AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

A moderator on a pro-polygraph board recently put forth  the typical "no test is perfect" defence when probed by a distraught FP poster as to why she failed after telling the truth on the polygraph.

He then went on to insinuate  that the polygraph is probably about as accurate and scientific as X-ray testing.  

//www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum6/HTML/000081.html

It got me to thinking about DNA testing used in court and in fighting crime in general.  Can a judge FORCE a person to provide a DNA sample to be used against him?  Of course, detectives are allowed surreptitiously obtain samples in the course of their investigation (from  a cigarette butt...etc.).  But can a person apprehended and charged with a crime be FORCED to supply a sample which can be used against him/her?

Likewise, can such a person be LEGALLY FORCED to submit to a polygraph interrogation by a judge?  I don't think they can, and if they submit voluntarily, the results are usually NOT admissible.

If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?

Why are results from DNA testing admissible, but polygraph usually not?

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 02:02 AM
If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?

Why are results from DNA testing admissible, but polygraph usually not?

TC

I followed the link provided and found it to be an interesting thread Mr. Cullen.

The answer to your question is pretty simple, I'm surprised you didn't find it.  

Go look up a copy of our constitution, (That's U.S. Constitution, just in case you aren't a citizen)  Skip over the main part, even though it's good reading when you have time, and go to the end where they have placed changes to the constitution called "AMENDMENTS" . They have been numbered for your convenience. Go down to number 4 and mark it for later reading.

Read number 5 carefully "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"  

I have highlighted the portion that answers your question concerning compelled polygraph. The U.S Supreme Court has determined that "being a witness against himself"  refers to communicative behavior that reveals the contents of a person's mind. Because giving DNA samples does not require a person to convey, through communication, the contents of their mind, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination isn't pertinent. Though there may compulsion and self-incrimination, there is no testimony.  

Since Polygraph examinations require verbal responses, during the pre-test interview and testing process that are potentially incriminating, the Fifth Amendment does apply.

Now go back and read the Fourth Amendment.  That is the one that applies to DNA samples and similar items of PHYSICAL Evidence.

The answer to your question is that you are arguing Constitutional Apples and Oranges and your analogy is defective.  

If I may borrow one of your more expressive and revealing statements:
Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.                                                                                                                                         Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.  


Sancho Panza ::)

modified to correct spelling error

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 08:37 AM

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 02:02 AM
If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?

Why are results from DNA testing admissible, but polygraph usually not?

TC

I followed the link provided and found it to be an interesting thread Mr. Cullen.

The answer to your question is pretty simple, I'm surprised you didn't find it.  

Go look up a copy of our constitution, (That's U.S. Constitution, just in case you aren't a citizen)  Skip over the main part, even though it's good reading when you have time, and go to the end where they have placed changes to the constitution called "AMENDMENTS" . They have been numbered for your convenience. Go down to number 4 and mark it for later reading.

Read number 5 carefully "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"  

I have highlighted the portion that answers your question concerning compelled polygraph. The U.S Supreme Court has determined that "being a witness against himself"  refers to communicative behavior that reveals the contents of a person's mind. Because giving DNA samples does not require a person to convey, through communication, the contents of their mind, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination isn't pertinent. Though there may compulsion and self-incrimination, there is no testimony.  

Since Polygraph examinations require verbal responses, during the pre-test interview and testing process that are potentially incriminating, the Fifth Amendment does apply.

Now go back and read the Fourth Amendment.  That is the one that applies to DNA samples and similar items of PHYSICAL Evidence.

The answer to your question is that you are arguing Constitutional Apples and Oranges and your analogy is defective.  

If I may borrow one of your more expressive and revealing statements:
Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.                                                                                                                                         Hmmmm, yeah, uh-huh, uh-huh.  


Sancho Panza ::)

modified to correct spelling error

Hey Sancho,

Very eloquently and legally put. However I think you miss Mr. Cullens intent.
He is obviously pointing out the lack of validity and reliability for practical and judicial purposes thus making his point is valid, since I think that he was mearly trying to point out that tried and true scientific testing is valid in court i.e. DNA and polygraph is not because  polygraphs DO NOT detect, lies, deception or anything else that can be relied upon to test a vicim.
Thanks for the history class though =)

Notguilty1
If that is what he meant then why did he ask the question?

Your response either intimates that Mr. Cullen of an is unable to say or ask what he means or provides evidence of your inability to understand even a simple question like "If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?"

If you wish to engage in a debate on whether or not the courts always use good common sense in their decision making process perhaps you would like to explain how a DNA sample should cease to be admissable based on how it was obtained even if the method of seizure does not change the physical properties of the sample.  

Based on what I have read in your previous posts, I don't think your input in support of  Mr. Cullen could be classified as "help".

Sancho Panza :-?

QuoteThe answer to your question is that you are arguing Constitutional Apples and Oranges and your analogy is defective.

Apples and oranges?  Kind of like comparing X-rays to polygraphs.

This is an important point.  The polygraph is NOT really a scientific test, but more an INTERROGATION disguised as a test.   And, as in any interrogation,  one would be well advised to put in place the same safeguards against self incrimination (5th Amendment) during a polygraph as they would in ANY interrogation.  Like having an attorney present, or, better yet, not submitting in the first place (take the "5th") as recommended by an attorney in one of the links I posted.  Of course, that would put a wee bit of a damper on the pre-test interview and post test flustering.  As well as require investigators to give up their attempt at getting a confession out of the suspect (which is what the polygraph is all about anyway), and require them to get off their arses and collect really evidence, LIKE DNA, fingerprints, cum stains...etc., or leave the person alone.   >:(

For example, if an examiner makes the 95% accuracy claim during a pre-test, in an attempt to beguile his client, the attorney could call a "time out" and explain to his otherwise gullible client that there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community as to the accuracy of the polygraph.

Another example.  If the examiner attempts a post test "brow-beating", the attorney can put a stop to it, by calling another time out, explaining to his client that if he has answered a given question to the best of his ability, he is not legally required to sit there and be badgered and can LEGALLY walk out.

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 09:18 PMIf you wish to engage in a debate on whether or not the courts always use good common sense in their decision making process perhaps you would like to explain how a DNA sample should cease to be admissable based on how it was obtained even if the method of seizure does not change the physical properties of the sample.  

DNA evidence (like all other evidence) can be excluded if it is obtained via a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  So can any other evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure.  It is called the Exclusionary Rule and the precedent is Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The validity of the sample is not what is called into question if/when it is ruled inadmissable; what is ruled invalid is the method by which it was obtained.

The idea is that the state is required to play by the rules, so they don't get to admit evidence obtained unless it was obtained within the rules.  There is no lack of common sense in the exclusionary rule.  It even provides an exception for any evidence that would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

Sarge,

So can a judge ORDER a DNA sample be taken from a charged person?

Thanks,

TC

Quote.....polygraphs DO NOT detect, lies, deception or anything else that can be relied upon to test a vicim.

Yet a polygrapher recently advised a person whose spouse is suspected of infidelity that:

"...There is no reason why a properly conducted [polygraph] exam would not give you an accurate opinion as to her truthfulness."

Or really?  That is darn right pathological!   I'd just like to know if they (polygraphers) believe their own bullshit!


TC

Mr. Cullen, I think you are either mis-informed or haven't undertaken taken adequate time to investigate the subject of your post.

Polygraph examinations in criminal investigations are voluntary. The subject is free to refuse the examination, just like he is free not to talk to police. If he should choose to proceed with an exam he enjoys ALL of the constitutional protections set out in the 5th amendment, 6th amendment,  and section 1 of the 14th amendment as further defined by landmark cases like Miranda and Esobedo. This includes the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to terminate the conversation at any time. A police officer or a polygrapher working on behalf of the police who violate a clients rights are subject to the same sanctions.

A Judge cannot order a polygraph test for the reasons stated in my previous post.

As to whether or not a polygraph is a scientific test, that is just an opinion and you are free to hold it and I am free to disagree. I am right, you are wrong and I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that the majority of participants on this board share your erroneous opinion. Let's move on.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 24, 2008, 02:10 AM

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 09:18 PMIf you wish to engage in a debate on whether or not the courts always use good common sense in their decision making process perhaps you would like to explain how a DNA sample should cease to be admissable based on how it was obtained even if the method of seizure does not change the physical properties of the sample.  

