Hi Anti and Pro folks alike. This is a document/Affidavit which is public domain that swears before a judge that Antipolygraph's own Drew Richardson is a phony FBI Polygraph Examiner. Interestingly, Mr. Richardson has long boasted his FBI Examiner credentials and wealth of expertise and experience as a launch pad for his activism against polygraph. If the document and it's contents are true, than Mr. Richardson owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud. Have you no honor sir? Bellow is a cut and paste version of the attached file.
Yours, Paradiddle
CHARLES ELIAS, C.F.L.S.
Attorney at Law
4030 Palos Verdes Drive North, Suite 108
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274-2526
Telephone: (310) 541-4141
Facsimile: (310) 544-3971
E-mail: ce@alum.mit.edu
State Bar Number 046686
Attorney for Petitioner
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
In re the Marriage of:
ANTHONY MICHAEL MAYFIELD,
Petitioner,
and,
KAREN AIKO MAYFIELD,
Respondent.
CASE NO. YD 045 663
(Transferred for all purposes to the Central District, Dept 22, The Honorable Michael Linfield, Judge)
REPLY DECLARATION of mark johnson to RESPONSIVE DECLARATION of drew richardson
DATE: August 10, 2005
TIME: 8:45 A.M.
DEPT.: CE 22
I, mark johnson, declare as follows:
1.I am a former FBI agent. From 1990 to 1995 I was a field agent in the FBI's Washington Field Office. From 1995 to 1998 I was a Supervising Special Agent in the Polygraph Unit at FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
2.From 1990-1998, in order to become certified as a FBI polygraph examiner an agent had to first complete the 3 to 4 month introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute in Aniston, Alabama. During this time, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute gave training to future polygraph examiners for the FBI, NSA, DOD, Postal Service, Border Patrol, Army, Navy and Marines. Sometime after 1995, the CIA also sent examiner candidates to this school.
3.In the FBI, after completing the introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, a candidate for certification was required to conduct at least twenty (20) polygraph examinations under the supervision of a FBI certified polygraph examiner. After the requisite examinations were concluded, a Supervising Special Agent at the Polygraph Unit, FBI Headquarters reviewed the paperwork generated by the examinations. Additionally, the FBI certified polygraph examiner who supervised the candidate's examinations made a written recommendation to the FBI Polygraph Unit Chief as to whether the candidate should become certified as a FBI certified polygraph examiner. This process generally took six months to a year to complete.
4.During this time, I reported to the FBI Polygraph Unit Chief, James K. Murphy. Mr. Murphy assigned me to supervise Mr. Drew Richardson's required twenty (20) polygraph examinations after Mr. Richardson had completed the introductory program at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute so that he could become certified.
5.I am not exactly sure as to when Mr. Murphy assigned me to supervise Mr. Richardson's required twenty (20) polygraph examinations. My best estimate is that it was sometime between 1991 to 1994.
6.I remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test.
7.As a Field agent, I did not have the authority to decide whether Mr. Richardson would receive a FBI polygraph examiner certification. This authority was vested with the Unit Chief, Mr. Murphy.
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts.
9.Mr. Murphy adopted my assessment of Mr. Richardson. Drew Richardson never received a certification as an FBI Polygraph Examiner and was never authorized by the FBI to conduct polygraph examinations.
10.Dated this ________________at Leesburg, Virginia, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
__________________________________
Mark Johnson
Dr. Richardson described his credentials before the U.S. Senate thus (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml):
QuoteMy name is Dr. Drew Campbell Richardson. I am a Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have spent the vast majority of my professional career as a scientist within the FBI Laboratory. In that capacity I have worked in the areas of chemistry, toxicology, polygraph research, and hazardous materials response.
and before the National Academy of Sciences thus (https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml):
QuoteI suppose it's only fair that I introduce myself and give you a little bit about my perspective. I have recently retired from the FBI. I was an agent for twenty-five years. I am a research physiologist, although I spent the vast majority of my career as a scientist in the FBI working as a physical scientist, and that is as a chemist and a toxicologist. You no doubt in the next hour, a bit, perhaps, will get that perspective from me. I was involved in polygraph research specifically for the FBI. My group associations -- agency associations -- largely have been with the FBI as well as DoDPI.
My formal involvement in polygraph research was in the late '80s and early '90s. I have not been involved since that time, formally. It's interesting that although I've had a day job in the last ten years since that time, I've been something of an unwitting, if not reluctant, social activist, I suppose. I've not looked for that role, but I've found myself in the position of having been contacted by several hundred people presenting either themselves or others as victims of some sort of polygraph, generally polygraph screening, and generally applicant polygraph screening.
Contrary to your assertion,
Dr. Richardson has not misrepresented his credentials.
Paradiddle,
I for one would take Drew Richardsons word and reputation long before some trade school trained BS artist polygrapher. And you found a document, unsigned and invalid, real court documents are public record, with the stamps and signatures that make them valid. Do these people know you have their private documents ? You could have invaded someones privacy and if they are fake (forging) court documents well, thats illegal don't you know ! For all we know you could be trying to steal someones identity. Again questionable activities by a questionable practitioner of a psuedo-science. Like this wasn't expected.
Swing & a Miss .......
EosJupiter,
Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment. Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two "qualified" FBI examiners in conducting field examinations. I say "qualified" in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau's Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner's failing the DoDPI basic examiner training. At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner. I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner. The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some "real-world" experience and presumably allow for a better research product.
After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner. To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence. I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination. I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public. With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me. The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams. I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy's (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters. I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy. It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau. My reason for leaving the Bureau's polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing. He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion. I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.
Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Sep 25, 2007, 01:25 PMParadiddle,
I for one would take Drew Richardsons word and reputation long before some trade school trained BS artist polygrapher. And you found a document, unsigned and invalid, real court documents are public record, with the stamps and signatures that make them valid. Do these people know you have their private documents ? You could have invaded someones privacy and if they are fake (forging) court documents well, thats illegal don't you know ! For all we know you could be trying to steal someones identity. Again questionable activities by a questionable practitioner of a psuedo-science. Like this wasn't expected.
Swing & a Miss .......
Sheesh George----so much for decorum---Eos called me a trade school BS artist (wahhh). Ad hom attacks aside, perhaps the crew here is projecting some disappointment over "Dr." Richardson's (now) questionable mastery of polygraph. I recall him once insinuating that he administered scores and scores of polygraph tests and that he regretted such. Uh huh, yeah. So, that leaves me with one question. With his pathetic performance at DODPI (not exactly MIT as you all would say), his irrelevant experience in Toxicology and waste, what exactly did he do at DODPI lab? Perhaps the Feds placed him in the position of Supervisor of Making Coffee and Replacing Ink in Polygraph Instrument Printers and Pen Bottles (ink is "toxic" you know)?
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Sep 25, 2007, 02:43 PMEosJupiter,
Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment. Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two "qualified" FBI examiners in conducting field examinations. I say "qualified" in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau's Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner's failing the DoDPI basic examiner training. At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner. I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner. The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some "real-world" experience and presumably allow for a better research product.
After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner. To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence. I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination. I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public. With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me. The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams. I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy's (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters. I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy. It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau. My reason for leaving the Bureau's polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing. He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion. I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.
Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.
"Several Exams"? What exactly "Dr.", constitutes "several" exams----and did you actually ---or did you not recieve certification as a FBI polygraph Examiner? You see, whether you are a researcher, lab technician, expert witness---whatever, a person must be qualified to administer the practice for which you are deemed an "expert." Doesn't that make sense Drew? If you were, say, an expert witness Behavioral Specialist, than perhaps that person should be an actual psychologist, wouldn't you say?
As for your recollection of your possible certification, I am reminded of Alberto Gonzales' recall abilities. Is it the QC examiner who was so bad, or was it you who were so bad? Maybe you are right and I am wrong. Tell us oh master of polygraph. It is convenient for you to mock DODPI's training as you were on the "fast track" so to speak to research. I doubt your co-horts and supervisors placed much faith in your research due to , among other things, your "phoned in" effort and alleged shoddy attendence record.
Incidentally Drew, no one has ever questioned your IQ, just your actual experience and stated expertise in regards to Polygraph.
This is a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway study in action - watch the actual video of DACA's peer reviewed studies and learn how they conduct their studies!!!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8534038772412420905
Dr. Capps and Robert Andrews would be proud of this demonstration of DACA's scientific method in action.
Black Bird OOPs, that was hilarious. Don't you have some ashtrays in the break room to empty?
I have watched this board for years and I also recall somewhere that Drew mentions administering hundreds of polygraphs. A phoney - all I can say is I am in shock & awe.
Paradiddle - What else are you going to pull out of your hat? lol
Eos, sorry your bubble burst.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Sep 25, 2007, 02:43 PMEosJupiter,
Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment. Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two "qualified" FBI examiners in conducting field examinations. I say "qualified" in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau's Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner's failing the DoDPI basic examiner training. At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner. I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner. The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some "real-world" experience and presumably allow for a better research product.
After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner. To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence. I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination. I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public. With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me. The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams. I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy's (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters. I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy. It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau. My reason for leaving the Bureau's polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing. He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion. I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.
Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.
Okay, so let me get this straight...
Dr. Drew Richardson, the man who testified on capital hill as the self proclaimed "FBI's TOP polygraph expert," actually administered MAYBE one or two tests after the completion of polygraph school. Then, as a result of either his less then steller performance (or piss-poor attitude?) during those examinations was encouraged by the FBI's polygraph director to seek employment elseware?
Gee, and I thought there were minimum certification requirements in the federal government. I thought the feds require among other things that a polygraph school graduate administer a minimum number of exams before his agency can certify him...
soooo...
It seems the infamous Dr. Drew Richardson, who testifies all over the place (including congress) as an "expert federal polygraph examiner" was not only NEVER CERTIFIED to conduct polygraph examinations, but was basically FIRED from the program after conducting only ONE OR TWO TESTS?
Wow, think of the tens of thousands of $$$ the FBI wasted training this loser. As a taxpayer, I believe I am appalled... >:(
Gee, finally this is all making sense. I have met people like this Drew Richardson. Guys who can't make it in the field, and spend the rest of their lives blaming everyone other than themselves. People who's huge egos just can't accept the fact they failed at something....
You know, I find myself feeling sorta sorry for this fellow.... :-[
In Drew's defense, I have heard that while at DODPI, he was miserable----being in a place other than where he desired, and being completely indifferent to his assignment. I too have spent small amounts of time working jobs that left me feeling empty and unfulfilled. I have heard that Drew is a gifted man, but when he isn't passionate about something, he is selfish and lazy. I would feel quite sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that he has toured around like a rock musician taking cheap shots at something that he didn't even take a close look at beyond his own arrogance. Any fool can burn down a barn. It appears that he didn't know a goddamn thing about barns though.
Nonombre
When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
Quote from: Twoblock on Sep 25, 2007, 10:34 PMNonombre
When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
Are you kidding me. I wouldn't get near his jock let alone carry it! RU related to d-head? Its actually funny you admitted you DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT POLYGRAPHS. Why then don't you go find something else to do or maybe you just want to talk circles and spit out what everyone else is saying. Did you consult with Eos on that? You must be a follower.
Brain manipulations.....lol - does your goat call you mama? :-*
Quote from: Twoblock on Sep 25, 2007, 10:34 PMNonombre
When it comes to intelligence, you and the other polygraphers who visit this site can't carry Dr. Richardson's jock. Your added hominy attacks on the anti's is the best you can do and call it a debate. Then all of you accuse the anti's of doing it. Quite a debate. Huh? Hell, I admit that I don't know enough about the poly to effectively debate it. All I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
Eos, do you claim this man to be your lawful.........
Twoblock impresses me with his grit------ok, no not really. I am afraid that he has fallen prey to fawning over Drew Richardson the niche celebrity, not Drew Richardson the actual man. When this site exposes a phony PHD Polygraph Celeb-----I wait and see----as I am disgusted with such phoniness and you won't see me defending idiocy. Anti-folks seem to embrace their "reluctant" hero without wondering if they really know who they revel. I think we know why he was so reluctant. Let this be a lesson to those who sanctify their leaders and their "expert" advocates.
I rest my case!!!
All are requested to please keep the discussion here civil and refrain from personal attacks. Any further posts should substantially address the original topic raised in this message thread.
It bears repeating that Dr. Richardson has not misrepresented his credentials. If any disagree, then please show where he has done so.
It is worth noting that Mark Johnson, whose declaration Paradiddle posted, is among those who polygraphed former FBI special agent Mark Mallah (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml), whose career, like that of Rita Chiang (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3682.msg25623#msg25623), was ruined when he wrongly became a spy suspect following a false positive polygraph screening "test." Mallah, after obtaining his FBI records under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act, described his experience with Johnson in a 2001 letter (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-016.shtml) to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
QuoteBackground- One year into the investigation and grasping for theories, the FBI first raised their suspicion that I had classified documents stolen from a briefcase inside the trunk of my wife's car. The trunk was broken into on a Friday night while my wife and I joined some friends for a social outing. A non-FBI friend had his briefcase stolen as well, and we immediately reported the theft to the police. The FBI polygraphed me (the polygraph interrogator was Mark Johnson) on this incident, which had occurred about four years prior to this polygraph.
What I said- That I was sure there were no classified documents in the briefcase because it was my regular practice not to take classified documents out of the office, and it was on a Friday night, so even if my practice was otherwise, I would have no need for any classified documents over the weekend. Johnson polygraphed me, then insisted that I was showing deception on this issue. He challenged me as to how I could be so sure about it, especially when the incident was four years ago. Did I inventory the briefcase before it was stolen, he asked? I responded that I could look out the window and see it was daylight, but if I did not actually see the sun and he asked me if I was absolutely sure that the sun was really there, then no, I could not be 100% sure of that either, but I could be as sure as I could possibly be. The same with the absence of classified documents in the briefcase, I told him.
The FBI Version- "Mallah admitted that he could not be 100% certain that there were no classified documents in the briefcase the night it was stolen. Mallah stated that he had no specific knowledge of what classified document could have been in the briefcase."
Subsequent reporting on this issue, from a Special Agent in Charge of the New York Office at the time, Carson Dunbar, stated: "Prior to the polygraph, SA Mallah stated that 'to the best of his knowledge, he can 'categorically' state that there were no Bureau (FBI) documents, classified or otherwise, contained in that briefcase when it was stolen (end quotes missing). After being told that his polygram reflected that he was deceptive, Mallah stated that 'he could not be 100% certain that there were no classified documents in the briefcase the night it was stolen.'"
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 25, 2007, 07:41 PMEos, sorry your bubble burst.
Wonder_Women, Paradiddle, whoever .....
No bubble burst here, I continue / remain a supporter of Dr. Drew Richardson. His PHD is real unlike many of your senior polygraphers who post bogus degrees. And one questionable document does not even dent his credibility. Again I state to beat you requires nothing more than disbelief. The goal is to spread the word and make it mass disbelief. To this end I will continue. And seeing you all on the unemployment line is a worthy pursuit. I have beaten you, I have trained many to beat you, and I will continue until this fight is done. And best of all, their is nothing you can do about it. 8-)
Regards .....
I don't recall ever seeing Dr. Richardson post that he has conducted any number of exams at all.
I think that if he were really as bogus as the trolls would like us to believe, then his information would be worthless and easily seen as such. I don't think he has misrepresented his qualifications at all, and I don't think his knowledge of polygraph theory and procedure is any less impressive because he hasn't conducted thousands of exams.
