe other simple reason for him passing the test could also be that he truly believes himself to have NOT committed a serious crime or a crime at all. As you said, he's been "charged" but that doesn't mean he actually did anything.
The other thing I wonder about, and maybe some polygraph/psychology guru's here can speak to it. If a person has sociopathic tendencies and, as such, feels no guilt, can/will this translate into a passed polygraph? If the guy feels no remorse and doesn't believe he's done anything wrong, perhaps he won't have the same physiological response. And this could be the case here, but he could also simply be innocent.
Or here's a thought, maybe just maybe ...... Polygraph does not detect deception and just measures that bodies response to a stimuli.
This response may be caused by a variety of factors.
Unfortunately, it is common baseline belief of most people that this silly machine can in fact do the impossible ( at this point)
If you distance yourself from the assumption of deception detectability
of the machine then, the answer become more logical.
Were is SACKETT ??? I'm sure he would have some "canned" response to all this. Maybe he finally say the light.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Aug 22, 2008, 11:29 AMWere is SACKETT ??? I'm sure he would have some "canned" response to all this. Maybe he finally say the light.
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I dunno how much others have noticed, but the polygraphers who used to grace us with their charm and wit no longer post here, though I'm sure just about as many of them are still reading the conversations here. Quite simply, they got tired of looking really stupid and so no longer post; they hope that people will think they're not stupid and would be really smart if they responded to the arguments and evidence presented against their positions.
So far, I'm impressed at their discipline. Hopefully this meager post won't cause any of them to break rank and respond. I'm not yet to the point where I miss refuting their bullshit. (Hopefully they're using this period of quiescence to come up with arguments that at least have some plausibility after first examination).
Acquitted in Federal Court
http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2008/09/local-cop-arrested-on-duty-by-military.html
//http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2008/09/local-cop-arrested-on-duty-by-military.html
Hmmm let's see here. Nazario Passed his police polygraph which included the question "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Then low and behold he was acquitted in Federal Court for the crimes charged? ::) ::) ::). Could it be he was telling the truth on his polygraph?
I guess that would be one more piece anecdotal evidence that polygraph works.
Another case showing more proof that polygraph works; than Dr. Maschke or notguilty1 have that their own polygraphs were wrong.
Gee, I'll bet if he had been convicted George and all of his disciples would be here posting today. Thumping their collective chest and declaring polygraph a failure. I guess you guys are just gonna lose this one quietly, huh?
Sancho Panza
Gentlemen: There is a middle-road position on this: To wit: Polygraph examination is NOT an exact science. Secondly, a clear conscience cannot be registered by a machine. And lastly, if anyone thinks they have to 'beat' the examination, there should be no question as to the character of the person being examined. Lying is what it is. There are two examples through both an old Indian saying as well as the Bible:
First: "A clouded mind cannot see". The Bible: "As a man thinks, so is he".
Lastly, Killed 8 people and passed the Polygraph? Now that is a prime example of a person with a 'seared' conscience. But don't worry, because there is no greater lie detector than God almighty when He said: "And the hidden things shall be made known". He's not going to get away with anything.
Stay friends!
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 05, 2008, 04:58 PMHmmm let's see here. Nazario Passed his police polygraph which included the question "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Then low and behold he was acquitted in Federal Court for the crimes charged? ::) ::) ::). Could it be he was telling the truth on his polygraph?
I guess that would be one more piece anecdotal evidence that polygraph works.
Another case showing more proof that polygraph works; than Dr. Maschke or notguilty1 have that their own polygraphs were wrong.
Gee, I'll bet if he had been convicted George and all of his disciples would be here posting today. Thumping their collective chest and declaring polygraph a failure. I guess you guys are just gonna lose this one quietly, huh?
Sancho Panza
I don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore
actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged. Nazario admitted to ordering the extrajudicial killing of prisoners -- a war crime -- in a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation.
Los Angeles Times staff writer Tony Perry reports ("Ex-Marine's case goes to Riverside County jurors," (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marine28-2008aug28,0,1518747.story) 28 August 2008):
QuoteAs their final piece of evidence, prosecutors played the recording of a phone call between Nazario and Sgt. Jermaine Nelson, one of two Marines in Nazario's squad facing charges at Camp Pendleton.
During the call, recorded at the request of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Nelson sought to get Nazario to incriminate himself.
On the tape, Nelson, using a derogatory word for the Iraqis, asked Nazario who gave the order to kill the prisoners. Nazario replied, "I did."
He then told Nelson they had no time to process the Iraqis as prisoners because "we were moving."
"What we did wasn't illegal. . . ," Nazario said. "You can't play Monday-morning quarterback."
In addition, two key witnesses, Nazario's squad mates, the aforementioned Jermaine Nelson and Ryan Weemer, whose admissions during a Secret Service pre-employment polygraph examination initiated the investigation, refused to testify at trial.
L.A. Times reporter Tony Perry writes:
QuoteIn interviews before they retained counsel, [Nelson and Weemer] said that, upon orders from Nazario, they each killed a prisoner and that Nazario killed two.