DNA evidence (like all other evidence) can be excluded if it is obtained via a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  So can any other evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure.  It is called the Exclusionary Rule and the precedent is Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The validity of the sample is not what is called into question if/when it is ruled inadmissable; what is ruled invalid is the method by which it was obtained.

The idea is that the state is required to play by the rules, so they don't get to admit evidence obtained unless it was obtained within the rules.  There is no lack of common sense in the exclusionary rule.  It even provides an exception for any evidence that would have inevitably been discovered anyway.

Your comment on the substance of the exclusionary rule is pretty accurate, however I tend to disagree that it is a "common sense" rule. Basically the exclusionary rule provides a sanction, short of criminal prosecution,  for police mis-conduct. Under the exclusionary rule, If you as a Police Officer punch a murder suspect in the nose in order to obtain a blood sample, the DNA from that sample in inadmissable. However, if Mr. Cullen were to read about the case in the paper that identifies your suspect as a "person of interest",punches your suspect in the nose and then turns the blood sample over to you for analysis, The DNA from that sample is perfectly admissable providing the defense is unable to establish a prior relationship between you and Mr. Cullen. The only sanction that Mr. Cullen may face is a misdemeanor  prosecution for assault and battery, and your suspect becomes eligible for a state sponsored dirt nap,  while in the first case your murder suspect goes free to kill again. That  A & B prosecution isn't very likely when Mr. Cullen has just handed the D.A. the murderers head on a silver platter.

Under English Law there are common sense sanctions against police officers who violate suspect's rights, but the exclusionary rule does not exist as we know it in the good ol USA. While I agree that police mis-conduct should be punished, there is nothing "Common Sense" about turning a murderer loose because of the manner in which his DNA is collected.

One might argue that a confession beaten out of a suspect should be excluded because of the possibility of a false confession while under torture  changing the content and character of the evidence, but where a DNA sample is involved no such argument is viable.

Sancho Panza

QuoteIf he should choose to proceed with an exam he enjoys ALL of the constitutional protections set out in the 5th amendment, 6th amendment,  and section 1 of the 14th amendment as further defined by landmark cases like Miranda and Esobedo. This includes the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to terminate the conversation at any time. A police officer or a polygrapher working on behalf of the police who violate a clients rights are subject to the same sanctions.

Attorneys are routinely allowed to be present during polygraph interrogations?  Suspects are routinely advised prior to a polygraph that they may request the presence of an attorney during the test?

Of course, most people actually believe the polygraph is simply a test for truthfulness and not an interrogation, so an attorney is not needed.

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 23, 2008, 09:18 PMNotguilty1
If that is what he meant then why did he ask the question?

Your response either intimates that Mr. Cullen of an is unable to say or ask what he means or provides evidence of your inability to understand even a simple question like "If this is true, and if the polygraph  scientifically proven to be highly accurate (like DNA testing), then why can't a person be charged with a crime be forced to take a polygraph?"

If you wish to engage in a debate on whether or not the courts always use good common sense in their decision making process perhaps you would like to explain how a DNA sample should cease to be admissable based on how it was obtained even if the method of seizure does not change the physical properties of the sample.  

Based on what I have read in your previous posts, I don't think your input in support of  Mr. Cullen could be classified as "help".

Sancho Panza :-?

Hey SANCHO
what you have read in my previous posts is based on FACT!
It happened to me! I am proof that polygraphs do not detect lies and "experts" like you that go on with your merry go round to continue to LIE about what polygraph can do collecting more and more victims is just pitiful.
SO ..... you educated charlatan please keep your assumptions and criticisms coming because just like some polygraphers on here you too will be shown that truth, even though you may be too ignorant, money hungry or both to see it quite yet.
I have no desire to debate whether or not DNA should or should not be admissible in court. I have no personal beef with DNA testing. Polygraph on the other hand I have personally discovered to be BULLSHIT  ( legal enough word for you? Though bullshit actually has a good use unlike polygraph).
The legal fact that polygraph itself is not admissible in court also bolsters my personal experience, not to mention countless other sources that also support my finding.
Bring it SANCIIII

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 24, 2008, 02:57 PM

QuoteIf he should choose to proceed with an exam he enjoys ALL of the constitutional protections set out in the 5th amendment, 6th amendment,  and section 1 of the 14th amendment as further defined by landmark cases like Miranda and Esobedo. This includes the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to terminate the conversation at any time. A police officer or a polygrapher working on behalf of the police who violate a clients rights are subject to the same sanctions.

Attorneys are routinely allowed to be present during polygraph interrogations?  Suspects are routinely advised prior to a polygraph that they may request the presence of an attorney during the test?

Of course, most people actually believe the polygraph is simply a test for truthfulness and not an interrogation, so an attorney is not needed.

TC

Hey TC,
This is the reason that they get all the victims they do. MOST people believe in the polygraphs ability to detect lies and as you say do not see it for what it is a interrogation tool. Unfortunately, depending on the people involved even a confession based on a polygraph is often not accurate

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 24, 2008, 09:19 AMYour comment on the substance of the exclusionary rule is pretty accurate, however I tend to disagree that it is a "common sense" rule. Basically the exclusionary rule provides a sanction, short of criminal prosecution,  for police mis-conduct. Under the exclusionary rule, If you as a Police Officer punch a murder suspect in the nose in order to obtain a blood sample, the DNA from that sample in inadmissable. However, if Mr. Cullen were to read about the case in the paper that identifies your suspect as a "person of interest",punches your suspect in the nose and then turns the blood sample over to you for analysis, The DNA from that sample is perfectly admissable providing the defense is unable to establish a prior relationship between you and Mr. Cullen. The only sanction that Mr. Cullen may face is a misdemeanor  prosecution for assault and battery, and your suspect becomes eligible for a state sponsored dirt nap,  while in the first case your murder suspect goes free to kill again. That  A & B prosecution isn't very likely when Mr. Cullen has just handed the D.A. the murderers head on a silver platter.

Under English Law there are common sense sanctions against police officers who violate suspect's rights, but the exclusionary rule does not exist as we know it in the good ol USA. While I agree that police mis-conduct should be punished, there is nothing "Common Sense" about turning a murderer loose because of the manner in which his DNA is collected.

One might argue that a confession beaten out of a suspect should be excluded because of the possibility of a false confession while under torture  changing the content and character of the evidence, but where a DNA sample is involved no such argument is viable.

Sancho Panza

The Exclusionary Rule is not a sanction against the police, it is a protection afforded to the accused.  There is a significant difference between the two.
I think it is common sense that if the state is going to charge someone with violating the law, the state cannot violate the law in order to obtain their evidence.  That just makes sense to me.  
Regardless of whether the evidence is a DNA sample of something different, the manner in which the police collect the evidence must be within the law.  Your opinion makes it sound like you would support any manner of evidence collection whatsoever, legal or illegal, as long as you knew you were collecting it to prosecute the "right" person.  There is nothing but corruption down that path.

Not Guilty1.  Tsk Tsk Temper Temper. You have proven the point I was making a few days ago that you, as one of the administrator's disciples,  have started resorting to Ad Hominum attacks when your ability engage in intelligent debate falters. A "Charlatan", "Ignorant", "Money Hungry"? That was totally uncalled for.       I am none of those things. I haven't called you an idiot or a dilettante, have I? That is because I believe that personal opinions regarding the character of an opponent tend to detract from the subject under discussion. Further I find profanity is not only indicative of the intelligence of the user it is a hallmark attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully. Please refrain from both your personal attacks and your profanity. When you use them you reveal more of yourself than is necessary.

Your comment  

Quotewhat you have read in my previous posts is based on FACT!

That is not a fact. That is simply a rhetorical assertion of fact. In other words, it is an unsubstantiated claim. You are unable to support this claim with anything other than another claim. Even if it were a fact it would not be evidence that polygraph is bad, doesn't work, or should be abolished. It would just be an example of an error and errors occur in ANY scientific test. Your blanket statement that Polygraph is not admissible in court is also incorrect.

Sancho Panza

Mr. Cullen,   It is my understanding that the vast majority of police polygraphs are only conducted after an examinee has been given the Miranda Warning. It is also my understanding that most Law Enforcement Agencies even advise an applicant of their Miranda Rights prior to a pre-employment test.
Wouldn't it be the subject's choice about whether or not to proceed without counsel?