An expert on confidence games and scams is no less knowledgeable or credible simply because he has never personally cheated anyone himself.
The fact that there is such a dramatic smear campaign in progress suggests that the information Dr. Richardson provides is accurate.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 26, 2007, 06:03 AMI don't recall ever seeing Dr. Richardson post that he has conducted any number of exams at all.
I think that if he were really as bogus as the trolls would like us to believe, then his information would be worthless and easily seen as such. I don't think he has misrepresented his qualifications at all, and I don't think his knowledge of polygraph theory and procedure is any less impressive because he hasn't conducted thousands of exams.
An expert on confidence games and scams is no less knowledgeable or credible simply because he has never personally cheated anyone himself.
The fact that there is such a dramatic smear campaign in progress suggests that the information Dr. Richardson provides is accurate.
Hi Sgt,
I remember reading somewhere, that Dr R did conduct a few tests and then finalised his conclusions.
Wonder_Woman
I apologize for my loss of temper. However, you had no reason for the way you attacked me either. I have never directed a post to you. It showed the lack of self control on the part of us both. Even at my advanced age, when provoked, I lose it occasionally.
Paradiddle,
In answer to your question about the number of field exams I conducted, I would guess that number to be around a dozen. Any shame associated with that number does not involve not having conducted hundreds/thousands more. To do so would have been merely playing out a slight modification of the oft-quoted Einstein definition of stupidity—doing something over and over again hoping for a different result (that different result would have involved looking for and hoping for the emergence of some evidence of diagnostic validity). The shame lies in the fact that I conducted the dozen. I had known prior to conducting the first of these exams that the methodology of CQT polygraph examinations was severely flawed. In fact, I had come to that conclusion before completing the basic examiner course at DoDPI. Those that I give most credence to on matters of polygraph validity have never conducted a polygraph examination. Amongst others, such a list would include David Lykken, Bill Iacono, John Furedy, Leonard Saxe, and Al Zelicoff. I believe I have discussed all aspects of this matter before. Perhaps you might care to read my previous posts.
On a separate but related matter and interestingly, the first of the two polygraph examiners I referred to in my last post (former senior Army CID polygraph examiner, FBI polygraph examiner, and apparent child sex abuser) was a much more skilled interviewer and interrogator than the second examiner and was much more well respected by his peers prior to his exposure (no pun intended). Also of note--his alleged involvement in sex abuse occurred before he would have passed polygraph screening examinations for both groups.
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 25, 2007, 09:10 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Sep 25, 2007, 02:43 PMEosJupiter,
Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment. Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two "qualified" FBI examiners in conducting field examinations. I say "qualified" in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau's Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner's failing the DoDPI basic examiner training. At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner. I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner. The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some "real-world" experience and presumably allow for a better research product.
After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner. To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence. I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination. I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public. With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me. The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams. I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy's (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters. I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy. It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau. My reason for leaving the Bureau's polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing. He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion. I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.
Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.
Okay, so let me get this straight...
Dr. Drew Richardson, the man who testified on capital hill as the self proclaimed "FBI's TOP polygraph expert," actually administered MAYBE one or two tests after the completion of polygraph school. Then, as a result of either his less then steller performance (or piss-poor attitude?) during those examinations was encouraged by the FBI's polygraph director to seek employment elseware?
Gee, and I thought there were minimum certification requirements in the federal government. I thought the feds require among other things that a polygraph school graduate administer a minimum number of exams before his agency can certify him...
soooo...
It seems the infamous Dr. Drew Richardson, who testifies all over the place (including congress) as an "expert federal polygraph examiner" was not only NEVER CERTIFIED to conduct polygraph examinations, but was basically FIRED from the program after conducting only ONE OR TWO TESTS?
Wow, think of the tens of thousands of $$$ the FBI wasted training this loser. As a taxpayer, I believe I am appalled... >:(
Gee, finally this is all making sense. I have met people like this Drew Richardson. Guys who can't make it in the field, and spend the rest of their lives blaming everyone other than themselves. People who's huge egos just can't accept the fact they failed at something....
You know, I find myself feeling sorta sorry for this fellow.... :-[
Nonombre,
I find it interesting that someone who doesn't know the difference between capital and capitol is questioning another's intellectual prowess and on-the-job competence.
Of course Dr. Richardson hasn't conducted hundreds of polygraphs. Why would he? They're flawed with no scientific credibility. His lack of conducting hundreds of them for the Bureau demonstrates integrity while supporting his belief based on scientific research that they are unreliable and should not be used for preemployment screening.
My goodness! I haven't seen concerted damage control like this since the last Republican gay scandal. Drew has been alleged to have been the worst examiner to be overseen in the history of a 20 yr vet examiner's career, plus he was "transferred" to polygraph research due to his "talents" in toxicology (?)---and then reputted to be lazy at DODPI, and then to emerge as some sort of expert on polygraphy, despite having never completed his Examiner certification ( a mere 20 tests.)
George chimes in with an irrelevant attack on Mark Johnson, for having ran an unsubstantiated false positive. George doesn't even kiss the notion that Drew was a phoned-in researcher that could have done great things---like solve CQT problems and weaknesses rather than his lackadaisical efforts and his alleged habits of bad mouthing his disfavorible tests and make lazy recommendations. Remember, read Mr. Sullivan's book to know the volume of spys and major leaks that were uncovered through polygraph---and then superimpose the whiny, bitter Drew Richardson over at DODPI.
Two block apologizes for telling a woman that she is a whore among other things ---the kind of post that was far worse than what Palerider was banned for---and further, that pathetic sexist masoginistic remark is left on the thread rather than in the "discarded post section." Could someone please translate what I just wrote to TwoBlock?
EosJupitor brags again over his prowess of teaching convicted sex offenders how to offer what amounts to be unempirically proven countermeasures on tests that he states are unscientific------a classic "black kettle call." To make matters worse, this seemingly brilliant man believes that his countermeasures "work"---thereby making him (in his mind) a 100% accomplice to every child who was sexually molested, raped, tortured, and killed while circumventing detection of deception tests. He and I can debate such another day.
Polyfool clearly believes that the end justifies the means. To codify, he states that if you don't believe in something, regardless of your limited experience with such, than it is ok to be aweful at it, and ignorant---while garnering great respect and a regal acclaim. I am sure Chiropractics has limitations due to the bad reputation and a less than 100% anecdotal success rate. But if anyone who isn't a master of Chiropractics (and other sciences like Orthopedics and Holistics) wants to burn the profession completely, I take issue and will readily call such warlike vendetta a witch hunt. To top off, he takes a type-o shot at Nonombre----like someone's OCD mother. Go wash your hands again Polyfool, you might have a germ.
Drew. hmmmm. I will save more remarks for later. I am loaded to the teeth.
Paradiddle,
This is perhaps the best post I have seen on this board. Dr. Drew can't put the spin on this one quick enough!
Regards,
To call what we have seen here "spin" is slightly off of the mark---but great point Meat. I would characterize the distortions and obfuscations as SMOKE :'(
Welcome to the board mystery meat. :-* Paradiddle has summed it up quite well. George and Drew are trying to deflect the attention by throwing the mud elsewhere....Mark Johnson, a PE that got sex charges...instead of just 'buckin' up.
BTW Eos, I too (along with 100's of examiners) am appalled at ANYONE that is a phony and claims a bogus ph.d. I am sure we could look at any profession and find this happening. As for your other comment, I try to protect children - whereas, you try to edcuate perpetrators to beat polygraphs...I would rather be on my side.
Polyfool, don't make comments about mis-spelled words. Most of us are typing without spell check and if you want I could point out all the mis-spellings through out all these postings (including mine)...Capitol vs Capital There vs Their...get it.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 02:40 PMMy goodness! I haven't seen concerted damage control like this since the last Republican gay scandal. Drew has been alleged to have been the worst examiner to be overseen in the history of a 20 yr vet examiner's career, plus he was "transferred" to polygraph research due to his "talents" in toxicology (?)---and then reputted to be lazy at DODPI, and then to emerge as some sort of expert on polygraphy, despite having never completed his Examiner certification ( a mere 20 tests.)
George chimes in with an irrelevant attack on Mark Johnson, for having ran an unsubstantiated false positive. George doesn't even kiss the notion that Drew was a phoned-in researcher that could have done great things---like solve CQT problems and weaknesses rather than his lackadaisical efforts and his alleged habits of bad mouthing his disfavorible tests and make lazy recommendations. Remember, read Mr. Sullivan's book to know the volume of spys and major leaks that were uncovered through polygraph---and then superimpose the whiny, bitter Drew Richardson over at DODPI.
Two block apologizes for telling a woman that she is a whore among other things ---the kind of post that was far worse than what Palerider was banned for---and further, that pathetic sexist masoginistic remark is left on the thread rather than in the "discarded post section." Could someone please translate what I just wrote to TwoBlock?
EosJupitor brags again over his prowess of teaching convicted sex offenders how to offer what amounts to be unempirically proven countermeasures on tests that he states are unscientific------a classic "black kettle call." To make matters worse, this seemingly brilliant man believes that his countermeasures "work"---thereby making him (in his mind) a 100% accomplice to every child who was sexually molested, raped, tortured, and killed while circumventing detection of deception tests. He and I can debate such another day.
Polyfool clearly believes that the end justifies the means. To codify, he states that if you don't believe in something, regardless of your limited experience with such, than it is ok to be aweful at it, and ignorant---while garnering great respect and a regal acclaim. I am sure Chiropractics has limitations due to the bad reputation and a less than 100% anecdotal success rate. But if anyone who isn't a master of Chiropractics (and other sciences like Orthopedics and Holistics) wants to burn the profession completely, I take issue and will readily call such warlike vendetta a witch hunt. To top off, he takes a type-o shot at Nonombre----like someone's OCD mother. Go wash your hands again Polyfool, you might have a germ.
Drew. hmmmm. I will save more remarks for later. I am loaded to the teeth.
Very good post, Paradiddle. Truly one of the best written I have seen on this site. Don't believe you will get any traction though. Remember, the name of this site will NEVER be "let's have a fair discussion of the polygraph.org."
Regards,
Nonombre... 8-)
Nonombre, Paradiddle, Wonder_Women, whoever ......
Making the assuptions and you assuming that I help lower life forms such as Pedophiles or Sex offenders dodge and beat the polygraph, Actually helps them more than I could ever do. By giving me credibility that I have gone beyond countermeasures to the crux of your machine. Having torn down a polygraph from analog sensor to Pen, and now from Analog sensor, thru the A to D, into USB/SCSI port, I scare you and your kind the most. It is dangerous to piss off scientists, and when I was accused and hammered with a false positive, polygraphy made a very powerful enemy. I state for the record, that I have never helped a pedophile or sex offender ( to my knowlege), and will never (to the best of my ability) help them. Those I have tutored have been those seeking employment, no more. The venue of the employment, well lets just say I will keep those secrets to myself. And personnally I could care less if your opinion remains that I help them. Those that know me, know I help those in need. You may change question formats, you may even change tactics of interrogation, but the flaws of your process remain the same. Mass disbelief is my greatest weapon, and your greatest fear. And no fear means no responses, at worst its always inconclusive !!
Regards ...
Did I ever say I feared you. lol
BTW if I was looking at 2 applicants - one showed truthful and the other showed inconclusive....the truthful candidate will win. Screw up the charts, go a head, we all know you can do that. Are they real responses - NO. Will it get you a job - NO
peace
Wonder_Women,
Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective. You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!
And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!
Regards ....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Sep 26, 2007, 07:47 PMWonder_Women,
Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective. You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!
Regards ....
Let me correct myself. I kind of had a knee jerk reaction. It least I didn't call you a whore.
Real inconclusive readings differ from the manipulated ones you employ (don't look forward to me telling you how) When hiring agencies are looking at candidates, they don't make all decisions based soley on the polygraph. However, if I report the individuals charts did not have normal phsyiolgical data I would lay odds you would be lower on the totem pole. Then again, the polygraph examiner DOES NOT make the hiring decision! It would be better to fail an area on a polygraph and let the investigator investigate the issue further. As for multiple inconclusives making me look bad - you really don't have a clue. lol
BTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment. I hope your proud of yourself. My sister can fight better than that.
peace
QuoteBTW I am surprised it took someone that long to make a marston comment. I hope your proud of yourself. My sister can fight better than that.
That was a compliment, not an insult. I admire thinking that shows some color to a humorous but grey environment.
Well then only time will bear out who's right and who's wrong. I do keep score with those I help. 8-)
And if its proof you want, stay tuned .....
I have been very busy as of late, and I wouldn't want to deprive my handiwork from this forum. ;)
Regards ....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Sep 26, 2007, 07:47 PMWonder_Women,
Fear is a relative term, in our case its the state you need for your machine to work. Inconclusives are the worst case scenario. Eliminating and removing the choice out of the polygraphers hands. You can not dismiss or deny employment with inconclusives, hiring rules state that you must pass to be hired, failing gets you eliminated, inconclusives mean someone of consequence has to make a decision. Your culling machine becomes ineffective. You have to resolve inconclusives don't you. Multiple ones make you look bad. You won't do more than 4 tests on any one subject, as the more you do the less the adrenal reactions available. Its the Law Of Diminishing Return. And if the subject is properly conditioned to resist the F3 reactions, he can manipulate the machine to his advantage. Its thats simple. Again change the question formats, change the conditions, but again the process remains the same. And once you know an opponents game plan, defeating it is easy. I do like the avatar you picked, Marston would be proud !!
And any organization the makes you take a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not worth working for anyways. The courage is to just say no !!!
Regards ....
oh Eos, the mind is a terrible thing to waste---and yours is a good mind---thoughtful----even considerate at times----but then you spin your beanie propeller on the subject of polygraph and ----frrrrt. sigh
"Fear"-----let's talk about fear. You can tell someone that if they just control their fear with breathing and yoga that they will become a fluid and fearless public speaker. Then they get up in front of that crowd---and they are extremely nervous---regardless of how they pretend externally. You can claim your Mt Everest skills all you want behind your shield, but 99% of us humans get pretty nervous when our ass is on the line. If Johnny Carson got stage fright, than most of us will also when we are "attached" and in the "light."
4 "tests" or did you mean 4 charts? I am not a geek about type-o's, but if you are going to be a critical theorist, than we need to have a bible class on the difference in terms.
The "Law of Diminishing Return?"----what are you a real estate appraiser? (actually I liked that analogy)
On most polygraph reports right before the "Final Call" section, there is a section titled "Countermeasure Activity:" ----
The mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities, Inconclusives are sometimes even unfairly discriminated against. Also,if you can "flatten" your polygrams at will, in most areas (except your inexplicably tardy area) an examiner might write that he suspects pharmeceutical/pharmecological countermeasures due to flat affect. Although I doubt you have such james bond super stoicalness at your will, I suppose because I knew you in a different life that I will give you the superhuman benefit of the doubt----although I'd like to see your charts and your 95 year old examiner.
I need sleep
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 08:52 PMThe mere suspicion of countermeasure activity warrants comments [/b]and caveats in that section. Many but not all Inconclusives get such a label---especially when they present as "goofy." Now, when an examinee gets the stink of "suspected crude and/or sophisticated countermeasures" attached---it's like wearing a goose around their neck. So, your remarks about "Inconclusives", while interesting and revealing to the modality and/or industry for which you refer, in most agencies and municipalities,
and...