QuoteI don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.
As a matter of law, Nazario was innocent before he went to trial and his trial failed to overcome argument to the contrary. There is nothing left to assume. Why don't you write the jurors and tell THEM that their conclusions are unreasonable. I think it is implicative that his squadmates still refused to testify after being granted immunity for everything except perjury.
I'm sorry Dr. Maschke while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, whether supported by information or fantasy, as to whether or not he committed the crimes with which he was charged; branding him guilty solely to support your opinion regarding is polygraph is improper argument and you know it. The court's finding clearly supports the results of his polygraph. What do you have to support your claims about yours?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 06, 2008, 07:49 AMQuoteI don't think it is reasonable to assume that because José Nazario was acquitted at trial, he is therefore actually innocent of the crimes with which he was charged.
As a matter of law, Nazario was innocent before he went to trial and his trial failed to overcome argument to the contrary. There is nothing left to assume. Why don't you write the jurors and tell THEM that their conclusions are unreasonable.
I'm not arguing that the jurors' verdict was unreasonable based on the evidence with which they were presented. My point is that it is not reasonable to assume, as you seem to have done above, that acquittal at trial is proof of actual innocence. Cf.
People v. Orenthal James Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case).QuoteI think it is implicative that his squadmates still refused to testify after being granted immunity for everything except perjury.
I think it is implicative of something, too. But perhaps something other than what you have in mind.
QuoteI'm sorry Dr. Maschke while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, whether supported by information or fantasy, as to whether or not he committed the crimes with which he was charged; branding him guilty solely to support your opinion regarding is polygraph is improper argument and you know it. The court's finding clearly supports the results of his polygraph. What do you have to support your claims about yours?
I have not branded José Nazario as guilty. Had I served on his jury, based on the evidence admitted at trial, I might have agreed with the other jurors that his guilt had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, it appears to me that there is reason to doubt his actual innocence.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 05, 2008, 04:58 PMHmmm let's see here. Nazario Passed his police polygraph which included the question "Have you committed an undisclosed serious crime?"
Then low and behold he was acquitted in Federal Court for the crimes charged? ::) ::) ::). Could it be he was telling the truth on his polygraph?
I guess that would be one more piece anecdotal evidence that polygraph works.
Another case showing more proof that polygraph works; than Dr. Maschke or notguilty1 have that their own polygraphs were wrong.
Gee, I'll bet if he had been convicted George and all of his disciples would be here posting today. Thumping their collective chest and declaring polygraph a failure. I guess you guys are just gonna lose this one quietly, huh?
Sancho Panza
OK mr. Panza here arises the need to educate you, again.
First of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
Which shows the weakness of your machine to detect anything but an unreliable nervous reaction to a stimulus not necessarily due to deception .
If Nazario felt that his actions did not constitute a crime he would have no reaction to the question or the situation.
Also, I would bet that the fact that he passed that Polygraph was not even entered in evidence.
QuoteFirst of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
OK let's see if I follow your "reasoning" here.
1. Nazario denies committing a crime. Either because he didn't do it or because he doesn't believe it was a crime.
2. He did not show deception on the polygraph at the question about whether he committed an undisclosed serious crime.
3. The trial court acquits him of committing a crime, i.e. says he didn't do it.
4 The findings of the court corroberate both his denial and his polygraph results.
5. You conclude a likelyhood that he passed his test because he didn't believe his actions were a crime based on your own pure supposition.
BTW In order for this to be correct, he would not only have to believe that it wasn't a crime, he would have to believe that no-one else would believe it a serious crime either.
6. According to your logic, all of this agreement and corroberation somehow proves polygraph doesn't work.
I guess you think nothing is quite as deceptive as the obvious.
I think you are sliding down Occam's razor into a pan of alcohol.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:10 PMQuoteFirst of all if Nazario was asked the question " have you committed an undisclosed serious crime" you need to be educated to the fact that Nazario may have felt that the killings were part of his duty ( war is an ugly thing) and not a crime at all.
OK let's see if I follow your "reasoning" here.
1. Nazario denies committing a crime. Either because he didn't do it or because he doesn't believe it was a crime.
2. He did not show deception on the polygraph at the question about whether he committed an undisclosed serious crime.
3. The trial court acquits him of committing a crime, i.e. says he didn't do it.
4 The findings of the court corroberate both his denial and his polygraph results.
5. You conclude a likelyhood that he passed his test because he didn't believe his actions were a crime based on your own pure supposition. BTW In order for this to be correct, he would not only have to believe that it wasn't a crime, he would have to believe that no-one else would believe it a serious crime either.
6. According to your logic, all of this agreement and corroberation somehow proves polygraph doesn't work.
I guess you think nothing is quite as deceptive as the obvious.
I think you are sliding down Occam's razor into a pan of alcohol.
Sancho Panza
As usual you twist things to favor your supposition that Polygraph does anything that Poligraphers and the APA claim it does.
Don't put words in my mouth.