It never ceases to amaze me that prisons are full of criminals that are too stupid to shut up after they are told that talking may not be in their best interest.

Sancho Panza

Sergeant wrote

QuoteYour opinion makes it sound like you would support any manner of evidence collection whatsoever, legal or illegal, as long as you knew you were collecting it to prosecute the "right" person.  There is nothing but corruption down that path.

You have mis-construed my opinion. I think that a police officer that intentionally obtains evidence illegally should be treated like any other criminal and that the statutes should be structured to acknowledge the manner in which the evidence was illegally obtained as well as the nature of the crime being investigated when they chose to violate the law with corresponding penalties.  I think that such statutes would provide sufficient deterrent and punishment to prevent illegal conduct. That is "checks and balances" not corruption. I don't think that evidence should be suppressed or criminals should be allowed to go free based on the intentional improper conduct of a police officer.

I don't think that it is fair use the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence in a criminal case without establishing that improper conduct occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence suppression is occurring today based on whatever standard a judge chooses to apply in each individual case. Some judges use an "appearance of improper conduct" standard and some use a "preponderance of evidence" standard which means there is actually no standard.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 06:56 AMMr. Cullen,   It is my understanding that the vast majority of police polygraphs are only conducted after an examinee has been given the Miranda Warning. It is also my understanding that most Law Enforcement Agencies even advise an applicant of their Miranda Rights prior to a pre-employment test.
Wouldn't it be the subject's choice about whether or not to proceed without counsel?

It never ceases to amaze me that prisons are full of criminals that are too stupid to shut up after they are told that talking may not be in their best interest.

Sancho Panza

POLICE POLYGRAPHERS DILUTE THE SKILLS OF POLICING AND POLICEMEN. THROW OUT THE POLYGRAPH AND BRING BACK PROPER
POLICING SKILLS BASED ON HARD EVIDENCE. POLYGRAPH RESULTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SUPPOSITION.

Polytek, I have scanned all 14 of your posts.  Do you ever have anything substantive to add or do you just drop by to leave a few sophmoric one-liners revealing  not only your lack of knowledge regarding polygraph but of police work, grammar and spelling as well.

You almost sound like a Polygraph Examiner who is trying to portray Anti-polygraph posters as idiots. Mostly, that is not the case at all.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 10:26 AM
".... do you just drop by to leave a few sophmoric one-liners,  trying to portray polygraph examiners as idiots.

" Yes. "

A good exercise in deflection SP, but unsuccessful nevertheless.

If you took anything personally, then what else is there to say other than, " If the shoe fits, wear it."


Your attempt to glorify polygraphy is quite shallow. Polygraphy is
a refuge for the talentless. A weapon for the misguided and weak-minded.

BTW, I have read many of your posts. They are typical of pg examiners who are frustrated mystery writers. You do not have the same 'artistic licence' at the mutual masturbation camp (PP) and since
the anti crowd are barred from venting there, you come here and attempt to stamp your authority and intimidate.

Epic Fail dude.

PG = BS....... Now how's that for a one liner  ?

Polytek.

It was not an exercise in deflection. In order to be deflection, you would have needed to say something that needed deflecting. You haven't. NOT ONCE.   I was simply pointing out that you seem to lack the intelligence and literacy skills to discuss the issue of polygraph on a level commensurate with other anti-polygraph posters on this board. You don't even come close on brains and ability. On the "wittiness scale" you score about fifty percent.

If you would type your comments into a word processor for editing you could spell and grammar check them before posting. It won't do anything about your lack of knowledge, but it will help you remove your annoying spelling mistakes and fragmented sentences.

However misguided I believe their conclusions to be, Cullen, Sergeant, and even Notguilty1, are certainly more than capable of debating their positions without your assistance. You bring nothing new or interesting to the discussion.  You act like a little Chihuahua barking from under the porch.  

Do your little "AHA" moments make you feel better?  Maybe you should take up graffiti. It doesn't require much thought and nobody counts off for spelling.  

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 06:56 AMMr. Cullen,   It is my understanding that the vast majority of police polygraphs are only conducted after an examinee has been given the Miranda Warning. It is also my understanding that most Law Enforcement Agencies even advise an applicant of their Miranda Rights prior to a pre-employment test.
Wouldn't it be the subject's choice about whether or not to proceed without counsel?

It never ceases to amaze me that prisons are full of criminals that are too stupid to shut up after they are told that talking may not be in their best interest.

Sancho Panza

WRONG again Sanciii My Police polygraph was NOT preceded by a Miranda Waring and I was specifically told that I was not in need of an attorney.
Now I understand that an ignorant poly graph "victim" like me can't hold a conversation with the likes of you. But if polygraph WAS admissible as evidence in court I WOULD BE IN JAIL since I failed mine.
You can keep talking but the TRUTH does prevail.
Someone like you who perpetuates a lie ( ironically about lying) is in fact a charlatan, money hungry lier, one all or a combination of them all. So your see Sanciii the titles may infact fit.
And, my posts are based on fact. It happened to me and that is why I am on this site. To help other that have been victimized by your silly box.
WHY ARE YOU HERE SANCIII if your "science" is so accurate?
Seems to me that you'd have better things to do with all your alleged education than be on here defending a "proven science".

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 11:36 AMPolytek.

It was not an exercise in deflection. In order to be deflection, you would have needed to say something that needed deflecting. You haven't. NOT ONCE.   I was simply pointing out that you seem to lack the intelligence and literacy skills to discuss the issue of polygraph on a level commensurate with other anti-polygraph posters on this board. You don't even come close on brains and ability. On the "wittiness scale" you score about fifty percent.

If you would type your comments into a word processor for editing you could spell and grammar check them before posting. It won't do anything about your lack of knowledge, but it will help you remove your annoying spelling mistakes and fragmented sentences.

However misguided I believe their conclusions to be, Cullen, Sergeant, and even Notguilty1, are certainly more than capable of debating their positions without your assistance. You bring nothing new or interesting to the discussion.  You act like a little Chihuahua barking from under the porch.  

Do your little "AHA" moments make you feel better?  Maybe you should take up graffiti. It doesn't require much thought and nobody counts off for spelling.  

Sancho Panza

Why don't you just start your own site since you seem to be the only one equipped with the required knowledge and intelligence to have an opinion on polygraph.
I am only lead to question why someone with the seemingly vast intelligence and knowledge as you Sanciii would devote his life to a
carrier that requires the same training as a barber and is less sceintific that cutting hair?

Notguilty1  You seem to need to indulge the misconception that your personal experience translates to some sort of indictment of polygraph in general, It doesn't.  It is just your personal experience. I didn't say all, I said "Vast Majority" and your personal experience, whether it is the truth or you have just made up your story in order to lend some sort of credence to your position on this subject, does not alter the accuracy of my statement.  

If you have some support for the contention that the vast majority of police polygraph tests ARE NOT given after a subject is advised of his Miranda rights then you have material for a debate.

As to the reason I am here.
The administrator of this site claims to be "pro-truth" even after he co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to tell lies, deliberately conceal information and even provides advice on how to lie , while at the same time his disciples call all polygraph examiners liars without any substantial proof. I find the moral inconsistency of these positions interesting fodder for debate. I found a lie behind "the lie behind the lie detector" and since I am an invitee on this board, I choose to discuss it HERE. I'm not here to defeat you, I just enjoy the debate. You don't have to be defeated, you're inconsequential.

Why are you here? This site has been online for 8 years and has not accomplished any of it stated goals. The Anti-polygraph petition that claims 1325 signatures is full of Joke Names, Duplications, and Line Voided entries. At one time the petition contained links to porn sites.  The claim that there are 1325 legitimate signatures on the petition I guess falls under the heading of "If the administrator thinks a lie is justified, it's OK". I surmise that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names,Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period. This makes you a member of a ery tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully defeat the 98% accuracy rate claim that some polygraphers have made regarding polygraph.

Regarding what I do for a living, you can only guess and you are probably wrong. When I first began posting on this board I chose not to reveal my occupation because too many people tend to pigeonhole someone based on where they work.