You all might want to know that in many federal and state agencies, a countermeasures call by the examiner is the ONLY personnel action/outcome that CANNOT be appealed...
So keep on "helping" Eos, I am sure your friends will appreciate you...
Nonombre ::)
NoNombre & Paradiddle, whoever .....
As you imply that I am merely all bluster. To this end we shall see !!
Lets agree to disagree, and see what the future brings. You do what you think is right, I will continue on my path. The best science and laws win ...... :)
And NoNombre after all this time ... you most of all should know I never post anything I can't prove.
The feds and states are already having a hard time getting qualified people to apply. A recent Federal times has a big story on the hiring problems. People are not going to do what they find unpleasant. Smart people with courage will just say no.
Regards ......
I have mentioned this before, but I believe it bears repeating.
Among other professional interests, I am a traffic crash reconstructionist. My work in this area deals largely with Newton's laws of motion and the fact that all objects involved in a collision will conform to those laws. These physical laws are well established and firmly grounded in science and their validity can be easily proven.
If a web site existed to help people avoid responsibility in traffic accidents, and that web site purported that wearing a blue shirt while driving would make it difficult or impossible for the police to figure out how fast you were traveling when you got into an accident, it wouldn't bother me at all. If the site suggested that drinking bottled water while driving, or listening to heavy metal would somehow prevent your car from leaving skid marks, side slipping scuff marks, or yaw marks on the roadway, I would likely be amused by such claims.
I cannot imagine taking the time to visit such a site and make multiple, lengthy posts trying to shoot holes in what I believe to be the completely bogus theories provided there. I cannot imagine being so threatened by such an obviously incorrect site that I would go there and try my best to discredit the people posting the information.
Why do so many polygraph examiners feel the need to come to this site at all? And, once here, what makes them so upset that they spend so much time posting attacks against the sites founders and supporters and then congratulating each other for doing so?
I can only conclude that the information here is not bogus and the free availability of such information is hurting, or at least inconveniencing, the polygraph profession. I don't see how any other conclusion makes any sense.
Perhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman, trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair with another Examiner. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box." I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.
To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 11:51 PMPerhaps you should reconstruct something other than fender benders chief. Reconstruct the fact that this site has tirelessly assailed persons of a profession that are, like your fellow lawman, trying to catch the bad guys. BAD GUYS SERGE----Not nitwits trying to skate through red lights out of impulsive selfishness. I worked a serial killer case that had the suspect admit to causing an inconclusive on a previous poly due to his emboldened attempt at monkeychair. Did he beat the test? No more than spitting in a urine sample---crude at best. But you people embolden the worst of our fellow humans. You cherry pick your accepted research studies, call us all liars, thieves, and cons. You even have a message board dedicated for sex offenders to keep their mouth shut and play tongue biting games and behavioral charades so that they can be protected from the "evil box." I have small children, and I take this site as a parent only---as an act of war. This isn't cute like the old controversial Anarchist Cookbook. This site is no better than an anti-abortion site that contains a bomb building blueprint chat thread. I am an actual activist. Antipolygraph.org is not activism, it is something far more sinister.
I will let my team know that the multiple fatality MVA's we investigate are actually, in your opinion, merely "fender benders."
You are a proponent of a "test" which, by your own admission, can be beaten or confounded by someone who spends a few minutes researching that test on the Internet. Wouldn't that make any reasonable person question the validity of such a test?
I have children as well, and would feel no safer knowing the child molester down the block "passed" his most recent polygraph. I can't imagine that you or any other examiner truly would either.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 11:51 PM
To Eos and the rest, things are going to be different. Your site will no longer be ignored and treated as a buzzing little stingerless bee. Be cocky, it makes it more fun.
Paradiddle,
I hope you don't ignore us !!!
Remember nothing this website represents is illegal. Nothing anyone is doing is illegal. Its just a different opinion and perspective from your own and other polygraphers. If you policed your own, and controlled the abuse, I and others on this site would never exist. You polygraphers created us !!! Now you have to deal with us. A fire starts with a spark, and it started when Jack Trimarco, wrongly did in George. People of conscience and courage never take abuse, something you polygraphers took for granted way too long.
Regards ...
Again, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. :-/ The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.
Serge, I apoligize for minimizing your work----sincerely. I never stated that CM's work in the sense that they defeat the test consistantly ---let's not split hairs, I take great issue with the advocation here that examinees, some of whom are very dangerous to country and persons, engage in behavior that interferes with my work. A countermeasur during arrest is to kick the arresting officer in the balls---does it defeat the arrest, no----it does damage, risks lives, and at the least makes the job more difficult. It is not enough for you to hate polygraph and be an activist, but you must disrupt it by siding with child molestors? Focus Serge, focus.......yes, you advocate physical disruption. YOUR BUDDY GEORGE HAS A SEX OFFENDER SECTION AND RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING THE OFFENDERS TO WRITE CONGRESS OR PETITION THE USE OF POLYGRAPH, YOU ANTI-GUYS ADVOCATE WRIGGLING AND DISENGAGING FROM TREATMENT AND HEALTHY RESPITE FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Your comparison of how if a site were to inform speeders of a kind of fuzz buster insults my work.
Eos---a good point, but you still are distancing the subject away from DREW RICHARDSON'S ALLEGED BLOATED AND LACKADAISICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH AND POLYGRAPH THEORY AND PRACTICE WHILE AT DODPI, AND HAVING NEVER BEEN AN FBI POLYGRAPH EXAMINER AND FURTHERMORE, DREW ALLEGEDLY COULD NOT EVEN SCORE CHARTS AT THE STUDENT LEVEL. On an aside, the states and feds are having trouble not with polygraph, but with the unrealistic cut offs regarding historic drug use. They are in the process of changing the regs/requirements----and it is about time. Too many good people have been DQ'd because they smoked marijuana more than 15 times while in college----a sanctimonious and arbitrary benchmark if there ever was one.
p.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 27, 2007, 10:42 AMAgain, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. :-/ The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.
Your original post has not been avoided. You suggested that Dr. Richardson has misrepresented his credentials. I addressed this allegation head-on in the very first reply to your post, citing verbatim Dr. Richardson's testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) and the National Academy of Sciences (https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml). In neither case did Dr. Richardson misrepresent his credentials.
Dr. Richardson has also responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely answered your mockingly phrased follow-up questions.
Despite much hyperventilation, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 27, 2007, 10:42 AMp.s., Eos, you still advocate that sex offenders disengage from treatment and criminal activity respite by virtue of your support. I am sorry, but you are not associating with Robin Hood in this realm.
Paradiddle,
So guilt by association is it. Find anywhere in my posts (444), where I advocate or support criminal activity. I have said that criminals have the right to a stout legal defense, no matter what the crime. I advocate that for positions of trust, 100% honesty is required. I believe we need the best Law Enforcement can get, at every level. But no where will you find such comments or postings to that effect. I have been admonished on this website for my opinions about the use of polygraph on sex offenders. I just don't care if you use it. My fight remains in the employment / job arena. That is where I remain. And the Drew Richardson document, and the allegations. Drew addressed it all. FINI
And in defense of SARGE, he is the kind of LEO with a heart and conscience, doing what he believes is right. Just like you do. With the exception that his paycheck is not on the line if traffic violations go away.
Regards ....
Sargeant,
Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:
George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.
Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.
Gino who?
I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.
Regards
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 27, 2007, 11:09 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Sep 27, 2007, 10:42 AMAgain, you guys continue to avoid the original post regarding Drew Richardson's Alleged Phony FBI Examiner Expertise and Bloated Resume. :-/ The denial in this realm is staggering! i.e. Daddy drinks alcohol because he is happy.
Your original post has not been avoided. You suggested that Dr. Richardson has misrepresented his credentials. I addressed this allegation head-on in the very first reply to your post, citing verbatim Dr. Richardson's testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) and the National Academy of Sciences (https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml). In neither case did Dr. Richardson misrepresent his credentials.
Dr. Richardson has also responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely answered your mockingly phrased follow-up questions.
Despite much hyperventilation, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials.
It is ironic that Mr. Richardson on a thread some years back bragged of coining the term "psycho-physiologist" (he can have the term anyway)---along with other allegedly pioneering aspects of polygraph research. Again, when I first read such, I remember thinking "wow"---a heavy hitter fed poly celeb from the DODPI camp. It wasn't long before many of the quiet examiners in the know began hearing credible rumors that Mr. Richardson was nothing more than a "temp worker" with no apparent integrity to even take all of his tests----tests that he has no doubt lampooned, but oddly enough never bothered to consider his duty---despite his assignment.
Drew, did you or did you not score a (barely) 70% passing grade while at DODPI? Please----regale us with your alleged harrowing close call with the basic polygraph school grade cut-offs for "minimum pass".
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 27, 2007, 04:20 PMSargeant,
Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:
George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.
Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.
Gino who?
I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.
Regards
You forgot to mention those crazy folks at the National Academy of Science who concluded that the polygraph has no scientific validity and poses a threat to national security. They really have no credibility...
Quote from: digithead on Sep 27, 2007, 06:01 PMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 27, 2007, 04:20 PMSargeant,
Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:
George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.
Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.
Gino who?
I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.
Regards
You forgot to mention those crazy folks at the National Academy of Science who concluded that the polygraph has no scientific validity and poses a threat to national security. They really have no credibility...
Digithead,
Isn't that the same National Academy of Sciences that declared that specific issue polygraph detected deception at rates "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN CHANCE, but less then perfect?"
Gee, I thought the whole mantra of this site was that polygraph was "pseudo science," "tea leaf reading," "bone throwing," a "con," etc, etc, etc...
It seems the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES would choose to disagree with you.
Are you all now ignoring the very NAS document you repeatedly hang your hat on?
Or maybe the NAS is actually "in bed" with the government???
Or maybe you all just know more than the NAS?
I'm confused..... :-/
Quote from: nonombre on Sep 27, 2007, 07:48 PM
Digithead,
Isn't that the same National Academy of Sciences that declared that specific issue polygraph detected deception at rates "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN CHANCE, but less then perfect?"
Gee, I thought the whole mantra of this site was that polygraph was "pseudo science," "tea leaf reading," "bone throwing," a "con," etc, etc, etc...
It seems the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES would choose to disagree with you.
Are you all now ignoring the very NAS document you repeatedly hang your hat on?
Or maybe the NAS is actually "in bed" with the government???
Or maybe you all just know more than the NAS?
I'm confused..... :-/
You guys always quote mining. The NAS statement is that:
QuoteNotwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
They were talking about specific-incident cases which are related to the scientific study of cognition. This is because the examiner can tailor the questions so that responses are more likely to be based on cognition rather than emotion which is what CQT is based on and is the root of polygraph's unreliability...
The NAS also concluded that:
QuoteAlmost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results. This inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
And that:
Quote"Polygraph research has not developed and tested theories of the underlying factors that produce the observed responses. Factors other than truthfulness that affect the physiological responses being measured can vary substantially across settings in which polygraph tests are used. There is little knowledge about how much these factors influence the outcomes of polygraph tests in field settings."
What was that again about the NAS having a differing conclusion than the anti-people about the polygraph?
Quote from: digithead on Sep 27, 2007, 09:07 PMQuote from: nonombre on Sep 27, 2007, 07:48 PM
Digithead,
Isn't that the same National Academy of Sciences that declared that specific issue polygraph detected deception at rates "SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN CHANCE, but less then perfect?"
Gee, I thought the whole mantra of this site was that polygraph was "pseudo science," "tea leaf reading," "bone throwing," a "con," etc, etc, etc...
It seems the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES would choose to disagree with you.
Are you all now ignoring the very NAS document you repeatedly hang your hat on?
Or maybe the NAS is actually "in bed" with the government???
Or maybe you all just know more than the NAS?
I'm confused..... :-/
You guys always quote mining. The NAS statement is that:
QuoteNotwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
They were talking about specific-incident cases which are related to the scientific study of cognition. This is because the examiner can tailor the questions so that responses are more likely to be based on cognition rather than emotion which is what CQT is based on and is the root of polygraph's unreliability...
The NAS also concluded that:
QuoteAlmost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results. This inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.
And that:
Quote"Polygraph research has not developed and tested theories of the underlying factors that produce the observed responses. Factors other than truthfulness that affect the physiological responses being measured can vary substantially across settings in which polygraph tests are used. There is little knowledge about how much these factors influence the outcomes of polygraph tests in field settings."
What was that again about the NAS having a differing conclusion than the anti-people about the polygraph?
LMAO, nonombre, I don't think you could have walked into a larger minefield if you had tried. I think one of the most interesting parts of the report was in "Ritualized Lie Detection Across Cultures [pg 18-20]"
Quote
Ritualized lie detection techniques in many groups, societies, and cultures through the ages share several characteristics that help create a mystique that enables the techniques to be effective. Lie detection rituals involve a socially certified administrator (an examiner or interrogator) and some device or procedure that purportedly can objectively and publicly identify lying on the part of the examinee. The administrator—in some cultures, a priest or shaman—has completed a secret or semi-secret training process. The keeping of the secrets of the ritual within a small, select group adds to the mystique (e.g., the belief that keepers of the secrets have good reason not to publicize them and should be trusted), and, consequently, adds to the power of the technique. The belief structure of the endorsing society includes beliefs about the special powers of the officials authorized to perform the ritual and about the ritual's ability to divine or elicit concealed truths....
...The polygraph testing procedures currently used in the criminal justice system and in several government agencies in the United States and other countries fit this prototype ritual... Members of the polygraph examiner culture have a particular jargon and shared lore that are generally unknown to others. They also maintain secrets because to reveal too much of their knowledge would enable targets of investigations to "beat" polygraph tests...
...Any scientific investigation must also deal with some of the cognitive and organizational phenomena that go along with a ritual that has a mystique, a "priesthood," and a set of secrets. One of these is the difficulty of gaining access to information. Some information of interest to this study, such as the polygraph test records of known spies, is classified for national security reasons. Other information, such as the precise ways particular pieces of polygraph equipment measure physiological responses, is guarded by equipment manufacturers as trade secrets. Some manufacturers ignored our requests for such information, even though we offered to sign legally binding promises of nondisclosure. Information about computer scoring algorithms for polygraph tests was similarly withheld by some algorithm developers. All of this behavior makes scientific analysis difficult. Some of these "secrets" probably have good practical justification, but they are also very much like the activities of a priesthood keeping its secrets in order to keep its power.
I think the NAS made their opinion of polygraph examiners quite clear straight from page one. Trying to suggest that the report favoured the use of polygraphs when the NAS openly compared the practitioners to "preisthoods" is possibly the funniest thing I've seen all week. I'm inclined to agree with the NAS observation is disturbingly similar to the backward practises of the days of old where people's honesty was confirmed through trial by fire.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 27, 2007, 04:20 PMSargeant,
Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field. Just look at the players:
George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.
Dr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.
Gino who?
I think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.
Regards
Feel free to add me to that field.
I am now a ten-year (plus) veteran police sergeant with an unblemished record of integrity and professionalism.
More than ten years ago, I was a police applicant who couldn't figure out why I kept failing pre-employment polygraphs even though I was being completely truthful.
You and the other polygraph supporters can say what they want. I know from experience with three different examiners at three different companies/agencies that it is all bullshit. All three of them looked me right in the eye and told me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the absolute truth.