If the question was as you mentioned. "Have you ever committed a undisclosed serious crime" either the question or the very accusation may or may not elicit a nervous response. SO, if Nazario did in-fact feel comfortable with his actions he would NOT have a measurable response on the chart.
And Sanho it is not necessary that he believe that anyone else thought it was a crime. All Ploygraph needs is a reaction to the situation. Can you say Gary Ridgeway?
Dr. Maschke the implication of Nazario's squadmates invoking the 5th amendment is quite clear.
They were offerred immunity from charges pertaining to any criminal acts they may have committed during the alleged murder of prisoners that was the subject of Nazario's trial. Basically they could have admitted to committing or participating in murder and they could not be charged.
On they other hand the offer of immunity did not extend to any perjury committed during the trial. In other words the only thing that a 5th amendment assertion could protect them from once immunity was offered was a charge of perjured testimony. The clear implication is that they invoked their 5th amendment rights to avoid a charge of perjury stemming from either their sworn statements or the testimony that the prosecution expected them to present.
Sancho Panza
Notguilty1 Where exactly is the "twist" in those six statements?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:31 PMDr. Maschke the implication of Nazario's squadmates invoking the 5th amendment is quite clear.
They were offerred immunity from charges pertaining to any criminal acts they may have committed during the alleged murder of prisoners that was the subject of Nazario's trial. Basically they could have admitted to committing or participating in murder and they could not be charged.
On they other hand the offer of immunity did not extend to any perjury committed during the trial. In other words the only thing that a 5th amendment assertion could protect them from once immunity was offered was a charge of perjured testimony. The clear implication is that they invoked their 5th amendment rights to avoid a charge of perjury stemming from either their sworn statements or the testimony that the prosecution expected them to present.
Sancho Panza
You so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
If you were in a field that respects loyalty to one and other you would.
Without their testimony .... no case....
Does not equal .... Ploygraph worked!
Quote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 08:36 PMNotguilty1 Where exactly is the "twist" in those six statements?
Sancho Panza
If you cannot read my post responding to that it's OK the rest of us can.
QuoteYou so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
Would this be the same loyalty or different loyalty than they exhibited when they gave their formal statements to investigators or as you put it ratted him out the first time?
What I can't understand is how
YOU of all people can't seem to accept either the possibility or the verdict that Nazario is innocent when there is so much more corroberation that he is innocent of the accusations against him than currently exists that you are innocent of the accusations against you.
Sancho Panza
It would seem that the recording of Nazario's own admission regarding the ordering of the killings is sufficient evidence that he ordered the killings. Verdicts often have little to do with guilt or innocence, and often have much more to do with the skill of the opposing attorneys and the selection of the jury. The fact that a person was found guilty or not guilty in a trial is hardly proof positive that they did or did not commit the crime of which they were accused.
It seems unlikely an NCO would be under the impression that executing prisoners because it would be inconvenient to process them is legal. So, the idea that maybe he didn't consider the execution of prisoners a crime seems unreasonable.
It is reasonable to believe that Nazario, like most other law enforcement applicants, was asked some version of a question regarding any undisclosed crimes he may have committed in the past. Neither the polygraph nor its operator was able to discern that Nazario, by his own recorded admission, did indeed have extremely serious undisclosed crimes in his past.
I don't see how the pre-employment performance of the polygraph and its operator could be considered anything less than a failure in this instance.
Quote from: notguilty1 on Sep 06, 2008, 09:35 PMQuoteYou so obviously have no idea of the brotherhood service members feel for on and other. Can't say that surprises me.
Are you so self centered that you cannot believe that fellow soldiers would not rat a another out just to protect their own hide?
Would this be the same loyalty or different loyalty than they exhibited when they gave their formal statements to investigators or as you put it ratted him out the first time?
What I can't understand is how YOU of all people can't seem to accept either the possibility or the verdict that Nazario is innocent when there is so much more corroberation that he is innocent of the accusations against him than currently exists that you are innocent of the accusations against you.
Sancho Panza
Sancho same ol' Sancho.
I was not making a statement accusing Nazario of anything, only that Polygraph well........... Do I really need to say it again?
OK.... Polygraph detects nothing more than a nervous reaction to a stimulus may it be the actual question that one is nervous about, ( not necessarily lying) or..... holding back a fart.
I know cause I failed mine even though I was completely honest.
Why? I don't know I was told the "test" was practicaly infallible
If Nazario was acquitted with due process, then I am satisfied.
it is all about clarity of facts and figures...
Nazario is charged with Eight Killings... what is the official court version on this...
War is such an ugly thing...no framework...no rules....no mercy.. :-?
i am still not satisfied with the facts and figures...you know the thing is there are two lobbies working for and against...
for some one he is a hero and for other he is a killer...
we talked much on that..only objective neutral discussion can lead us to the result..
I am not surprised by the news that he passed LAPD tests and all...
until i fetch enough clues against him... :-/
____________________
Life is a bubble marine directory (http://www.marinedex.com/) ....