Sancho Panza

Attorneys are usually not allowed to be present for polygraphs, yet they are allowed to be present during police interrogations.  I think that is why police depts like the polygraph so much, as it gives them the chance to interrogate the suspect WITHOUT ANY ATTORNEYS PRESENT!

I distinctly recall polygraphers posting here (Sackett?) explain, in their typical idiotic logic, why attorneys are not allowed, or should not be allowed to be present during a polygraph.

Gee, would it affect the accuracy of results if an attorney was present during DNA testing?  So what's the problem with having them present during a polygraph?  It's a 95% accurate, scientific test, ain't it?

When I was a teenager, I went to a car dealership and almost got bamboozled by a fast talking salesman.   Funny, I came back with my Dad, and the salesman wasn't quite as sure of himself.  Turns out that $5k WASN'T the "absolute lowest we can sell that mustang for!".

TC

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 05:03 PMAttorneys are usually not allowed to be present for polygraphs, yet they are allowed to be present during police interrogations.  I think that is why police depts like the polygraph so much, as it gives them the chance to interrogate the suspect WITHOUT ANY ATTORNEYS PRESENT!

I distinctly recall polygraphers posting here (Sackett?) explain, in their typical idiotic logic, why attorneys are not allowed, or should not be allowed to be present during a polygraph.

Gee, would it affect the accuracy of results if an attorney was present during DNA testing?  So what's the problem with having them present during a polygraph?  It's a 95% accurate, scientific test, ain't it?

When I was a teenager, I went to a car dealership and almost got bamboozled by a fast talking salesman.   Funny, I came back with my Dad, and the salesman wasn't quite as sure of himself.  Turns out that $5k WASN'T the "absolute lowest we can sell that mustang for!".

TC

TC as we have seen before with as you mentioned Sackett who is down the road, an now Sancii . These people WILL not relent. They will continue yo tout the validity of their silly box.
They come here ( as if they had nothing better to do with their time) to "debate" with an inconsequential  number of  critics of polygraph. What their real goal is damage control and as you and others have rightly put it time and time again they need to keep the lie they perpetuate alive and have the public go on believing in their silly box this is why Sackett, Sancho and their ilk come here and "debate".
Sancho has come on here making broad sweeping statements like "police do not polygraph without a Miranda warning" which he has no clue if it's true. But when I tell him thats BS then I may be making that up.
He seems to be conceding on the stated accuracy rate ( another tool to make people believe that the silly box actually does work) Duhhh you think since there are NO scientific studies that prove the accuracy rate. But of course I was told that it was 98% but I'm sure that according to professor Sancii I probably made that up too.
Thanks for your post TC
ANd yours too Sancii we need you to go forward and we will  ;)

Mr. Ican'tbelieveyou'renotguilty.

You're like a bald guy with a bad comb-over. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Your obvious inability to read and comprehend simple English, coupled with your continued proclivity to remove one or two words from a post and mis-interpret them in some feeble attempt to make a point that you lack the IQ to construct yourself, reminds me of an old adage.

QuoteNever argue with a fool. They'll try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

Sir, There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore looking like an idiot. It is obvious to me that not only is there no bait on your hook, there is no line on your reel.

I decline to let you try to drag me down any more.

With just a little more effort you will prove yourself on an intellectual par with Polytek.  That means that Dr. Maschke will buy you a new set of crayons. I hope he gets you the big ones with flat sides so they won't roll off your desk any more.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 09:29 PMMr. Ican'tbelieveyou'renotguilty.

You're like a bald guy with a bad comb-over. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Your obvious inability to read and comprehend simple English, coupled with your continued proclivity to remove one or two words from a post and mis-interpret them in some feeble attempt to make a point that you lack the IQ to construct yourself, reminds me of an old adage.

QuoteNever argue with a fool. They'll try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

Sir, There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore looking like an idiot. It is obvious to me that not only is there no bait on your hook, there is no line on your reel.

I decline to let you try to drag me down any more.

With just a little more effort you will prove yourself on an intellectual par with Polytek.  That means that Dr. Maschke will buy you a new set of crayons. I hope he gets you the big ones with flat sides so they won't roll off your desk any more.

Sancho Panza

well Sancii
The fact that you don't believe that I am not guilty doesn't cause me to lose any sleep or appetite.
You should know all about fishing with no bait, hook or line since you are trying to defend some crystal ball method of reading minds.
The only time I was ever standing by the shore looking like an idiot is when I fell for the BS that the police polygrapher was trying to hand me. I can assure you that I will not do that again.
You seem to have an intellectual issue with many on this site including the founder himself. Yet, you seemingly have a need to indulge our feeble minds under our bad comb-overs.
As for my irritation with polygraph and idiots like you. You'll forgive me if I get highly irritated when I submit to a "test" administered by the police ( a agency I once had respect for) be told I am a lier ( or showing some deception) being informed that the test is 98% accurate   (LIE) and then discover that the machine is a bunch of non-sense.
Luckily we live in a country where charlatans cannot convict you with silly boxes or I'd be in Jail.
So save your lies for those who have not been educated on your shell game. I and others here will continue to educate and enlighten people.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 11:36 AMPolytek.

It was not an exercise in deflection. In order to be deflection, you would have needed to say something that needed deflecting. You haven't. NOT ONCE.   I was simply pointing out that you seem to lack the intelligence and literacy skills to discuss the issue of polygraph on a level commensurate with other anti-polygraph posters on this board. You don't even come close on brains and ability. On the "wittiness scale" you score about fifty percent.

I will try harder from now on.

Quote
If you would type your comments into a word processor for editing you could spell and grammar check them before posting. It won't do anything about your lack of knowledge, but it will help you remove your annoying spelling mistakes and fragmented sentences.

Whassat? Where do i get one o them prossecor fandangos ?

Quote
However misguided I believe their conclusions to be, Cullen, Sergeant, and even Notguilty1, are certainly more than capable of debating their positions without your assistance. You bring nothing new or interesting to the discussion.  You act like a little Chihuahua barking from under the porch.  

And there was me thinking that the board was for open discussion.
Sorry. I didn't know that I required your nod in order to jump-in.

Quote
Do your little "AHA" moments make you feel better?  Maybe you should take up graffiti.

- Okay. Where do you live ? I'm bringing my flat crayons to scribble on your walls.

Quote
Sancho Panza

Well Well Ponzy, aren't we the just the little pedantic princess then?
Perhaps your gifts of eloquence would be better appreciated in a 5th Grade classroom. There you could certainly intimidate and strike fear into your audience. Here......? naaah. You aint got the credibility.

Could you really not find a better job than chart rolling ? With such ferocity you attempt to scientificate (like it?) a pseudo scientific technology that the NAS rubbished several years ago already.

Time to wake up Mister. Read the News and put the dictionary and
the APA bs journals away.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 26, 2008, 10:49 AM

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 25, 2008, 11:36 AMPolytek.

It was not an exercise in deflection. In order to be deflection, you would have needed to say something that needed deflecting. You haven't. NOT ONCE.   I was simply pointing out that you seem to lack the intelligence and literacy skills to discuss the issue of polygraph on a level commensurate with other anti-polygraph posters on this board. You don't even come close on brains and ability. On the "wittiness scale" you score about fifty percent.

I will try harder from now on.

Quote
If you would type your comments into a word processor for editing you could spell and grammar check them before posting. It won't do anything about your lack of knowledge, but it will help you remove your annoying spelling mistakes and fragmented sentences.

Whassat? Where do i get one o them prossecor fandangos ?

Quote
However misguided I believe their conclusions to be, Cullen, Sergeant, and even Notguilty1, are certainly more than capable of debating their positions without your assistance. You bring nothing new or interesting to the discussion.  You act like a little Chihuahua barking from under the porch.  

And there was me thinking that the board was for open discussion.
Sorry. I didn't know that I required your nod in order to jump-in.

Quote
Do your little "AHA" moments make you feel better?  Maybe you should take up graffiti.

- Okay. Where do you live ? I'm bringing my flat crayons to scribble on your walls.

Quote
Sancho Panza

Well Well Ponzy, aren't we the just the little pedantic princess then?
Perhaps your gifts of eloquence would be better appreciated in a 5th Grade classroom. There you could certainly intimidate and strike fear into your audience. Here......? naaah. You aint got the credibility.

Could you really not find a better job than chart rolling ? With such ferocity you attempt to scientificate (like it?) a pseudo scientific technology that the NAS rubbished several years ago already.