Oddly enough, all three of them told me I was lying about something different. It seems logical that if I had an issue with one particular topic or subject that particular item would have shown up on all three polygraphs that I failed, and it would have showed up on the polygraph I passed. If I kept failing because of DUI questions, for example, maybe it would make sense that I had some sort of issue with DUI's or with drinking and that's why I was failing. But the fact that each time it was a different issue makes it very difficult indeed for me to believe the whole test was nothing more than a crap shoot, wherein the examiner would pick out a topic he or she
guessed I might have been lying or holding back information on.
If the polygraph was accurate I would have passed, because I was telling the truth. I wasn't using countermeasures, and in fact didn't even know countermeasures existed.
The information on this site makes sense to me. Given my own personal experience, I do not believe the polygraph is accurate at all with regards to non-specific issue pre-employment screening. In fact, it is worse than worthless because it eliminates otherwise outstanding candidates (like me) with no due process or recourse.
As far as the "help" this site provides to sex offenders, I will say again that if anyone is using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders, and that test can be beaten or confounded by anyone with access to the Internet, how could that test possibly be valid?
One more thing...
George did not invent the material on this web site; he merely collected it from freely available sources. The pro-polygraph community that wishes to crucify George because he "helps child molestors" should try to remember that.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Sep 27, 2007, 04:20 PMSargeant,
Wake up and smell the decade here buddy! It is not the pro-poly folks who are doing the slamming here! This web site was set up to do nothing more than to try to discredit polygraph and the people who work in the field.
It is true that this website was created, among other things, for the purpose of discrediting polygraphy. But our method of doing so is simply to tell the truth about it. Perhaps it is you who should wake up and smell the decade: accurate and reliable information about polygraphy is instantly available to anyone who seeks it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The unmasking of frauds in the polygraph community, such as our exposure of such luminaries as Ed Gelb (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml), James Allan Matte (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-046.shtml), Michael Martin (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-047.shtml), and most recently, Samuel L. Braddock (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3680.msg25606#msg25606) as phony Ph.D.s is something that those who purport to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto) should welcome, not resent.
QuoteJust look at the players:
George Maschke:
His only REAL polygraph experience is failing two of them! Now he hides behind this site in the Netherlands.
I haven't claimed any polygraph experience I don't have. You know about my experience of twice failing the polygraph despite having told the truth because I've described it at length in my statement Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml).
In what way am I "hiding behind this site?" I post here with my full name, contact information, and photograph. I find it ironic that you, posting under the
nom de plume "Mysterymeat" would accuse me of somehow hiding.
QuoteDr. Drew Richardson:
Less than 12 polygraph exams and he is an expert?? Last time I heard, the good doctor was still standing out on Front Street with his pants down around his ankles.
One doesn't need to be a practitioner of a pseudoscience to be an expert on matters concerning its validity.
QuoteGino who?
???
QuoteI think I have made my point. The pro poly people are not picking the fight-they are just fighting back.
Rather than "fighting," why not support your position with facts and reason? Paradiddle started this thread strongly insinuating that Dr. Richardson has somehow misrepresented his credentials. But neither Paradiddle nor any other poster has presented any evidence to support that accusation.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 26, 2007, 07:11 PMDid I ever say I feared you. lol
BTW if I was looking at 2 applicants - one showed truthful and the other showed inconclusive....the truthful candidate will win. Screw up the charts, go a head, we all know you can do that. Are they real responses - NO. Will it get you a job - NO
peace
Blunder-Woman
I think that you do Paradiddle a disservice by running in his shadow.
He is intelligent and articulate, whilst you battle to talk past your shoe.
Quote
I stated earlier that Mr. Richardson has testified before scientific and legislative bodies as an "expert" in the field of polygraph. Where I come from, the term "expert" means that you have a mastery of the field which you offer your "expertise." The document I posted alleges that Drew is less than an expert in polygraph, having done poorly in the opinion of a principle auditing figure. That figure alleges and insinuates that Drew became a researcher by what appears to be , default. If circumstances were such that Drew were pro-polygraph, I would continue to beg the question of his deservance of "expert" entitlement.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 10:31 AMI stated earlier that Mr. Richardson has testified before scientific and legislative bodies as an "expert" in the field of polygraph. Where I come from, the term "expert" means that you have a mastery of the field which you offer your "expertise." The document I posted alleges that Drew is less than an expert in polygraph, having done poorly in the opinion of a principle auditing figure. That figure alleges and insinuates that Drew became a researcher by what appears to be , default. If circumstances were such that Drew were pro-polygraph, I would continue to beg the question of his deservance of "expert" entitlement.
You went well beyond that which is contained in Mark Johnson's declaration to insinuate that Dr. Richardson has falsified his credentials and "owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud." As we have seen,
Dr. Richardson has committed no such fraud. In the opening message of this thread you went on to berate Dr. Richardson with the words, "Have you no honor sir?" If you have any, you will apologize for having falsely accused him.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 28, 2007, 10:59 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 10:31 AMI stated earlier that Mr. Richardson has testified before scientific and legislative bodies as an "expert" in the field of polygraph. Where I come from, the term "expert" means that you have a mastery of the field which you offer your "expertise." The document I posted alleges that Drew is less than an expert in polygraph, having done poorly in the opinion of a principle auditing figure. That figure alleges and insinuates that Drew became a researcher by what appears to be , default. If circumstances were such that Drew were pro-polygraph, I would continue to beg the question of his deservance of "expert" entitlement.
You went well beyond that which is contained in Mark Johnson's declaration to insinuate that Dr. Richardson has falsified his credentials and "owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud." As we have seen, Dr. Richardson has committed no such fraud. In the opening message of this thread you went on to berate Dr. Richardson with the words, "Have you no honor sir?" If you have any, you will apologize for having falsely accused him.
I will apoligize provided that you answer my question with objective consideration. If the allegations are true, from a mere judicial standpoint, and per the definition of the words "expert witness," do you believe that Dr. Drew Richardson is properly classified as an "expert" in polygraph? Keep in mind, that you sir, are not in the judicial sense considered to be by definition per the American Bar association, an expert witness, despite your knowlege and activism.
I testify as an expert witness in criminal and civil trials involving motor vehicle accidents.
No one has ever asked me, nor has it ever seemed pertinent, how many times I have had other vehicles collide with mine as I drove down the road.
They also do not ask me if I was present in either car during the events of the crash. My expertise does not derive from my involvement in the crash, but in my interpretation of the physical evidence after the crash.
I believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Surely you are familiar with experts who make their living in the lab rather than in the field. It is easy for me to acknowledge the expertise of a person who has spent time researching a particular field. I find it hard to believe you cannot do the same.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 28, 2007, 11:27 AMI testify as an expert witness in criminal and civil trials involving motor vehicle accidents.
No one has ever asked me, nor has it ever seemed pertinent, how many times I have had other vehicles collide with mine as I drove down the road.
They also do not ask me if I was present in either car during the events of the crash. My expertise does not derive from my involvement in the crash, but in my interpretation of the physical evidence after the crash.
I believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Surely you are familiar with experts who make their living in the lab rather than in the field. It is easy for me to acknowledge the expertise of a person who has spent time researching a particular field. I find it hard to believe you cannot do the same.
BUT IF YOU DIDN'T EVEN POSSESS A DRIVERS LICENSE NOR A CAR, THAN YOUR EXPERTISE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 11:14 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 28, 2007, 10:59 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 10:31 AMI stated earlier that Mr. Richardson has testified before scientific and legislative bodies as an "expert" in the field of polygraph. Where I come from, the term "expert" means that you have a mastery of the field which you offer your "expertise." The document I posted alleges that Drew is less than an expert in polygraph, having done poorly in the opinion of a principle auditing figure. That figure alleges and insinuates that Drew became a researcher by what appears to be , default. If circumstances were such that Drew were pro-polygraph, I would continue to beg the question of his deservance of "expert" entitlement.
You went well beyond that which is contained in Mark Johnson's declaration to insinuate that Dr. Richardson has falsified his credentials and "owes the people of this site both an explanation and an apology for committing such fraud." As we have seen, Dr. Richardson has committed no such fraud. In the opening message of this thread you went on to berate Dr. Richardson with the words, "Have you no honor sir?" If you have any, you will apologize for having falsely accused him.
I will apoligize provided that you answer my question with objective consideration. If the allegations are true, from a mere judicial standpoint, and per the definition of the words "expert witness," do you believe that Dr. Drew Richardson is properly classified as an "expert" in polygraph? Keep in mind, that you sir, are not in the judicial sense considered to be by definition per the American Bar association, an expert witness, despite your knowlege and activism.
I fail to see the logic of tying your willingness to apologize to Dr. Richardson to my willingness to answer your question. Nonetheless, I shall indulge you.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, defines "expert witness" thus: "One who by reason of education or specialized experience possesses superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are incapable of forming an accurate opinion or deducting correct conclusions...."
I believe that Dr. Richardson, as a research scientist with a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University whose doctoral dissertation applied novel cardiovascular indices to a lie detection task, is eminently qualified to testify as an expert witness on matters related to the (lack of) validity of polygraphy. Indeed, I believe he has testified as such in the past, as have other non-polygraphers including Bill Iacono, John Furedy, Al Zelicoff, and the late David Lykken.
If an academic theorist claims "superior knowlege" without actually being a practicing examiner, then he/she is expected to have excellent theoretical academic grades in the "respective field" if that person were to attend a "respective field" academic institution---in this case, Polygraph and the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. If the world's leading expert on lungs and respiratory functions can't run a polygraph, and is accused by authorities as being the worst seen polygraph examiner ever, no matter how mundane the academic feels the test to be, than I consider such to be Not Superior. By Mr. Johnson's account, Dr. Richardson did not demonstrate a "Superior knowlege" of polygraph, rather---according to Mr. Johnson's sworn testimony, Dr. Richardson demonstrated a very shoddy knowlege of polygraph----if any.
QuoteAll I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
Now there is an assertion that requires some argument and some evidence.
Pass the tin-foil please.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 02:39 PMQuoteAll I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
Now there is an assertion that requires some argument and some evidence.
Pass the tin-foil please.
For evidence of the effectiveness of mental countermeasures, see:
Honts, Charles R., David C. Raskin, and John C. Kircher. "Mental and Physical Countermeasures Reduce the Accuracy of Polygraph Tests,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1994), No. 2, pp. 252-59.
You'll find the abstract cited in the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).
Nice try.
That hardly supports his assertion
QuoteAll I know is that EosJupitor and I can make your machine read what ever we want it to read without squeezing any musle. It's called brain manipulation which you cannot detect because it's over your head.
and other claims of "flat-lining" because he a a baritone.
Doesn't he know that only mezzo's can flatline a polygraph.
Interesting how you pick and choose the value Honts' research for you own convenience.
Websters 9th.
Fraud 3. Any deceit, trickery or humbug.
Mr, Drew Richardson having been chosen as an expert witness (Superior expert) to debunk polygraph while he was allegedly a poor acedemic performer at DODPI and is alleged to have been placed in research due seemingly for default reasons rather than working further in toxicology (his actual specialty)-----AND having the alleged worst understanding of polygraph in a senior agent's history of viewing other examiner's work------is a "fraud".
I am not levying the label of "fraud" on to Mr. Richardson per se, but I will call his testifying against polygraph a fraud. Similarly, in the case of FEMA's former director, Mr. Brown ("Brownie") was not a fraud---he was merely a man who was appointed to head up FEMA. His appointment and his job---as he was only a horse training and breeding association administrator -----left him ill-equiped to handle Katrina---as Brownie was just a guy who rather "fell into reluctantly" the job----much the same stated manner for which Drew "became a reluctant activist." And so we can now say that Brownie's appointment and job was a fraud------as it was frought with deceit, trickery, or humbug----and in the case of Katrina, Brownie was out of his league and could only master some catch phrases and some protocol in order to appear up to the task of heading up FEMA. Maybe we should call Drew "Drewie".
I hear Drew is now working in fMRI (P300) for the purposes of lie detection----and I wish him the best as he is no doubt a bright individual....er....in toxicology. I am not sure how Drew "fell into fMRI without being a Neurological/neurologist/endocrinologist/neurolinguisticist technician or CT/MR scan tech. I do hope that as he studies and educates himself about the status of fMRI and the human brain, he pays attention, does his homework, and isn't classified by a supervising peer as being the worst fMRI technician ever seen.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 02:52 PMInteresting how you pick and choose the value Honts' research for you own convenience.
If you have any specific criticism of my reliance on Honts' research, please feel free to explain at length in a new message thread devoted to that topic.
To all: Further posts to this thread should address the topic raised by the original poster.
mod-slapped!
boy I bet that felt good
The fact seems that Drewie has misrepresented his "expertise" in polygraphy.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 03:13 PMThe fact seems that Drewie has misrepresented his "expertise" in polygraphy.
Where? When? Paradiddle has insinuated that Dr. Richardson has misrepresented his credentials, but failed to point out a single instance.
Paradiddle has pointed out and provided evidence that Drewie's "expertise" in polygraphy is suspicious at best, and that he has misrepresented his expertise in this community and other places.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 03:56 PMParadiddle has pointed out and provided evidence that Drewie's "expertise" in polygraphy is suspicious at best, and that he has misrepresented his expertise in this community and other places.
Why are all of your posts so condescending? What exactly are you trying to make up for?
If Dr. Richardson had testified regarding the inaccuracy of phrenology, would there be an outcry from phrenologists about his credentials?
Would practicing phrenologists claim he doesn't know what he is talking about, because he has not conducted a sufficient number of phrenological exams?
It seems to me that George already showed, by quoting direct testimony, that Dr. Richardson did not misrepresent himself.
How about a cease and desist on the ad hominem attacks in exchange for resuming the ongoing debate regarding the validity of the polygraph?
If certain people are intent on continuing the personal attacks, it certainly seems fair to me that they state their name and their credentials, so that the rest of us can compare and contrast them with Dr. Richardson's.
If Drewie had failed to meet the minimum performance criteria in "Phrenology School"---and when tasked to make analysis on the cranium bumps and lumps for a simple measure of his relevant academic absorbtion---only to be called by his supervising auditor as being the worst Phrenologist he has ever seen, having not the slightest grasp on the concepts------then yes. He could debunk phrenology all he wanted, but his status as a "Superior Expert" in the field of Phrenology would rightly deserve to be taken to task and doubted. Are you people on weed?
I too am ready for a subject change, as not one anti native has even acknowleged that perhaps Drew's status as an expert/superior polygraph witness may need to be pondered. If you think I sound like a broken record, than it is because I learned from the best-----you people.
Perhaps I have seen it and don't remember, but I don't think Dr. Richardson ever identified himself as an "expert polygraph examiner."
He has said he has been involved in polygraph research.
Any evidence anyone has that he has not done any research on the polygraph would be illuminating. The repeated accusations that he has not conducted enough examinations nor shown sufficient skill as an examiner are irrelevant.
My reference to phrenology was apparently too subtle. Dr. Richardson has written that he does not believe the polygraph is a valid scientific test. Most people do not believe phrenology is a valid science, either.
What does it matter if a person does not have sufficient experience conducting invalid tests? Or has not shown sufficient skill in conducting invalid tests? It is sufficient if he has the expertise to recognize and explain why those tests are invalid.