Time to wake up Mister. Read the News and put the dictionary and
the APA bs journals away.

Hey Poly,
Sancii here displays the pompous ass attitude that it takes to be a crystal ball reader, his attitude is typical of people in his business ( why not when they hold such power.
He needs desperately to show that we may be ignorant, illiterate, disgruntled  people to bolster his argument that polygraphs do anything at all in the arena of deception detection (which it doesn't) his whole livelihood depends on it.
It's really funny still that he has time to waste on, what he describes as few misguided, unintelligent and disgruntled people on this site. When, there is ample room for him to do what he does on the other site where we would not enjoy the same freedom as he does here. We'd be banned and our posts deleted.
Hey Sancii there is a country in the middle east that is in need of a dictator, where proving something means nothing and where if you disagree with the dictator your labeled and shot down (or at) maybe you should apply for the position.

QuoteIt's really funny still that he has time to waste on, what he describes as few misguided, unintelligent and disgruntled people on this site.

It's not just a few.  We get a steady stream of noobs, who have just tested false positive, who come here looking for answers.  PP gets them some of them too, and they get a snow job.  If they press for answers they are dismissed as "ranters".

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 26, 2008, 02:13 PM

QuoteIt's really funny still that he has time to waste on, what he describes as few misguided, unintelligent and disgruntled people on this site.

It's not just a few.  We get a steady stream of noobs, who have just tested false positive, who come here looking for answers.  PP gets them some of them too, and they get a snow job.  If they press for answers they are dismissed as "ranters".

TC

I know that we are not just a few I was echoing Sancii's sentiment.
If we were so few then why; would this site be so successful? and, why would guys like him be wasting their time here.
He knows the numbers and it scares him. Simple as that.
Truth is Sancho Panza (whatever that means) or any of his cronies cannot stop truth. It is fun watching him try.

Hi NG1,

One finds that pompous attitude pervading the APA fraternity.
Polygraphy seems to 'empower' ordinary men to some imaginary level, where they clearly think they are demi-gods.

They think that they hold the real power of life or death over other mere mortals.

Strip them of their polygraphs and they are nothing. It follows then that they will debate and argue with the anti's because they are in essence fighting for their continued existence, for their base relevance
in life.

The more anti's and False Positives that post here, the more the demi-gods shiver in fear. Their snake oil and bs tricks must be persecuted until they are banished forever.

The ad-hom attacks on GM and other posters here is the predictable  response we have come to expect. GM is not the enemy of polygraphy, he is simply one of the messengers making a statement of truth and fact. A truth and fact that EACH & EVERY POLYGRAPHIST knows - and that is: Polygraphy is not a science. Polygraphy is not sufficiently reliable to be used in the pre-employment arena. Polygraphy is easily foiled by CM's. Polygraph is useless unless a confession is produced. Even then, polygraph induced confessions should be thoroughly tested as many people cannot endure the psychological intimidation practised by many polygraphists.

Sancho Panza aka Skipp Webb is a typically arrogant examiner festooned with self awarded honours.

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 27, 2008, 05:28 AMHi NG1,

One finds that pompous attitude pervading the APA fraternity.
Polygraphy seems to 'empower' ordinary men to some imaginary level, where they clearly think they are demi-gods.

They think that they hold the real power of life or death over other mere mortals.

Strip them of their polygraphs and they are nothing. It follows then that they will debate and argue with the anti's because they are in essence fighting for their continued existence, for their base relevance
in life.

The more anti's and False Positives that post here, the more the demi-gods shiver in fear. Their snake oil and bs tricks must be persecuted until they are banished forever.

The ad-hom attacks on GM and other posters here is the predictable  response we have come to expect. GM is not the enemy of polygraphy, he is simply one of the messengers making a statement of truth and fact. A truth and fact that EACH & EVERY POLYGRAPHIST knows - and that is: Polygraphy is not a science. Polygraphy is not sufficiently reliable to be used in the pre-employment arena. Polygraphy is easily foiled by CM's. Polygraph is useless unless a confession is produced. Even then, polygraph induced confessions should be thoroughly tested as many people cannot endure the psychological intimidation practised by many polygraphists.

Sancho Panza aka Skipp Webb is a typically arrogant examiner festooned with self awarded honours.

I agree with all you say  here Poly,
Thanks for being on here as well I am hoping that we get more and more "victims" of polygraph on board.
Sancho's mantra is the same as others; forget the facts and focus on fear, lies, misdirection and irrelevant opinions, thats how they try to hold on to their pseudo-science.
It is amazing to me that once discovered they are not ashamed of themselves and what they do for a living. However as you say these are small "men" that need that power trip of seemingly being judge and jury over others, they didn't have what it takes to actually have a position of respect and honor in life so....... well like other charlatans they do what they have to survive.

QuoteOne finds that pompous attitude pervading the APA fraternity.
Polygraphy seems to 'empower' ordinary men to some imaginary level, where they clearly think they are demi-gods.

In the name of the sancho,
sackett the son,
and coffey the Holly poster
amen

Hail sancho, full of bull
the APA is with thee.
Blessed art thou among examiners
and blessed is the fruit of thy chart scribblings.
Holy sancho, father of lies
pray for us false positives,
and deliver us from the truth.
amen

NotGuilty1

Sancho Panza was the faithful servant of Don Quixote. If you recall, ol'  Don was always tilting at windmills.

Mr. Cullen   From the very beginning I suspected that you were just seeking an idol for  misplaced worship.  

Please feel free to remain with Dr. Mashcke.  If you must switch, may I suggest Elvis or Jerry Springer?

Anyone but me.

Sancho Panza

Notguilty1  Polytek

CONGRATULATIONS  YOU HAVE WON.

I could not possibly add anything to your posts that could better esablish your ignorance regarding polygraph than what you have chosen to write yourselves.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 27, 2008, 03:42 PMNotguilty1  Polytek

CONGRATULATIONS  YOU HAVE WON.

I could not possibly add anything to your posts that could better esablish your ignorance regarding polygraph than what you have chosen to write yourselves.

Sancho Panza

You know sancho if you would use your vast knowledge of polygraph and please explain how a truthful person fails a polygraph and not correlate that to the inherent uselessness of polygraph you may actually doing some good here.
I doubt I will get any intelligent or useful response from you.
My "ignorance" as you put it about polygraph is not ignorance at all. You see Sancho, Mine is personal experience.
I took a police investigation polygraph, I told the complete truth, I FAILED the police polygraph. Conclusion for most logical people? = POLYGRAPHS DO NOT DETECT LIES It's quite simple for me Sacho.
My subsequent research has shown me that my conclusion is in fact correct.
Even if Polygraphs do illicit confessions, that does not make the test valid in detecting lies.

QuoteYou know sancho if you would use your vast knowledge of polygraph and please explain how a truthful person fails a polygraph

OK pay attention. ANY scientific test by definition must have an error rate. If there is no error rate it cannot be called a scientific test. Scientific tests have accuracy rates and error rates. Accuracy Rate is what you have left after you subtract the error rate from 100% .Error rates are made up of False Positives and False Negatives. In Polygraph a False Positive is where the results of the examination indicate deception when the subject is telling the truth. A False Negative in Polygraph means that the results indicate truthfulness when the subject was in fact lying regarding a relevant issue. If you add the number of false positives to the number of false negatives and calculate the total as a percentage of the tests in a given group, you have the error rate.  

Generally in polygraph there are 3 possible results for examinations. Deception Indicated, No Deception Indicated and Inconclusive. Inconclusive results are not part of the error rate. Inconclusive just means that the data was unsuitable for evaluation. The NAS study said that more research needed to be done to quantify the error rate in polygraph. They said the same thing when they reviewed DNA research.

I can't tell you every possible thing that could cause an error in a polygraph test any more than you could tell me every possible thing that could cause an error in a DNA comparison.  From the literature I have read, polygraphists shouldn't do an exam after an aggressive interrogation due to the possibility of physiological exhaustion causing an error, they don't permit extra people in the polygraph room in order to avoid errors caused by distraction due to talking or movement of the 3rd party, they don't test people with recent injuries to avoid errors caused by chronic pain and they don't conduct tests on people unable to comprehend the meaning of questions to avoid errors caused by misunderstanding the meaning of a question, etc. I can't name them all but errors do occur. If you look at other scientific tests you would discover that many have a much higher error rate than any quantified by known studies for polygraph.  A TB skin test for example has an error rate between 30 and 70%.