To all of our new and most welcome polygraphers:
Greetings, and salutations !!! I thank you for your entertainment and resolute determination to wage a smear campaign. The APA and some other high ranking senior polygraphers still stinging from the last few months of information posted on this board .... Hmmmm ? Or has this become a class project at the highly acclaimed and accredited DACA (DODPI) school, or one of those other illustrious institutions of higher polygraph learning. The avatars and screen names have been most enjoyable. Shows an increase in computer savvy. A flair of originality, but above all the need to copy. Your quotes and verbage are making a mighty fine addition to a memoir of mine. For I will use them at a later date ..... So keep the raw material coming. It adds fuel to my future needs, as well as proving to those who question who is telling the truth, from those who would ill inform. So smile, you may be on candid camera !!!!! 8-)
Regards .....
day2day:
QuoteWhy are all of your posts so condescending? What exactly are you trying to make up for?
Well, you see its like this. When I was younger... I just can't talk about it... maybe if I got to know you a little first, its just so hard to trust people, you see. I know you see, because you are the only person who truly understands. I really feel like we have a deep personal connection, and it pains me that you think negatively of me. Why must you be so disapproving. Can't you try to be just a little more positive - a little more approving. I'm sorry for babbling like this, but your such a good listener. You understand, don't you. Please say you understand.
QuoteAny evidence anyone has that he has not done any research on the polygraph would be illuminating. The repeated accusations that he has not conducted enough examinations nor shown sufficient skill as an examiner are irrelevant.
OK. So what research has he done?
QuoteHow about a cease and desist on the ad hominem attacks in exchange for resuming the ongoing debate regarding the validity of the polygraph?
If certain people are intent on continuing the personal attacks, it certainly seems fair to me that they state their name and their credentials, so that the rest of us can compare and contrast them with Dr. Richardson's.
Hey. This is just a circus. This isn't any kind of empirical forum. If people's objectives were to investigate questions, then they wouldn't be fartin' around with a forum/circus like this, they'd be suggesting and conducting actual experiments - not some silly media challenge.
I better not pout and I better not cry cause your tellin me why? :-?
QuoteTo all of our new and most welcome polygraphers:
Greetings, and salutations !!! I thank you for your entertainment and resolute determination to wage a smear campaign. The APA and some other high ranking senior polygraphers still stinging from the last few months of information posted on this board .... Hmmmm ? Or has this become a class project at the highly acclaimed and accredited DACA (DODPI) school, or one of those other illustrious institutions of higher polygraph learning. The avatars and screen names have been most enjoyable. Shows an increase in computer savvy. A flair of originality, but above all the need to copy. Your quotes and verbage are making a mighty fine addition to a memoir of mine. For I will use them at a later date ..... So keep the raw material coming. It adds fuel to my future needs, as well as proving to those who question who is telling the truth, from those who would ill inform. So smile, you may be on candid camera !!!!! Cool
Regards .....
Finally. I was wondering, who do I have to suck up to, to get a friendly welcome without all that name calling.
Glad you enjoyed it chief.
I haven't frequented this forum very much for awhile because it was boring me to tears. :'( But I must say that this thread has provided much entertainment today. It's funny to see George and company scamper around doing damage control and misdirection. Unfortunately, most polygraphers aren't as interested or concerned about this insignificant website as George wishes they were, so the debates are generally very one-sided here. Paradiddle and Wonder Woman, it's refreshing to see other polygraphers besides myself and nonombre providing experienced arguments vs. George and company's inexperienced rhetoric. And you are very right--Dr. Richardson is no expert in the field of polygraphy, despite having been touted as such on this forum. His "Countermeasures Challenge" is ridiculous and impossible to implement, especially when it comes from a man with almost no experience in the field. Thank you for an interesting thread, everyone. :)
LieBabyCryBaby,
You are so correct. I think it is great that George has exposed the phonies in this field. I am glad to see that Dr. Drew has been added to the list of fakes! The good doctor's credentials may be valid but his expertise is looking much like the "Emperor's New Clothes". Kepp up the good work Dr. Drew!
Regards
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 03:56 PMParadiddle has pointed out and provided evidence that Drewie's "expertise" in polygraphy is suspicious at best, and that he has misrepresented his expertise in this community and other places.
Paradiddle has provided no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his expertise, whether here or in any other venue.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 30, 2007, 02:40 AMParadiddle has provided no evidence whatsoever that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his expertise, whether here or in any other venue.
I hate to say this, but the continuing posting of personal attacks without any supporting evidence, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, has clearly become nothing more than trolling.
There are now a number of people who are repeatedly making nonsensical, offensive, argumentative posts for no reason other than to annoy, harass, and try to get a reaction.
What we have here is nothing more than trolls posting flame-bait.
If anyone wishes to continue in this vein, I think it is reasonable that they do the following:
1. Find a quote from Dr. Richardson in which he identifies himself as an "expert polygraph examiner."
2. Supply information to show that his qualifications would not, to any reasonable person, make him an "expert polygraph examiner."
That seems easy enough. George has already supplied direct quotes from Dr. Richardson's testimony that clearly prove he represented himself as a person who has researched the polygraph. I've yet to see anything to refute that.
Drewie - addresing the NAS committee
QuoteI was involved in polygraph research specifically for the FBI. My group associations -- agency associations -- largely have been with the FBI as well as DoDPI.
Now it seems he's not really associated at all, with anything other than his former employer - with whom he apparently had some intellectual authority issues, and DoDPI - which apparently amounts to more authority and performance concerns. No other associations? Really? The man is an island. But he's got a Ph.D., and y'll are grateful to have him as your lap-dog so you can kiss his ring, sabotage your polys, and then align yourselves with the cause.
Expertise is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Aside from his dissertation, in what polygraph research was he involved?
--------
Now there, wouldn't it be better to just calm down, be friends, hold hands, and sing kumbaya?
Dr. Richardson,
Polygraph school is much like that Gym membership you once had. Apparently you have to actually show up for either one of them to do you any good!
Regards,
MM ;D
I would also be interested to see what polygraph research he has done. Also a name of a credible person that also did the research with Drewie would be appreciated.
To Ludovico aka Mystery Meat aka Wonder Woman.
You're not cured. You're not mysterious.
You're not even wonderful.
Your obsession with Dr Richardson has become nauseating.
Why dont you simply take up his challenge and prove that
he's wrong and you're right ???
Isn't that simple enough for you???
QuoteYou're not cured. You're not mysterious.
You're not even wonderful.
I see the parenting classes are workin' real good, Dad-e-O.
Can I borrow the visa card? I need some approval somewhere.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 30, 2007, 10:39 AMDrewie - addresing the NAS committee
QuoteI was involved in polygraph research specifically for the FBI. My group associations -- agency associations -- largely have been with the FBI as well as DoDPI.
Now it seems he's not really associated at all, with anything other than his former employer - with whom he apparently had some intellectual authority issues, and DoDPI - which apparently amounts to more authority and performance concerns. No other associations? Really? The man is an island. But he's got a Ph.D., and y'll are grateful to have him as your lap-dog so you can kiss his ring, sabotage your polys, and then align yourselves with the cause.
Expertise is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Aside from his dissertation, in what polygraph research was he involved?
--------
Now there, wouldn't it be better to just calm down, be friends, hold hands, and sing kumbaya?
Good golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 01, 2007, 09:10 AMQuote
I see the parenting classes are workin' real good, Dad-e-O.
Can I borrow the visa card? I need some approval somewhere.
I suspect that the 3 musketeers are running low on clients,
in view of the wall-to-wall trolling on this forum of late.
Pity that yr usual hangout is so f' anal.
BTW
How's your Consistency Theory retrogressing?
Quote from: day2day on Sep 29, 2007, 06:07 PMQuote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 03:56 PMParadiddle has pointed out and provided evidence that Drewie's "expertise" in polygraphy is suspicious at best, and that he has misrepresented his expertise in this community and other places.
Why are all of your posts so condescending? What exactly are you trying to make up for?
It might be that Ludovico suffers the Porcupine-Porsche syndrome.
There is no reason for posters to engage in ad hom attacks.
So..... ladies, let's keep it civil.
George,
In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:
"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"
Where did you get your facts from George?
Regards,
MM
Thank you Mystery Meat, and just in time for the spooky season----the season of smoke, illusions, and spectres---a fitting tribute indeed Mystery!
George, what have you to say about your gross misrepresentation of Drew Richardson before the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee? George, could you please explain truthfully, why you would falsly elevate Drewie's stature ---in effect , lie to the U.S. Senate, a high crime punishable of up to 20 years in a federal prison---when you referrred to Drewie as being the "top polygraph expert" with this nation's top law enforcement organization, the FBI? Have you no shame sir, have you no shame?
George,
Ring in here any time. I took the info right out of your "Too Hot of a Potato" stuff. Right now, you are looking more like a "Luke Warm Vegetable".
Best,
MM
I'm confused.
Is your issue with how George represented Dr. Richardson's credentials? Or with how Dr. Richardson represented his own credentials?
If you believe Dr. Richardson misrepresented his qualifications to everyone, how can you single out George for repeating those qualifications?
And if you believe now that Dr. Richardson did not, in fact, misrepresent his qualifications but that George did, wouldn't an apology to Dr. Richardson be the proper course of action?
Or are you simply trolling?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 01, 2007, 09:38 AMGood golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.
Paradiddle,
You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 01, 2007, 06:33 PMGeorge,
In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:
"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"
Where did you get your facts from George?
Regards,
MM
Mysterymeat,
In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_maschke.html), I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/grassley-letter.shtml) to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 02, 2007, 12:30 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 01, 2007, 09:38 AMGood golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.
Paradiddle,
You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 01, 2007, 06:33 PMGeorge,
In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:
"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"
Where did you get your facts from George?
Regards,
MM
Mysterymeat,
In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_maschke.html), I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/grassley-letter.shtml) to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."
So, instead of admitting that you mischaracterized Drewie's "eminence", you are now indicating that you were only parrotting what you heard----from Donald Kerr? from what division? Which Laboratory division? It seems that you cling to the notion that Mr. Richardson is the only PHD from DODPI or the FBI regarding polygraph, and that you elected him to the office of "top Polygraph expert"---which the sworn document states otherwise when it indicates that Drewie had no real understanding of polygraph even after graduating from DODPI.
As far as identity, what the blazes does that have to do with anything? This site contains plenty of anonymous posters who have gladdly critisized, called to task---and yes, even questioned the integrity of polygraph examiners everywhere. We have endured all sorts of character assinations for how many years now?
Then, when a lone and powerlessly obscure examiner such as myself, points to the fact that Mr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student, a disasterous examiner---the worst ever seen by one account----and furthermore, contrast that with the elevated claims by yourself and others that he is a Superior expert on polygraph. Who cares who I am, or any other anonymous poster here (pro or anti alike) for that matter. Have you lost it?
Well George, that settles it. If a Senator referred to Dr. Richardson as an "expert" he must be one!
Thanks for that clarification.
MM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 02, 2007, 12:30 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 01, 2007, 09:38 AMGood golly ms. molly, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Drewie didn't necessarily appoint himself---much like Brownie didn't appoint himself----but he has been deified on this site by virtue of his goofy arm wrestling challenge and his "association" with the FBI and DODPI. By virtue of his documented track record at DODPI, we can assume that to "associate" oneself with an entity should mean that a person tanks academic and performance standards to be recognized as clueless and shoddy. In that respect, I have an association with water polo.
Paradiddle,
You have "documented" precisely nothing regarding Dr. Richardson's "track record" at DoDPI/DACA. And again, you've made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials. Your resort to the childish rhetorical technique of name-calling ("Drewie") does not strengthen your arguments but instead merely bespeaks a lack of emotional maturity on your part. That you engage in such name-calling from behind a veil of anonymity suggests that you might be (quite rightly) embarrassed to make such statements using your real name.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 01, 2007, 06:33 PMGeorge,
In your "Statement of George W. Maschke Regarding Issues Surrounding the Use of Polygraphs" submitted for the record on 22 April 2001 to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary you wrote:
"As the FBI's top expert in polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the Labaoratory Division............"
Where did you get your facts from George?
Regards,
MM
Mysterymeat,
In my statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_maschke.html), I described Dr. Richardson as the FBI's top expert in polygraphy on the strength of his qualifications as a research physiologist who understands the relevant science (or lack thereof) involved. Senator Charles Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, expressed a similar view in a 1997 letter (https://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/grassley-letter.shtml) to then FBI Laboratory Division Director Donald Kerr, in which he wrote, "Dr. Richardson is perhaps the FBI's most eminently qualified expert on polygraphs."
On what credentials do you base your psychoanalytical remarks upon? As an expert on Near East studies, what entitles you to use terms such as emotional maturity, a term that denotes an understanding of emotional stages of development. Have you now designated yourself as an expert in the field of human behavior---along with polygraph science/art/ and subsequent "expert accreditation" of superior expertise? My hyperbole aside, George would do well to reserve the accredititing of expertise to the acedemic bodies that do the educating, not beaurocrats and fanboys who have an axe to grind.
*Internation Journal of Psychphysiology*, 1993, *15*,263-7
"The CQT Polygrapher's Dilemma:Logico-Ethical Considerations for Psychophysiological Practitioners and Researchers". John J. Furedy, University of Toranto.
Achnowledgements: This paper was originally written with Dr. Drew C. Richardson, A Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). member of the Society for the Psychophysiological Research, a graduate of the Department of Defence(sic) Polygraph Institute's Basic Polygraph Examiner Course, AND FORMERLY A PRACTITIONER OF THE CQT IN BOTH SIMULATED AND FIELD-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.
The deeper you look, the deeper it gets.
MM
Lovely, what next---Drew claims to have polygraphed the Gambino family?
If Drew is an EXPERT in polygraphs how come he doesn't mention this in his bio?
http://www.brainwavescience.com/Drewbio.php
If I was the FBI TOP DOG POLYGRAPH EXPERT, I would sure list it in my bio.....
QuoteMr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student
The guy has a real Ph.D in Physiology from George Washington University. Not only a real Ph.D (I know that these are a rarity when discussing polygraph jockeys), but a hard science one.
Undergrad, he was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC Chapel Hill as a chemistry major.
Only someone who has never seen an undergrad organic chemistry textbook would make a post like that. And O-Chem is essentially a foothill compared to the mountains of a physiology Ph. D.
It's one thing to try to assert that lack of years of field experience examiner somehow undermines an educated person's ability to render a scientific opinion with regard to polygraphy (logic simply doesn't hold there).
On the other hand, when you feature a lone polygraph examiner's opinion that the former chief of chem/bio at FBI (who is also a Phi Beta Kappa with a Ph.D in a hard science) is a poor student as a central tenet of your attempt to discredit the guy--let's just say that your argument is a total joke.
Gino,
Glad to see ya back. In college, I was I Felta Thi as well as I Tapta Keg- neither of which makes me an "Expert" in didily squat. I don't think that anyone on this site denies Dr. Richardson's education or intelligence. He is a very smart man. We are still all waiting to see just what it is, or was, that made him the FBI's Top Polygraph Expert that you claim he is.
Regards,
MM
George,
You forgot to list "Black-Bird-Ops". I think he also had some stuff to say about Vipre. Have you given any thought to your own personal liability for hosting a web site that allows people to post this kind of garbage? Sleep well my friend.
Regards,
MM
Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 02, 2007, 09:36 PMQuoteMr. Drew Richardson has been accused in a written statement, who's writer has sworn to a Triar of Fact, that Drew was a poor student
The guy has a real Ph.D in Physiology from George Washington University. Not only a real Ph.D (I know that these are a rarity when discussing polygraph jockeys), but a hard science one.
Undergrad, he was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC Chapel Hill as a chemistry major.