Error rates cannot be affected from within a testing protocol. If you change your scoring/evaluation criteria to reduce false positives, false negatives will increase proportionately. Error rates can only be changed by altering the protocol in some fashion.

Since all scientific tests have error rates, necessarily forensic examinations used by the police also have error rates and a false positive in any of them could put a suspect in exactly the same predicament as a false positive in a polygraph test.
This includes but isn't limited to:

Latent Fingerprint comparison:   The FBI AFIS system sometimes provides dozens of probable matches that require further investigation. Sometimes it only kicks out one match and it's the wrong guy. Why? I don't know. Do you?
I won't do that with the rest  but they all have error rates
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Breath)
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Blood)
Handwriting Comparison
Statement Analysis
Determination of speed from skid marks
Determination of speed from yaw marks
Determination of speed from deformation of metal
Presence of blood
Presence of human blood
Marijuana field test
Marijuana Lab test
Heroin Field test
Heroin Lab Test
as a matter of fact to save time all presumptive tests for drugs whether in the field or lab have error rates.
Urinalysis
Ink analysis
Identification of trace evidence
Foot Print Comparison
Puzzle fit analysis
Ballistics
Hair Analysis
I still stand by my previous post that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names, Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period, and compared them to the number of polygraph tests administered during that same time period, you would find that you are a member of a  very tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully invalidate the 98% accuracy rate claim that Jack Trimarco allegedly made to Dr. Maschke regarding polygraph.

While an error in your particular case may be significant to you because of your personal involvement, the mere possibility that an error was made in your case is not that significant to the big picture.

Do you really think your interrogation would have been any less traumatic if you didn't take a polygraph and the investigator decided you were the culprit? You just decided to focus on polygraph as the source of your discomfort when it was the interviewer that made you feel bad.

I don't know of anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime based solely on the results of a polygraph, but a blanket statement that they cannot be admitted as evidence is innacurate.

Sancho Panza  The character was the voice of reason in the face of insanity.

Or Perhaps a Fine Cigar

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 27, 2008, 09:53 PM

QuoteYou know sancho if you would use your vast knowledge of polygraph and please explain how a truthful person fails a polygraph

OK pay attention. ANY scientific test by definition must have an error rate. If there is no error rate it cannot be called a scientific test. Scientific tests have accuracy rates and error rates. Accuracy Rate is what you have left after you subtract the error rate from 100% .Error rates are made up of False Positives and False Negatives. In Polygraph a False Positive is where the results of the examination indicate deception when the subject is telling the truth. A False Negative in Polygraph means that the results indicate truthfulness when the subject was in fact lying regarding a relevant issue. If you add the number of false positives to the number of false negatives and calculate the total as a percentage of the tests in a given group, you have the error rate.  

Generally in polygraph there are 3 possible results for examinations. Deception Indicated, No Deception Indicated and Inconclusive. Inconclusive results are not part of the error rate. Inconclusive just means that the data was unsuitable for evaluation. The NAS study said that more research needed to be done to quantify the error rate in polygraph. They said the same thing when they reviewed DNA research.

I can't tell you every possible thing that could cause an error in a polygraph test any more than you could tell me every possible thing that could cause an error in a DNA comparison.  From the literature I have read, polygraphists shouldn't do an exam after an aggressive interrogation due to the possibility of physiological exhaustion causing an error, they don't permit extra people in the polygraph room in order to avoid errors caused by distraction due to talking or movement of the 3rd party, they don't test people with recent injuries to avoid errors caused by chronic pain and they don't conduct tests on people unable to comprehend the meaning of questions to avoid errors caused by misunderstanding the meaning of a question, etc. I can't name them all but errors do occur. If you look at other scientific tests you would discover that many have a much higher error rate than any quantified by known studies for polygraph.  A TB skin test for example has an error rate between 30 and 70%.

Error rates cannot be affected from within a testing protocol. If you change your scoring/evaluation criteria to reduce false positives, false negatives will increase proportionately. Error rates can only be changed by altering the protocol in some fashion.

Since all scientific tests have error rates, necessarily forensic examinations used by the police also have error rates and a false positive in any of them could put a suspect in exactly the same predicament as a false positive in a polygraph test.
This includes but isn't limited to:

Latent Fingerprint comparison:   The FBI AFIS system sometimes provides dozens of probable matches that require further investigation. Sometimes it only kicks out one match and it's the wrong guy. Why? I don't know. Do you?
I won't do that with the rest  but they all have error rates
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Breath)
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Blood)
Handwriting Comparison
Statement Analysis
Determination of speed from skid marks
Determination of speed from yaw marks
Determination of speed from deformation of metal
Presence of blood
Presence of human blood
Marijuana field test
Marijuana Lab test
Heroin Field test
Heroin Lab Test
as a matter of fact to save time all presumptive tests for drugs whether in the field or lab have error rates.
Urinalysis
Ink analysis
Identification of trace evidence
Foot Print Comparison
Puzzle fit analysis
Ballistics
Hair Analysis
I still stand by my previous post that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names, Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period, and compared them to the number of polygraph tests administered during that same time period, you would find that you are a member of a  very tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully invalidate the 98% accuracy rate claim that Jack Trimarco allegedly made to Dr. Maschke regarding polygraph.

While an error in your particular case may be significant to you because of your personal involvement, the mere possibility that an error was made in your case is not that significant to the big picture.

Do you really think your interrogation would have been any less traumatic if you didn't take a polygraph and the investigator decided you were the culprit? You just decided to focus on polygraph as the source of your discomfort when it was the interviewer that made you feel bad.

I don't know of anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime based solely on the results of a polygraph, but a blanket statement that they cannot be admitted as evidence is innacurate.

Sancho Panza  The character was the voice of reason in the face of insanity.

Or Perhaps a Fine Cigar

Sancho,
Well, first off thanks for the extensive response.
Though I am not familiar with most of the tests and how they rank in validity I can agree that ALL tests can have an error rate.
That being said you cannot compare Polygraph to any of those namely because the variables in Polygraph far outweigh the reliability of the test. This is why Polygraph as opposed to DNA is not admissible in court ( as you said yourself you know of no case where someone was convicted solely on Polygraph evidence) where DNA and many other proven scientific test are admissible and have been used to convict many criminals.

To answer your question though my interrogation was not at all traumatic until the polygrapher decided I was a liar based on his silly machine. I was not only not given a Miranda waring but was told I did not need an attorney. I was also told repeatedly that polygraph is 98% accurate and there is no way the test was wrong.
I decided to "focus" as you said on polygraph because it was polygraph that was the non-scientific "test" that failed and labeled me a liar and a thief. I have come to see that I am not alone not by a long shot.

I got active on this site because I saw that this was a scam and in my case thanks to a justice system that understands that Polygraph is not at all accurate I didn't suffer any more than the exam itself.

Now others loose their jobs or are denied jobs due to the use of this non-sensicle machine.
I am sorry Sancho but that is just wrong.

The numbers represented on this site I am sure you can understand do not represent ALL those people that have been wrongly labeled by polygraph. So, if you have to make a determination of percentages you need to take into account ALL those people not only the as you call us " vocal few"

You must have no real concept of the contaminants in a crime scene that introduce variables in forensic analysis. Don't take my word for it. I think Sergeant has waded though a few.

GM just posted a case the other day in which a bloody palm print and DNA from the bloody print was used in the prosecution of an apparently innocent individual because the variables concerning the texture of the blood in the print and other possible ways for the print to have been on the lamp were ignored in the face of "irrefutable" and admissible DNA Evidence.  This was a case where you have the suspect's bloody palm print in the victim's blood on the murder weapon. Until you begin to consider variables it was an open and shut case. This was just one DNA error out of several in the case.

If this lad's Defense attorneys hadn't asked the right questions DNA would have put an innocent man in prison and the public would have believed him guilty forever because shows like CSI try to convince people that DNA is perfect when it is far from it.    Those 1 in a gazillion DNA matches only occur if NO mistakes are made and all possible variables are considered. Barry Scheck clobbered the crime scene guys in the OJ trial because they failed to follow proper collection and handling protocols.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 27, 2008, 11:00 PMYou must have no real concept of the contaminants in a crime scene that introduce variables in forensic analysis. Don't take my word for it. I think Sergeant has waded though a few.