Only someone who has never seen an undergrad organic chemistry textbook would make a post like that. And O-Chem is essentially a foothill compared to the mountains of a physiology Ph. D.
It's one thing to try to assert that lack of years of field experience examiner somehow undermines an educated person's ability to render a scientific opinion with regard to polygraphy (logic simply doesn't hold there).
On the other hand, when you feature a lone polygraph examiner's opinion that the former chief of chem/bio at FBI (who is also a Phi Beta Kappa with a Ph.D in a hard science) is a poor student as a central tenet of your attempt to discredit the guy--let's just say that your argument is a total joke.
Wow! You write with passion Gino. Your statement regarding Drew's PHD was almost songlike in it's praise----and also your ad hom attack fans out your barbing skills. Your bluster only strengthens the point that Drew was in no way the "FBI's top expert on polygraph" per the description of a senior examiner who was charged with auditing his work. Furthermore, Drew has never to my knowledge been the "Chief" of chem/bio labs---but that he has been in management. Even if true, what the hell does that have to do with Drew and the help of this site representing Drew as this eminent polygraph expert, despite being accused in a sworn declaration as having the worst grasp on the behavioral/pychological, and chart evaluation aspects of polygraph testing ever witnessed by a senior agent examiner. All of your cheerleading doesn't negate the fact that Drew allegedly demonstrated to Mark Johnson that although Drew was seemingly intelligent, he described a type of inexplicable disconnection with the bare minimum understanding of polygraph testing-----which is to say the least, not quite "top expert" material as reported by Mr. Johnson. I loathe phony degrees as much as the next honest person. But I loathe even more the deifying sheepskin worship which doesn't in and of itself mean anything until you punch the clock.
While I refuse to engage in the discussion of Drew Richardson's credentials, as I see it as adding no real substance to the debate either for or against his assertions (or anyone else's for that matter), I do see it fit to add this tidbit of information regarding "Hard" vs. "Soft" science, as seen in the quote below.
Although I find it much healthier to debate on the real issues, the likes of these diatribes to George's vehement argumentum ad personam on a number of pro-polygraph individuals seems quite homogeneous. And still, I find neither of these to be productive matters past those reminiscent of the juvenile practices on an elementary playground. But, what would a soft scientist know of these matters anyway?
Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences or physical sciences that are perceived to be more accurate than other sciences like the social sciences. The hard sciences usually rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity.
One distinction is drawn also between Western Science and native science. This shows how a worldview determines which kind of science is practiced by the people within this framework.
The hard versus soft distinction is controversial in some circles. Although associated with notions of scientific realism, this distinction is drawn more from commonsense than a deep immersion in the philosophy of science. Much work by modern historians of science, starting with the work done by Thomas Kuhn, has focused on the ways in which the "hard sciences" have functioned in ways which were less "hard" than previously assumed, emphasizing that decisions over the veracity of a given theory owed much more to "subjective" influences than the "hard" label would emphasize (and begin to question whether there are any real distinctions between "hard" and "soft" science). Some, such as those who subscribe to the "strong program" of the sociology of scientific knowledge, would go even further, and remove the barrier between "hard science" and "nonscience" completely.
Despite these objections, hard versus soft distinction is popular and widely used. One perceived difference supporting the distinction is the degree to which conclusions in different fields are controversial within those fields. Some believe that conclusions from physics or chemistry tend to be less controversial among physicists and chemists, versus how much of political science is controversial among political scientists. However, in most physical sciences there has been extensive debate about issues like whether atoms exist and whether randomness is inherent in subatomic particles. Russ Roberts from George Mason University claims that although many people romanticize about the objectivity of the so-called hard scientists, many physical scientists constantly engage in controversies and arguments[1].
There is much difficulty distinguishing between soft and hard sciences because many social sciences like economics use the scientific process to formulate hypotheses and test them using empirical data, i.e. econometrics. Furthermore, many social scientists engage in experimental work within the field of experimental economics. In most cases the methodology used by practitioners of the so-called soft scientist are the same as those used by practitioners of the hard sciences and the only difference is the object studied. Physical scientists tend to look at atoms, energy, waves, etc while social scientists tend to look at societies, individuals, firms, etc.
In all experimental or empirical sciences there is a need to set up experiments. One necessary feature of experiments is the need to control for all factors. It may be hard to control for all factors in an experiment because the experimenter may not account for all factors. This problem exists in the social sciences and the physical sciences. To establish causation the experimenter needs to have a control group where only one variable, the variable of interest, is changed, and all other variables held constant. The difficulty is in how to control for all other variables when there could potentially be infinite variables.
The graphism thesis maintains that hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than soft sciences such as sociology.
QuoteI don't think that anyone on this site denies Dr. Richardson's education or intelligence.
There are posts putting his title in quotes ("Dr.") and alleging that he is a poor student who was barely able to pass the DoDPI Basic Polygraph Examiner Course. Do you not see those as attempts to belittle his education and intelligence?
A good analogy for you is someone who places posts on a golf site disparaging Tiger Woods.
It's one thing to make posts assailing his attitude, character, etc. The poster really could objectively believe that he is an arrogant jerk.
Still, once the person adds posts saying that he has a terrible swing, poor fundamentals, etc, they sort of scream bias (player hater) and call all of the other posts into question as tomfoolery.
Again, one does not have to read thousands of astrology charts or own a crystal ball to be an expert resource for stating that fortune telling is a joke. Nor does one have to have tons of field experience as a polygrapher in order to use academic expertise to render an expert scientific opinion with regard to the validity of polygraphy.
QuoteAll of your cheerleading doesn't negate the fact that Drew allegedly demonstrated to Mark Johnson that although Drew was seemingly intelligent, he described a type of inexplicable disconnection with the bare minimum understanding of polygraph testing-----which is to say the least, not quite "top expert" material as reported by Mr. Johnson.
Or, he may have "called bullshit" on some or all of the lectures which Mark Johnson and the other Kool Aid drinkers at DoDPI saw as a lack of understanding.
I'm sure if Carl Sagan had attended an 8 week long astrology school, the unanimous opinion of the "professionals" in attendance would have been that he "simply didn't get it" either.
QuoteI do see it fit to add this tidbit of information regarding "Hard" vs. "Soft" science, as seen in the quote below.
JB, that was an interesting read.
The only reason for my praise of "hard" science is that my undergrad degrees were in social science. Peers who majored in hard science had an exponentially greater workload.
Although a political science BA and a chemistry BA are equivalent with regard to academia, I'm going to head out on a limb and say that the average hard science major is more intelligent and works a hell of a lot harder than a social science major.
Can we agree that you don't see an awful lot of sociology majors dropping out for pre-med tracks (the curriculum is bio/gen chem/physics/organic chem) due to the difficulty of the sociology curriculum?
Gino, has anyone ever accused you of having ADHD? Your meandering "limb" is a folly indeed. I will agree that putting the Dr. in qoutes was hyperbole, a demonstrative exercise to indicate that perhaps all isn't how it appears in the ranks of anti-polygraph. To make snap judgements on the differences of "difficulty/work load" of hard versus soft science is folly---one need only know a sufferer of one of the yet uncharted varieties of Asberger's Autism to know that some take comfort in cold mechanisms while the same cannot fathom behavioral cognitions-----or even simplistic probabilities regading nebulous processes of the human psyche. I appreciate your wit, but your attempt at codifying pro-poly lampooning of the bloated and deified Drew Richardson lacks in context. Perhaps you should stand back with a perspective of factional history, and let us have our due scepticism. Rest assured, this thread will expire soon enough as we have other long overdue bones to pick.
Guys,
Dr. Drew wrote that he has become a "unwitting" and "reluctant" social activist after being contacted by hundreds of polygraph victims!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK DOCTOR!
You have an audio recording on this web-site for God's sake! You are actually out there on the net trolling for "victims". Spin...spin....spin....
MM
Polygraphers, no responses to my point about how you feel Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_sagan) would have been evaluated by his instructors at an astrology seminar? I'll take your silence as agreement.
as•trol•o•gy
n The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
as•tron•o•my
nThe scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
I have a feeling that Dr. Sagan might have gotten a fairly cool reception once he started to point out just how little the "experts" knew about the peer-reviewed science upon which theirs is purported to be based.
The analogy could not be more apropos.
Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation. Again, the problem lies within the fact that the "luminaries" are less than knowledgeable about the science (physiology) on which polygraphy purports to be based. I can only imagine the reactions of the "experts" when Dr. Richardson pointed out that their house was built on a foundation of sand.
QuoteTo make snap judgments on the differences of "difficulty/work load" of hard versus soft science is folly
We'll agree to disagree on this matter.
In my opinion, in rank order with the most difficult academic disciplines listed first...
1. Hard Science
Examples: chemistry, physics
2. Soft Science
Examples: sociology, political science, communications
Oh, wait. There's one more...
3. Non-Science
Examples: astrology, phrenology,
polygraphyThat being said... Polygraphers, I tremendously value your participation on this board.
Without you, the discussion would be completely one-sided. Please consider continuing to participate here and encouraging your fellow polygraphy operators to do the same.
Best,
Gino (Gino who?, the Mystery Man, etc)
QuotePolygraphers, no responses to my point about how you feel Carl Sagan would have been evaluated by his instructors at an astrology seminar? I'll take your silence as agreement.
Your point is stretched like taffy on a puller. If Cornell U assigned Carl to be an astrology student and to research astrology---only to have Carl be a lethargic student who a leading expert in that field states in a legal declaration that Carl has the single worst grasp of the fundemental priciples of astrology that said professional has seen in a career lifetime----then Carl would indeed be worthy of being called "not an expert on astrology---much less a "superior expert." Knowing Carl, he would have been a superb astrology student and researcher, regardless of what his opinions and/or merits of the field relied.
Quote
as•trol•o•gy
n
The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
as•tron•o•my
n
The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
To further debunk your comparison, Carl Sagan was tasked (similarly as J. Allen Hynek) to explore the possibility for otherworldly visitation (ufo's) and Carl, although a great skeptic--having said " [paraphrased]great claims require great evidence"----delved into the study relentlessly---even the silly stuff. He was a man among men and a scientists scientist------fact of the matter, I am insulted that you would dare breath the name Carl Sagan in the same breath as Drew Richardson.
QuoteI have a feeling that Dr. Sagan might have gotten a fairly cool reception once he started to point out just how little the "experts" knew about the peer-reviewed science upon which theirs is purported to be based.
The analogy could not be more apropos.
Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation. Again, the problem lies within the fact that the "luminaries" are less than knowledgeable about the science (physiology) on which polygraphy purports to be based. I can only imagine the reactions of the "experts" when Dr. Richardson pointed out that their house was built on a foundation of sand.
There you go again with "I have a feeling"which explains why you worship anyone claiming to pass under and grad college science courses.More on that later.----Carl would have been worshipped by astrologers---besides, your comparison of Carl attending a seminar and Drew attending an intensive school and training in field conditions for preparitory research is way off the mark. Are you drinking alcohol? A seminar?
Jesus H Christ you are so wrong Gino I don't know where to begin. 1st--to interrogate, means to Accuse. "Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation"---is wrong. Since when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)? Any accusation come after the test is administrated. While "luminaries" may not all be psychologists and physiologists, neither are polysomnographers---people who conduct sleep studies with multiple component instrumentation and make critical analysis of circadian and physiological maladies involved with sleep problems. Dr. Richardson did not point anything out to us, other than the fact that he was disgruntled----now I hear he is involved in an allegedly sketchy private venture with an allegedly irreputable attorney in the business of FMRI lie and memory detection. Gee, funny when a guy leaves coca cola badmouthing the place and the industry and folly---then goes over to RC cola for work. Regardless, if you want to be nit picky, last I checked Drew wasn't a neurologist or a neuro-linguistics expert----important areas of expertise when studying the brain and how it processes language and images. I do wish him luck, and if fMRI makes my kids safer from predators, than I will gladly change careers to something that actually pays a living wage and doesn't have a group of "anti-anything" critisizing every professional misstep.
QuoteIn my opinion, in rank order with the most difficult academic disciplines listed first...
1. Hard Science
Examples: chemistry, physics
2. Soft Science
Examples: sociology, political science, communications
Oh, wait. There's one more...
3. Non-Science
Examples: astrology, phrenology, polygraphy
I have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy? Are you in high school Gino, cause study hall really sucks---let's go to the mall for pizza.
Your #3 is venom without substance. Polygraph is both hard science and higher art. Boy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers.
niters
I think Gino's points seem a lot more reasonable and logical than Paradiddle's.
Astronomers study the matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena. That sounds like a field of endeavor with definite scientific foundation.
Astrologers believe that the movements and location of stars and planets can and do influence human behavior, and that they can predict the future of human affairs by reading the influence of heavenly bodies. That sounds like guesswork, even though it is linked to a scientific field.
A polygraph examiner studies physiological reactions, which is certainly a credible field. If you record that the subject's respirations were twelve per minute at 2:05PM and by 2:07PM they had increased to 18 per minute, that certainly seems like valid data you are recording.
The polygraph examiner then assumes that the physiological reactions he or she has been studying correspond to thoughts of truth or deception. I don't see any more reason to believe that is true than I do to believe that the current position of Jupiter and its moons will have an effect on my investments this month.
Gino, I think that's an excellent analogy that both professionals and laymen can understand.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 12, 2007, 12:49 AMI think Gino's points seem a lot more reasonable and logical than Paradiddle's.
Astronomers study the matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena. That sounds like a field of endeavor with definite scientific foundation.
Astrologers believe that the movements and location of stars and planets can and do influence human behavior, and that they can predict the future of human affairs by reading the influence of heavenly bodies. That sounds like guesswork, even though it is linked to a scientific field.
A polygraph examiner studies physiological reactions, which is certainly a credible field. If you record that the subject's respirations were twelve per minute at 2:05PM and by 2:07PM they had increased to 18 per minute, that certainly seems like valid data you are recording.
The polygraph examiner then assumes that the physiological reactions he or she has been studying correspond to thoughts of truth or deception. I don't see any more reason to believe that is true than I do to believe that the current position of Jupiter and its moons will have an effect on my investments this month.
Gino, I think that's an excellent analogy that both professionals and laymen can understand.
The only thing missing is Smokey Robinson's first solo album, a rose, and a single pink candle. Sarge's post is perhaps the single greatest stroke fest I have yet seen from one anti-poster to another. Any crisp human can plainly see that the anti activists on this site would do well to let go of their man crush with Drew. To compare him with Carl Sagan is like comparing steak to bologna-----and the bologna's "use by" date expired last month. peeyooo. :-/
QuoteI have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy?
When proponents of a non-science (one where fraudulent PhDs abound) make personal attacks on the academic ability against a man with a PhD in a field like physiology, this information was quite relevant to put things in perspective.
We will agree to disagree on how a luminary in astronomy would have been evaluated if sent for training in a pseudoscience purporting to be based on it.
QuoteSince when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)?
The whole entire polygraph process is an interrogation by definition.
QuoteSarge's post is perhaps the single greatest stroke fest I have yet seen from one anti-poster to another.
You want to see posters cheering each other on, visit polygraphplace.com or 911jobforums.com (or whatever they are calling it this month).
QuoteBoy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers.
Trust me, my feathers are pretty tough to ruffle.
From the e-mails that we get, this is apparently not so with regard to US Secret Service polygraph operators. The agency appears to be at the top of the list when it comes to unprofessional conduct with regard to interrogation tactics after "deception indicated" charts have been produced. We've received reports of shouting, use of profanity, physically aggressive posturing, good-cop/bad cop routine, and my favorite--pounding of fists on tables.
That's what I call having one's feathers ruffled.
QuoteThe whole entire polygraph process is an interrogation by definition.
Gino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview. If on the other hand a person such as yourself fails a polygraph---than yes, expect an ACCUSATION (INTERROGATION). Trust me, I am an examiner, not a sideline activist.
QuoteWe will agree to disagree on how a luminary in astronomy would have been evaluated if sent for training in a pseudoscience purporting to be based on it.
Your analogy is completely flawed, but your fans will ignore the flat notes as they are rabid loyalists of your tunes---much like core John Lennon fans supported during the "Yoko" years.
QuoteWhen proponents of a non-science (one where fraudulent PhDs abound) make personal attacks on the academic ability against a man with a PhD in a field like physiology, this information was quite relevant to put things in perspective.
Fraudulent PhD's "abound?" What, 5 or 6 phony doctorates and you call that "abound/ bountiful?" If I have 5-6 bucks in my wallet, does that mean to Gino my money/wallet is bountiful? Get off the bong.
QuoteYou want to see posters cheering each other on, visit polygraphplace.com or 911jobforums.com (or whatever they are calling it this month).
Again you sound like a high schooler who poo poos the kids that sit at the other lunch table----cause of their smug faces and their stupid hair cuts----let's go girls and smoke behind the gym! sigh
QuoteFrom the e-mails that we get, this is apparently not so with regard to US Secret Service polygraph operators. The agency appears to be at the top of the list when it comes to unprofessional conduct with regard to interrogation tactics after "deception indicated" charts have been produced. We've received reports of shouting, use of profanity, physically aggressive posturing, good-cop/bad cop routine, and my favorite--pounding of fists on tables.
OK, now I'm interested---grown up time. Shouting?----super loud shouting or the type of "shouting" that is mere crescendo volumunous emphaticisms? Profanity?---are we talking "shit, goddamn, piss, fuck, pussy, dick,asshole" (the big network 7)? Physically aggressive posturing?----grabbing collar or karate stance or what? Pounding fists?---that one is self explanatory. Sounds like another Abu Graib. ::)
Gino, I take it you were never in the US Marines. Well, ya just described the first week of basic training---a sort of part art/part science applicant screening process if you will. The Secret Service protects the President of the United States among other entities such as the Department of Treasury ---and so they are truly a bunch of strict, gung ho "hard ons" if there ever were such. I wouldn't be suprised if the Secret Service asked applicants to endure sexual humiliation in an attempt to break the narcisism of cocky rooks or the facade of cloaked cowardice----much less 1 day of possible verbal abuse that makes the marine corp look like a year in gulag. I am an admitted left leaner, but when it comes to the essential US Fed LE and Intel services, I expect a degree of ego shattering psychological abuse on some level. Protectors of our country need to have thick enough skin to protect their own fragilities in order to protect those of our countrymen and women. In the old US Cavelry, they called it "breaking the man before the horse." Don't like it? Get a job with Microsoft----it pays better and no one gets "microscoped"
or "broken."
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 13, 2007, 12:55 AMGino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview.
If you have a subject in custody and you want to give them a polygraph, you are required to Mirandize them.
Since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that seems to indicate that the polygraph is in fact an interrogation.
Sergeant,
DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position.
Regards,
MM
Paradiddle,
You are definitely the most entertainment on this forum in a long time. I thought I was good, but you, my friend, are OUTSTANDING. I can see you are having fun, so please keep it up. Remember, though, that whenever you are bored here--as I eventually became--George and Drew and their cronies will have the last word, no matter how much sense there was in your arguments. Anyway, thanks for the fun. :)
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 13, 2007, 09:38 AMSergeant,
DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position.
Regards,
MM
I go away for a few days and you guys redefine the term interrogation. Wow!
Let's see, my
Webster's Dictionary defines the word interrogate as a verb that means "to question formally and systematically." Interrogation is the noun version and which means a "process of questioning formally and systematically."
So the polygraph examination isn't formal and the questions aren't asked systematically? I had no idea...
D-Head,
You are correct....you have no idea.
Thank you your for your insight and taking the time to learn how to use the dictionary.
Regards,
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 13, 2007, 10:25 PMD-Head,
You are correct....you have no idea.
Thank you your for your insight and taking the time to learn how to use the dictionary.
Regards,
MM
You might check it out yourself, you could learn something new...
But please explain how a polygraph examination is not an interrogation...
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 13, 2007, 09:38 AMSergeant,
DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position.
Regards,
MM
So you are saying that if you have a suspect in custody, and you want to give them a polygraph exam, you are not required to advise of their Miranda rights first?
Obviously I'm not talking about screening applicants or questioning a suspect who drives his own car to the PD, is not in custody, and leaves freely after the test.
If you have a suspect who is not free to leave, and he agrees to submit to a polygraph, you don't believe he would require Miranda first? I'm not claiming the polygrah examiner is the one required to Mirandize the suspect, but he or she definitely needs to be advised of their rights.
Since interrogation is defined in the case law not only as direct questioning, but also as any words or deeds on the part of the police officer that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, I find it impossible to believe that Miranda is not required prior to polygraphing a suspect in custody.
Miranda rights or not, the suspect held in custody should be made aware of the inaccuracies of any testing; and for any information that would be used against the suspect, legal representation should be present, otherwise the information volunteered on a test should not be admissible in a court of law. Most suspects don't understand that by submitting to a polygraphic examination, the are subjecting themselves to to he unscrupulous motives of the examiner as well as the investigator. Certainly you can't make an argument that a public examiner, working for a law enforcement bureau is not trying to make a case against the "suspect". Rather, he is trying to make the "suspect" look guilty, and will most likely violate the "suspect's rights and betray their confidence to WIN!
Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
That being said, interrogation has become a loaded word. Thanks to the dildos who have tortured enemy combatants and then were called "interrogators", the word means much more than to infer guilt by questioning. The word "interrogation" has now become synonomous with "Torture"---thanks by and large to torturers naming themselves interrogators because I suppose they didn't want their true profession be known by virtue of them being called "Torturers"---a label that most mom's wouldn't brag at the grocery store to friends about their son being known as i.e. "my son Tony---I'm so proud---did you know he was promoted as head of torture---they say he is very creative". So, in the interest of discussion, can we all agree here that Torture should not be confused with interrogation----which can itself be torturously boring, but not actual torture. It is worth noting that you poly fanboys who read but not do polygraph per se---already know that before and during the test the tone is calm and not accusational---unless of course the examinee tanks the test. At that point very probing questions could follow, and perhaps even ego-shattering accusations of examinee bald-faced lying will ensue. Now that is an interrogation----gee I might know, since I am a professional interrogater as well as a polygraph examiner----both seperate fields of study and art/science.
When my wife asks me "systematically" what I bought at the sporting goods store, she is not interrogating me. If on the other hand she finds a receipt conspicuously hidden totalling $300 for a sonor fish finder---which I initially denied ever having spent over $100----then she will begin to accuse me and match her accusations with probing questions---at which point I am being interrogated by one of the best.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 03:52 PMLet's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience...
Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled...
Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me...
So I'm going have to go with the evidence that Dr. Richardson is qualified to talk about the polygraph and its validity until I am presented with more compelling evidence than a deposition of someone stating his views...
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 03:52 PMThat being said, interrogation has become a loaded word. Thanks to the dildos who have tortured enemy combatants and then were called "interrogators", the word means much more than to infer guilt by questioning. The word "interrogation" has now become synonomous with "Torture"---thanks by and large to torturers naming themselves interrogators because I suppose they didn't want their true profession be known by virtue of them being called "Torturers"---a label that most mom's wouldn't brag at the grocery store to friends about their son being known as i.e. "my son Tony---I'm so proud---did you know he was promoted as head of torture---they say he is very creative". So, in the interest of discussion, can we all agree here that Torture should not be confused with interrogation----which can itself be torturously boring, but not actual torture. It is worth noting that you poly fanboys who read but not do polygraph per se, you already know that before and during the test the tone is calm and not accusational---unless of course the examinee tanks the test. At that point very probing questions could follow, and perhaps even ego-shattering accusations of examinee bald-faced lying will ensue. Now that is an interrogation----gee I might know, since I am a professional interrogater as well as a polygraph examiner----both seperate fields of study and art/science.
When my wife asks me "systematically" what I bought at the sporting goods store, she is not interrogating me. If on the other hand she finds a receipt conspicuously hidden totalling $300 for a sonor fish finder---which I initially denied ever having spent over $100----then she will begin to accuse me and match her accusations with probing questions---at which point I am being interrogated by one of the best.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning...
Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Quote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert.
Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let's claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.....and we really don't believe you have that 'man crush'...lol
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he 'was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government' Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company 'brain fingerprinting' can take over???? Don't get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can't accept it - yep it sounds to me 'like a man crush'.
This site has pointed out 'fraud Ph.D's.' YEAH!..you know what - we don't like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Polygraph has three major portions....D....listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.
So, let's all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures
Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information 'volunteered' on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect...that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child....it shouldn't be admissible. Give me a fkn break.
I wrote;QuoteLet's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
D-Head wrote; That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience...
Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled...
Yes, you do have a man-crush on him as evidenced by your wholehearted embrace of a scientist who's doctorate you have not read, and whose work you are not aware of other than 2 speeches and a few posts. What exactly do you know of this fella D-Head? Prolly nada. Yet, you defend him simply because he called the polygraph CQT test "pseudoscience"----but he calls the GKT test a "strong and scientifically worthwhile test"---despite the fact that he cannot scientifically explain the precise mechanisms involved with the GKT test---"it just works." Gee, that's really scientific. Maybe he likes one test but not the other--not due to construct validity, but because one of the tests is more complicated to administer.....oh wait....he had no apparent psychological grasp on the CQT test. Oh but hey, he is a physiologist. Trust me D-Brain, I have met several physiologists that couldn't explain the first damn thing about behavioral mechanisms----fact is, they typically are so clueless, they can barely engage in human conversation.
On self deception, no one has mastered such as you my little friend. The lights, the sparkle, and the fixtures may impress the simple onlookers, but you and I know that you have serious faux-logical issues and your engagement in bully-pseudo-epistemology is empty, fixated, and embarrassingly obvious cries for help. It's a test with some errors, but works well when used and understood correctly. Dr. Richardson didn't demonstrate that he really understood this peculier modality for detecting deception. I only hope he "grasps" fMRI and does his homework.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 14, 2007, 08:28 PMQuote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert.
Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let's claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.....and we really don't believe you have that 'man crush'...lol
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he 'was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government' Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company 'brain fingerprinting' can take over???? Don't get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can't accept it - yep it sounds to me 'like a man crush'.
This site has pointed out 'fraud Ph.D's.' YEAH!..you know what - we don't like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Polygraph has three major portions....D....listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.
So, let's all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures
Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information 'volunteered' on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect...that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child....it shouldn't be admissible. Give me a fkn break.
Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath...
Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events...
So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished...
Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation...
Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)...
Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language,
a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 08:42 PMI wrote;QuoteLet's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness" to the field of polygraph---Drew Richardson----and the subsequent official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
D-Head wrote; That's your characterization of what the anti- people think of Dr. Richardson. I have no "man-crush" on anyone nor do I worship any human. I do respect his work and efforts on exposing pseudoscience...
Dr. Richardson might have been the worse CQT polygraph student but that has no bearing because the CQT polygraph is unscientific on its face. I bet that the more education you have regarding science and the scientific method, the worse you are as a polygraph student. Of course, education only increases the likelihood of this, people are really good at self-deception. Especially smart people who think they can't be fooled...
Yes, you do have a man-crush on him as evidenced by your wholehearty embrace of a scientist who's doctorate you have not read, and whose work you are not aware of other than 2 speeches and a few posts. What exactly do you know of this fella D-Head? Prolly nada. Yet, you defend him smply because he called the polygraph CQT test pseudoscience----but he calls the GKT test a strong and scietifically worthwhile test---despite the fact that he cannot scientifically explain the precise mechanisms involved with the test---"it just works." Gee, that's really scientific. Maybe he likes one test but not the other--not due to construct validity, but because one of the tests is more complicated to administer.....oh wait....he had no apparent psychological grasp on the CQT test. Oh but hey, he is a physiologist. Trust me D-Brain, I have met several physiologists that couldn't explain the first damn thing about behavioral mechanisms----fact is, they typically are so clueless, they can barely engage in human conversation. On self deception, no one has mastered such as you my little friend. The lights, the sparkle, and the fixtures may impress the simple onlookers, but you and I know that you have serious faux-logical issues and your engagement in bully-pseudo-epistemology is empty, fixated, and emarrassingly obvious cries for help. It's a test with some errors, but works well when used and understood correctly. Dr. Richardson didn't demonstrate that he really understood this peculier modality for detecting deception. I only hope he "grasps" fMRI and does his homework.
Nice ad hom! Attacked my character, intelligence, and personality with lightning precision. Well done!
Do guys have anything else going for you besides character assassination and logical fallacies? Since you can't seem to address any of my questions, it leads me to believe that you have a pathological need to attack those that question your profession and its methods. If you can't beat them with science and evidence, beat them with innuendo, ad hom, and name-calling...
You call Dr. Richardson names and accuse him of all sorts of intellectual impropriety, yet you provide no evidence that any of his testimony or research is wrong or false other than an affidavit that states someone's opinion...
The good thing is that most rational people can see right through your methods. I hate to break it to you but viciousness and vindictiveness get you nowhere...
Seriously, you got anything other than name-calling? I'd really like to engage in true debate. I'm holding out hope...
Lastly, how do you know what I've read or what I haven't read? Are you mind-reading now? I think it's just as scientific as CQT but I hear it's a lot more lucrative...
DHead, you can twist it anyway you want to make yourself feel better. But deep down it that little soul of yours, you know there is a difference.
Now back to the topic RE:there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government...and your man crush....copy cat
Quote from: digithead on Oct 14, 2007, 08:48 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 14, 2007, 08:28 PMQuote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert.
Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let's claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.....and we really don't believe you have that 'man crush'...lol
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he 'was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government' Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company 'brain fingerprinting' can take over???? Don't get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can't accept it - yep it sounds to me 'like a man crush'.
This site has pointed out 'fraud Ph.D's.' YEAH!..you know what - we don't like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Polygraph has three major portions....D....listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.
So, let's all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures
Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information 'volunteered' on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect...that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child....it shouldn't be admissible. Give me a fkn break.
Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath...
Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events...
So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished...
Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation...
Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)...
Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...
Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---
a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information.
Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly." ;)
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 14, 2007, 09:05 PMDHead, you can twist it anyway you want to make yourself feel better. But deep down it that little soul of yours, you know there is a difference.
Now back to the topic RE:there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government...and your man crush....copy cat
And again, so what if there is a official sworn declaration that Dr. Richardson was the single worst examiner he's ever seen. How does this impeach his credibility on anything he's testified to? I know it really excites you polygraph people that you think you've found a "smoking gun" but all it really looks like is character assassination...
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 09:09 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 14, 2007, 08:48 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 14, 2007, 08:28 PMQuote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert.
Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let's claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.....and we really don't believe you have that 'man crush'...lol
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he 'was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government' Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company 'brain fingerprinting' can take over???? Don't get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can't accept it - yep it sounds to me 'like a man crush'.