GM just posted a case the other day in which a bloody palm print and DNA from the bloody print was used in the prosecution of an apparently innocent individual because the variables concerning the texture of the blood in the print and other possible ways for the print to have been on the lamp were ignored in the face of "irrefutable" and admissible DNA Evidence.  This was a case where you have the suspect's bloody palm print in the victim's blood on the murder weapon. Until you begin to consider variables it was an open and shut case. This was just one DNA error out of several in the case.

If this lad's Defense attorneys hadn't asked the right questions DNA would have put an innocent man in prison and the public would have believed him guilty forever because shows like CSI try to convince people that DNA is perfect when it is far from it.    Those 1 in a gazillion DNA matches only occur if NO mistakes are made and all possible variables are considered. Barry Scheck clobbered the crime scene guys in the OJ trial because they failed to follow proper collection and handling protocols.

Sancho Panza

BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA Sancho all this is very impressive however it does NOTHING to further the scientific validity of Polygraph. The NSA, many other noted experts, and this country's justice system have all concluded that your "test" is not scientifically valid, and is not on par with the actual scientific tests that you mention.
That is simply FACT Sancho. Your overwhelming need to validate what you do for a living does not add validity to a "test' that does not work as used.
If at any time there actually is a "lie detector" that is scientifically proven to work I will be the first to acknowledge it.
Until then Polygraph and Polygraphers can pretend to be doctors and actual scientific technology but pretending doesn't make it so.
And as long as most people believe it can do what you say it does then you will enjoy the fruits of ignorance.
Please know that we are working to change that by informing and educating.

Notguilty1   a blanket statement that polygraph results cannot be admitted as evidence is innaccurate.

You are either misinformed or just shading the truth to your advantage.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 28, 2008, 07:31 AMNotguilty1   a blanket statement that polygraph results cannot be admitted as evidence is innaccurate.

You are either misinformed or just shading the truth to your advantage.

Sancho Panza

SANCHO LETS SEE IF CAPS WILL MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND BETTER.
GENERALLY SPEAKING POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS DNA AND OTHER PROVEN TESTS ARE.
YOUR CONTINUING TO DECLARE THAT MY STATEMENT IS INACCURATE IS STATUS QUO FOR YOUR ILK. YOU NEED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT POLYGRAPH IS AT LEAST AS VALID AS DNA (SOME OF YOU TOUT BETETR ACCURACY RATES!!!)
I will spell it out for you:
Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court. New Mexico is the only state in the United States that allows for open admissibility of polygraph exam results. Every other state requires some type of stipulation to be met prior to admitting polygraph exams into record. In most cases, both sides of a legal case have to agree prior to the trial that they will allow polygraphs to be admitted. On the federal level, the admissibility criteria are much more vague and admission typically depends on the approval of the judge.
So, saying that Polygraph is not admissible in court IS a valid statement and not "shading" the truth at all but, what would you know about valid?
So Sancho, who is "shading" the truth to their advantage?
My living does not rely on Polygraphs survival
What angers me about people like you is that you seem to be quite intelligent so I know you understand all this. So the only reason left for your statements and positions is purely self serving.

Not Guilty. I took the liberty of looking at a few of your old posts and found the following:

QuoteThis is why Polygraph as opposed to DNA is not admissible in court
The legal fact that polygraph itself is not admissible in court
results are not admissable in court
makes the test inadmissable in court
insignificant in a court of law
Polygraphs are not admissible in court
So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
The good part is that the test results are not admissible in court
that's why Polygraphs and poligraphers opinions are not admitted in court.
Like I said it's already useless in court
And if the results are not admissible in court then are the results really "evidence
( results are not admissible in court)
THANK GOODNESS THIS BS TESTING IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
I guess that is why poly's are not admissible in court

If I may borrow one of your more lucid statements, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Those are YOUR statements and when I point out to you that such blanket statements are inaccurate you respond with a qualifier that tries to get people to ignore what you Previously said.

QuoteGENERALLY SPEAKING POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS DNA AND OTHER PROVEN TESTS ARE.... and ....
Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court.

I think that's a pretty good example of your habit of shading the truth about what you previously said.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 12:37 PMNot Guilty. I took the liberty of looking at a few of your old posts and found the following:

QuoteThis is why Polygraph as opposed to DNA is not admissible in court
The legal fact that polygraph itself is not admissible in court
results are not admissable in court
makes the test inadmissable in court
insignificant in a court of law
Polygraphs are not admissible in court
So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
The good part is that the test results are not admissible in court
that's why Polygraphs and poligraphers opinions are not admitted in court.
Like I said it's already useless in court
And if the results are not admissible in court then are the results really "evidence
( results are not admissible in court)
THANK GOODNESS THIS BS TESTING IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT
I guess that is why poly's are not admissible in court

If I may borrow one of your more lucid statements, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Those are YOUR statements and when I point out to you that such blanket statements are inaccurate you respond with a qualifier that tries to get people to ignore what you Previously said.

QuoteGENERALLY SPEAKING POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT AS DNA AND OTHER PROVEN TESTS ARE.... and ....
Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court.

I think that's a pretty good example of your habit of shading the truth about what you previously said.

Sancho Panza

Wow Sancho assuming that you were in fact intelligent in a previous post was obviously a mistake on my part because you cannot even get that you are making my point.
Let me repeat:
Polygraphs are rarely admissible in court. New Mexico is the only state in the United States that allows for open admissibility of polygraph exam results. Every other state requires some type of stipulation to be met prior to admitting polygraph exams into record. In most cases, both sides of a legal case have to agree prior to the trial that they will allow polygraphs to be admitted. On the federal level, the admissibility criteria are much more vague and admission typically depends on the approval of the judge.

Now, read it slowly again.
Any reasonably intelligent person reading the above statement would conclude that polygraphs are not generally admitted in court.
But of course that would require a reasonably intelligent and of course not self serving individual. Thats were you get off the bus Sancho.
If Polygraph was admissible why oh why have I not been charged with a crime? Looks like the police dept has a "clouded view of polygraph too or .......... could it be the DA's office that knows that a judge would laugh at a case brought ot court on polygraph evidence. Yeah, I think that may be it.
No Sancho, your statements are the ones "clouded" clouded in a self serving haze.

What happened Notguilty1 is that after you falsley stated over a dozen times that POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT, I called you on it and then you modifed your statement to "NOT GENERALLY admissible in court. and Polygraphs are RARELY admissible in court,"  in some feeble attempt to avoid being caught in what at best was an exaggeration and at worst a bare faced lie.

Sancho Panza.

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 28, 2008, 08:44 PMWhat happened Notguilty1 is that after you falsley stated over a dozen times that POLYGRAPH IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT, I called you on it and then you modifed your statement to "NOT GENERALLY admissible in court. and Polygraphs are RARELY admissible in court,"  in some feeble attempt to avoid being caught in what at best was an exaggeration and at worst a bare faced lie.

Sancho Panza.

I can only hope that you continue to post your self serving idiotic responses only serve to show readers who is administering theses so called 'tests"
I understand that you  seemingly can't or won't understand the obvious. I am sure that most victims that visit this site will see what I wrote was in fact accurate. oh...... except for New Mexico! Wow sancho you must be good at getting info out of people since I was only right on ALL but ONE state.
IDIOT !
I hope you got your pencil sharpened cause there is a meter maid job next to Sackett waiting for you. You then may be doing some actual good still trolling for victims though. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

QuoteI am sure that most victims that visit this site will see what I wrote was in fact accurate. oh...... except for New Mexico

Actually current general standard is that Judges are given discretion on whether or not to admit polygraph.