This site has pointed out 'fraud Ph.D's.' YEAH!..you know what - we don't like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Polygraph has three major portions....D....listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.
So, let's all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures
Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information 'volunteered' on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect...that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child....it shouldn't be admissible. Give me a fkn break.
Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath...
Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events...
So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished...
Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation...
Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)...
Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...
Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information.
Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly." ;)
You know that repeating the same false assertions over and over again does not make them any less false...
You also should take Criminal Procedure 101 over so that you can see that affidavits are a type of hearsay evidence, especially those that pertain to character. A sworn affidavit is one that happens in front of someone (e.g., notary, judge, magistrate) authorized to say that what is contained in the affidavit is what the person presented, it does not speak to the truthfulness of what that person said. Additionally, it is up to the judge to decide whether to let them in or not...
And nice job, trying to reflect my criticisms of you guys back on me...
Quote from: digithead on Oct 14, 2007, 09:59 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 09:09 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 14, 2007, 08:48 PMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 14, 2007, 08:28 PMQuote Paraddidle: Let's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Someone who speaks about something has an opinion. It DOES NOT make them an expert.
Quote Digithead: Lastly, the swearer is only testifying to his view of Dr. Richardson, other information is needed to corroborate his testimony. Otherwise, it's meaningless hearsay...[/i] Sure, let's claim hearsay on this one. A document was provided.....and we really don't believe you have that 'man crush'...lol
If I'm going to weigh the evidence at hand, I have to look at the totality of it...
On one hand, I have that Dr. Richardson has a Ph.D. in physiology from George Washington University where his dissertation was on the polygraph. He then was a special agent for the FBI for many years and then took a formal training course on polygraph techniques. He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher beyond his training but only someone who has researched the polygraph extensively...
He's never claimed to be a practicing polygrapher only a polygraph EXPERT. Amazingly, his dissertation was on polygraph when he 'was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government' Also, someone on this board has to question if he really wants to rid the world of polygraph so his own company 'brain fingerprinting' can take over???? Don't get me wrong, if something else comes about that is better – I am all for it! GM do you have any stock in Brain Fingerprinting?
On the other hand, I have someone who states that Dr. Richardson was the worse polygrapher he has ever seen but I have no other corroborating evidence to bear on it other than this deposition. Additionally, given what I've read from practicing polygraphers that it takes time to become "really good" at the polygraph, the fact the Dr. Richardson might not have been "very good" at it in the beginning also has no bearing. It all sounds like character assassination to me... Sounds like Paraddile did his homework and found the information on Drew. Even though a copy of this information was provided, you can't accept it - yep it sounds to me 'like a man crush'.
This site has pointed out 'fraud Ph.D's.' YEAH!..you know what - we don't like it either! Now some information was pointed out about Drew being the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government – and guess what, that should also make you question information from this so called EXPERT.
So your profession now refers to a polygraph examination as an interview because of the belief that the word interrogation has been hijacked and loaded with emotional meaning... Ok, why don't you call it a polygraph quiz instead? That'll really lighten the load...
Polygraph has three major portions....D....listen carefully #1 Pretest INTERVIEW (2a. a meeting at which information is obtained from a person), #2 Actual testing and #3 Post test INTERROGATION if needed (interrogates:1. to question formally and systematically 2. to give or send out a signal to trigger an appropriate response). Hate to break it to you guys, but interview and interrogation are two separate areas.
So, let's all debate interview vs. interrogation and try to deflect from the original posting of this thread that states that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures
Oh and to 1984isstillhere: information 'volunteered' on a test should not be admissible? WTF? The examiner will polygraph a suspect and the examiner should have no bias as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect...that is the point of the polygraph. Examinees are told if they admit to criminal activity it will be reported for further investigation. If they are in custody, they have had Miranda read to them and had the option of speaking with an attorney. Last time I checked Polygraphs are VOLUNTARY! So let me get this straight, if your child was sexually abused and during a polygraph the examinee admitted to raping your child....it shouldn't be admissible. Give me a fkn break.
Sigh, the affidavit is of someone expressing his opinion. He provides no other supporting basis than his own observations and characterizations. Without corroboration, it is merely hearsay regardless of whether it occured under oath...
Additionally, I hate to break it to you but interview and interrogation are not mutually exclusive events...
So you a) interview someone to get a better feel for what questions you should ask during the actual polygraph; b) then you systematically ask questions that your derive from your interview in a formal procedure where they are connected to a machine; c) then you continue to ask more questions in a systematic fashion after the machine part is finished...
Explain how (b) is not an interrogation if you say that (c) is an interrogation...
Additionally, (a) is also done in systematic fashion because otherwise you could not get at the information you need for (b)...
Regardless of your parsing, redefining, and Orwellian use of language, a polygraph examination is an interrogation under the true definition from start to finish (hey, I can do yellow too). No rational person could conclude otherwise...
Classic redirection. Your savior Jesus Richardson was besmirched with "heresay" (?)---a sworn declaration from an auditing peer with the FBI. If that declaration is classified as "heresay," than Texas is classified as "cramped." So, we are at an impasse as to the pragmatic definition of "interrogation." But I will say that you might want to talk to an actual interrogator as to the definition. I need to go as I have to interrogate some family members as to what they did over the weekend---you know, systematic questions, pre written, and dealing with private information.
Tonight when you lay in your bed and kiss your picture of Drewie next to the alarm clock, think of maybe getting a job with the Tobacco companies as you are amazing at 2-D spin and redefinition. You could single handedly re-define the word "addiction" and devalue the word further so it means to merely "enjoy something repeatedly." ;)
You know that repeating the same false assertions over and over again does not make them any less false...
You also should take Criminal Procedure 101 over so that you can see that affidavits are a type of hearsay evidence, especially those that pertain to character. A sworn affidavit is one that happens in front of someone (e.g., notary, judge, magistrate) authorized to say that what is contained in the affidavit is what the person presented, it does not speak to the truthfulness of what that person said. Additionally, it is up to the judge to decide whether to let them in or not...
And nice job, trying to reflect my criticisms of you guys back on me...
You are right D-Head, for me to repeat that
a sworn heresay declaration which was submitted to a triar of fact (Judge)contained the allegations that this web site's very own antipolygraph's sexiest man of the year (5 years running) Drew Richardson was the worst polygraph student ever witnessed by an auditing senior examiner, and furthermore the declaration states that Drew Richardson had the single worst lacking of grasp on the polygraph methodology and practical applications seen in a career of service with the United States Federal Governement----probably isn't going to change world hunger, but it is the right thing to do.I was wrong D-Head, you should go to work for Big Oil and devalue the word "Pollute" to mean simply "dirt." Soon we will all be saying "my kitchen floor has pollution" when we spill our soda. Your comment of "nice job" infers that to teach you a lesson in D-Head debate is a job rather than a pleasurable pastime. Good night D-Head, as I have to go get the pollution out of my hair in the shower before bed time.
niters
I am going to assume from the frantic re-direction attempts by Paradiddle that no one is going to continue to falsely claim that a suspect in custody need not be Mirandized prior to being polygraphed.
As I already wrote, since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that certainly indicates that a polygraph exam is an interrogation.
If you have a suspect in custody, and you advise him of his rights, and he invokes his right to counsel, does the Edwards Rule apply with regards to a polygraph exam? Or are you going to try to claim that a suspect in custody who has asked for a lawyer can be polygraphed anyway since it is not an interrogation?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 14, 2007, 03:52 PMLet's not forget that this thread is supposed to be focused on the fact that despite many anti-poly folks' worshipful man-crush of the "expert witness"---Drew Richardson----that there exists official sworn declaration that Drew was the single worst polygraph student ever seen by one veteran examiner with the federal government---and that the swearer indicated that Drew lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures.
Actually, Mark Johnson in his statement did not characterize Dr. Richardson as "the single worst polygraph student" he had "ever seen," nor did he state that Dr. Richardson "lacked even an elementary understanding of polygraph procedures." Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson's performance is limited to the following two paragraphs of his statement (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3693.msg25734#msg25734):
Quote6.I remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test.
...
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts.
Note that Johnson's critique of Dr. Richardson appears to be based on his observation of
only one polygraph examination. While Johnson characterizes Dr. Richardson's polygraph examination as "the worst polygraph examination [he had] ever witnessed," he offers
no specific criticism of it, which makes any rebuttal problematic. As for Johnson's
only specific claim -- that Dr. Richardson canceled "five to seven" polygraph examinations that he (Johnson) was to supervise -- Dr. Richardson promptly addressed it (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3693.msg25738#msg25738), stating that "(w)ith regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me."
It is again worth noting that Mark Johnson's gross mischaracterization (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3693.msg25758#msg25758) of statements made by former FBI Special Agent Mark Mallah in such a serious national security matter as an espionage investigation calls his objectivity into question.
As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, Dr. Richardson fully responded to Mr. Johnson's declaration and politely addressed your mockingly sarcastic follow-up questions. Despite your and your fellow polygraphers' ongoing histrionics, you have made no showing that Dr. Richardson has ever misrepresented his credentials, nor (as alluded to by digithead) have you in any way impeached Dr. Richardson's credibility with regard to any matter on which he has testified.
QuoteI remember Mr. Richardson very well because he conducted the worst polygraph examination I have ever witnessed. After his first polygraph examination was completed I told him that his test was so poorly done that it was difficult to know where to start a critique. I spent at least two hours reviewing the entire examination process with Mr. Richardson. I later made from between five to seven further appointments for Mr. Richardson to administer additional polygraph examinations under my supervision. Mr. Richardson cancelled each test.
...
8.I wrote an internal memorandum to Mr. Murphy advising Mr. Murphy that Mr. Richardson was, in my opinion, unqualified, incompetent, and ill-suited to conduct polygraph examinations for the FBI. I cannot recall all of the details of my memorandum. I do recall that I specifically stated in the memorandum that Mr. Richardson was unable to construct a fair and satisfactory polygraph test and that he could not correctly interpret polygraph charts.
My apologies to all ;D. Drew Richardson was clearly a spectacular :-/ examiner and theorist and was meritous of "superior expert witness" regarding polygraph methodology. GMAFB! No one squeezes out little brown stink-cakes like you folks-----no one.
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 15, 2007, 09:41 AMShucks,
Who is Drew Richardson........???
Drew Richardson was an FBI chemical specialist who went to DODPI, and according to classmates, Barely graduated and didn't recieve his certification. Drew was defaulted to the poly lab at DODPI where he was reputted to be very disagreeable and perhaps unhappy with the FBI's demotion/ displacement. After emerging from DODPI, he testified before congress and the NAS that polygraph was not a valid tool for detecting deception---despite going on record of saying that polygraph GKT was a valid test. Since his testimony, he has challenged the polygraph community to detect his countermeasures in a mock crime lab setting. The challenge is poorly conceived via psychological construct, and I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone challenges Drew to a likewise empty countermeasure challenge involving his fMRI booby-tube. I would like to know how being a simple physiologist while analysizing neurological and neuro-linguistic activity is connected. I do however wish him luck and if he pioneers his field, I will praise his new work, but I will always lampoon his "reluctant activism," evident poor performance at DODPI, and subsequent fanboy indulgences. I submit that Drew's expertise in polygraph mirrors G W Bush's expertise in Ranching.
Sergeant,
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 11:20 AMSergeant,
Let me spell it out for you as basic as I can; Custody + Questioning = The need for a Miranda Advisement.
Where the Hell did you and D-Head come up with the idea that a polygraph examination is an interrogation? The simple asking or presentation of questions, does not constitute an interrogation. When and if, you ever get transfered off the abandoned auto detail, you may be moved into investigations. At that point, you will learn the difference between questioning and interrogation. Until then, your ignorance is providing great entertainment!
Regards,
MM
I have already expressed the idea contained in the highlighted text above. You are exhibiting classic troll behavior.
The text of Miranda v. Arizona uses the terms "questioning" and "interrogation" synonymously.
QuoteTo summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court defined "interrogation" as as "express questioning or its functional equivalent." The court went on to write that the functional equivalent of interrogation consists of "words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."
You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights. You could also ignore the Edwards Rule and polygraph a suspect in custody after he states he wants to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. In reality, you can do neither.
Sergeant,
You wrote:
"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".
Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.
Get a life,
MM
Sarge,
(if you are a sarge, 'cause most sergeants don't whine about their tough experiences at every opportunity)
and D-Head (if you know anything about science and empirical matters)
This thread is not about whether the polygraph is an interrogation. By your broad definitions a job interview is an interrogation.
The thread is about the fact that Drew Richardson and the users of this board have grossly exaggerated his credentials and "expertise" as a polygraph examiner. It seems he's hardly qualified at all.
And now, there is speculation about whether he even exists.
Drewie = Lt. Kije ???????
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 02:38 PMSergeant,
You wrote:
"You and Paradiddle have claimed that the polygraph is not an interrogation. If that were true, then you would be able to polygraph a criminal suspect in custody without advising him of his rights".
Are you listening to yourself? Are you for real? You can't possibly be a cop, much less a Sergeant. You my friend, are far too stupid. Stick to towing abandonded cars and issue doggie licenses and spare the good people on this board from your ignorant advice! You are a train wreck in progress.
Get a life,
MM
If you could explain to me how the polygraph is not an interrogation, but still cannot be administered to suspects in custody without Miranda I would certainly be willing to listen.
If you could do it without the pointless ad hom attacks it might give you a bit more credibility.
Sarge,
Its just that your so eminently attackable...
Miranda is a matter of SOP.
That does not itself define anything in the epistemological sense.
The way you write, its sounds like you'd disagree that police should even question people.
This is like Plato allegory of the cave - its a bunch of people sitting around blowing smoke up each others a%^, about something ya'll seem to feel rather desperate about.
Remember this thread is about Drewie's fabricated expertise regarding the polygraph.
IN CUSTODY is the key word. As far as a polygraph being an interrogation, it turns into an interrigation after a call of deception is given and questioning starts regarding the suspected deception. It is an interview prior to that. Miranda is required if the individual is restricted and cannot leave, that is IN CUSTODY.
Sarge,
I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.
Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.
Take care,
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 15, 2007, 05:22 PMSarge,
I am sorry but I give up. You have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a police interrogation. You have an even weaker grasp on the whole Miranda issue and you still think a polygraph examination is an interrogation. As a result, you are doing more harm than good on this site.
Your comments only confirm what we all suspect. "Sergeant" is nothing more that your screen name on this site. If you were in fact, a police officer of any type, we would not be having this conversation.
Take care,
MM
Sarge, MM is right. If you were or are a cop, you wouldn't be discussing the difference between interview vs interrogation. Now back to
Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph. BTW, besides seeing a picture of Drew, I would love to read his disertation... ;)
Paradiddle wrote the following:
QuoteGino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview. If on the other hand a person such as yourself fails a polygraph---than yes, expect an ACCUSATION (INTERROGATION). Trust me, I am an examiner, not a sideline activist.
It seems to me that an easy way to prove the polygraph is an interrogation is that Miranda is required before you can polygraph any suspect in custody. My questioning in this regard was reasonable and on point.
Whether you wish to call it interviewing, questioning, or interrogation, if you have a suspect in custody and are going to ask questions or do anything likely to elicit an incriminating response, Miranda is required. That includes the polygraph. It logically follows that the polygraph falls under the category of interrogation.
Sarge, I don't think anyone here has argued against Miranda while in custody - all COPS are aware of Miranda. Now back to to this thread Drew's so called expertise regarding the polygraph.