OK what about Ohio v. Sharma (Case No. CR 06-09-3248),
Hovenden v. State of Indiana, 92A03-9903-CR-10

and the following is excerpted from United States of America, v. Julio Piccinonna, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 885 F.2d 1529

Quote"the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the Court of Military Appeals permit admission of polygraph evidence even in the absence of a stipulation when special circumstances exist. The Third and Seventh Circuits permit polygraph evidence to be introduced for the purpose of rebutting a claim by the defendant that his confession was the result of coercion. United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1245 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980). The Tenth Circuit has permitted the government to introduce the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph test to explain why the police detective had not conducted a more thorough investigation. United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1986). In its attempt to mitigate the potential problems with polygraph evidence, the Sixth Circuit has promulgated a two-step approach to admission. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Id. at 972. The Ninth Circuit holds polygraph evidence admissible only in instances narrowly tailored to limit the prejudicial impact of the evidence. United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1989). The Miller court, in considering prior Ninth Circuit cases on this issue, noted that polygraph evidence might be admissible if it is "introduced for a limited purpose that is unrelated to the substantive correctness of the results of the polygraph examination." Id. at 1261. In United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), the court held that if "the polygraph evidence is being introduced because it is relevant that a polygraph examination was given, regardless of the result, then it may be admissible"

What you are looking at in general is a changing landscape concerning polygraph admissibility. if you dig into a lot of cases you'll see that #1 the evidence must be relevant which means having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue and #2 the probative value must outweigh the potential prejudice.
All evidence is subject to exclusion on that 2 pronged test.

What you should do is just stop saying that polygraph is inadmissible in court, but what I expect you to say now is that what you were saying all along is that polygraph is inadmissible in court except for New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.

I fully expect Sergeant to chime in here accusing me of an ad hominum attack, but I submit that based on your postings there is infinitely more evidence that you are a ignorant, misinformed fool than there is that I am small minded, self serving, a charlatan, an idiot, or even a polygraph examiner.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 29, 2008, 09:17 AM

QuoteI am sure that most victims that visit this site will see what I wrote was in fact accurate. oh...... except for New Mexico

 

Actually current general standard is that Judges are given discretion on whether or not to admit polygraph.

OK what about Ohio v. Sharma (Case No. CR 06-09-3248),
Hovenden v. State of Indiana, 92A03-9903-CR-10

and the following is excerpted from United States of America, v. Julio Piccinonna, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. - 885 F.2d 1529

Quote"the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and the Court of Military Appeals permit admission of polygraph evidence even in the absence of a stipulation when special circumstances exist. The Third and Seventh Circuits permit polygraph evidence to be introduced for the purpose of rebutting a claim by the defendant that his confession was the result of coercion. United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 923 (3rd Cir.1987); United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1245 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954, 100 S.Ct. 2923, 64 L.Ed.2d 812 (1980). The Tenth Circuit has permitted the government to introduce the fact that the defendant failed a polygraph test to explain why the police detective had not conducted a more thorough investigation. United States v. Hall, 805 F.2d 1410 (10th Cir.1986). In its attempt to mitigate the potential problems with polygraph evidence, the Sixth Circuit has promulgated a two-step approach to admission. Wolfel v. Holbrook, 823 F.2d 970 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1035, 98 L.Ed.2d 999 (1988). "First, the trial court must determine if the proffered evidence is relevant. Second, if the court concludes that the proffered evidence is relevant, it must balance the probative value of the evidence against the hazard of unfair prejudice and/or confusion which could mislead the jury." Id. at 972. The Ninth Circuit holds polygraph evidence admissible only in instances narrowly tailored to limit the prejudicial impact of the evidence. United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1989). The Miller court, in considering prior Ninth Circuit cases on this issue, noted that polygraph evidence might be admissible if it is "introduced for a limited purpose that is unrelated to the substantive correctness of the results of the polygraph examination." Id. at 1261. In United States v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 1337, 1341 (9th Cir.1988), the court held that if "the polygraph evidence is being introduced because it is relevant that a polygraph examination was given, regardless of the result, then it may be admissible"

What you are looking at in general is a changing landscape concerning polygraph admissibility. if you dig into a lot of cases you'll see that #1 the evidence must be relevant which means having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue and #2 the probative value must outweigh the potential prejudice.
All evidence is subject to exclusion on that 2 pronged test.

What you should do is just stop saying that polygraph is inadmissible in court, but what I expect you to say now is that what you were saying all along is that polygraph is inadmissible in court except for New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.

I fully expect Sergeant to chime in here accusing me of an ad hominum attack, but I submit that based on your postings there is infinitely more evidence that you are a ignorant, misinformed fool than there is that I am small minded, self serving, a charlatan, an idiot, or even a polygraph examiner.

Sancho Panza

You know what Sancho Panza I've had an epiphany.
YOUR RIGHT!!
Forget all that I have said in the past.
*I have chosen to follow you and your ideals.
*I am now willing to forget my personal experience.
*I am willing to disregard the NSA's report.
*I am willing to see that since I failed my test and have not been charged it must just be that the police lost my paperwork.
*I am willing to believe that most if not all false positives as well as false negatives ( Gary Ridgeway to mention one passed his poly) are just lies and possibly software glitches because Polygraphs detect lies at a rate of 98%
*I am willing to forget that examiners routinely LIE about Polygraph to bolster the publics idea that Polygraph does in fact detect lies.
*I am willing to suspend my assertion  that your position is a narrow minded, self serving one because you have no motive other than my own good to be here ( wasting countless hours on what you said were only a few vocal false positives ) to promote polygraphs validity.
* I am willing to acknowledge that just maybe I may have committed that crime, after all the polygraph said I was deceptive. Maybe the machine knows what I did or didn't do better than I do.
* I am willing to join forces with you and defeat all these disgruntled, pathetic liars that are clearly on here cause they have nothing better to do than waste countless hours posting and giving you a bad name, shame on them dam it!
I only wish I knew where you lived I would love to intern for you. I would love to breath the essence of you Sancho.
I can't tell you how grateful I am to you for showing me the light it is such a relief to have some one to lead so I need not rely on my obviously misguided intellect.
Funny thing is that he will probably buy all this  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

QuoteIt would just be an example of an error and errors occur in ANY scientific test.

There is that false syllogism again:

Errors occur in any scientific test.
The polygraph has errors.
The polygraph is therefore a scientific test!

Use of divining rods involve errors too.
Is use of a diving rod scientific?

As mentioned in another thread, the NAS report concluded that so called polygraph testing doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Just accept it.  The polygraph is an interrogation, not a valid test.  DNA testing is.  And it's testing procedure is not subjective like the polygraph and doesn't change across examiners, agencies...etc.

Mr. Webb, get help!  Mr. Sackett and Coffey are awaiting your arrival at the sanitarium.  You can all enjoy a relaxing cup of hot chocolate with them in the lounge.  Dr. Phil will be along afterwards to conduct a group session.  Don't be late!

Cullen  What happened to you?

Did you get angry and give somebody a piece of your mind then forget to ask for it back?

You haven't demonstrated that you have any qualifications whatsoever to determine what constitutes a scientific test and what doesn't.

Let me Give you a couple of hints. My last name is NOT Webb and No one has ever called me Skip but you.

Your powers of deduction rival the brilliance of a one watt bulb in front of a burning road flare at High Noon on an Arizona 4-lane highway.


Sancho Panza

Quote from: PhilGainey on Aug 27, 2008, 09:53 PM

QuoteYou know sancho if you would use your vast knowledge of polygraph and please explain how a truthful person fails a polygraph

OK pay attention. ANY scientific test by definition must have an error rate. If there is no error rate it cannot be called a scientific test. Scientific tests have accuracy rates and error rates. Accuracy Rate is what you have left after you subtract the error rate from 100% .Error rates are made up of False Positives and False Negatives. In Polygraph a False Positive is where the results of the examination indicate deception when the subject is telling the truth. A False Negative in Polygraph means that the results indicate truthfulness when the subject was in fact lying regarding a relevant issue. If you add the number of false positives to the number of false negatives and calculate the total as a percentage of the tests in a given group, you have the error rate.  

Generally in polygraph there are 3 possible results for examinations. Deception Indicated, No Deception Indicated and Inconclusive. Inconclusive results are not part of the error rate. Inconclusive just means that the data was unsuitable for evaluation. The NAS study said that more research needed to be done to quantify the error rate in polygraph. They said the same thing when they reviewed DNA research.

I can't tell you every possible thing that could cause an error in a polygraph test any more than you could tell me every possible thing that could cause an error in a DNA comparison.  From the literature I have read, polygraphists shouldn't do an exam after an aggressive interrogation due to the possibility of physiological exhaustion causing an error, they don't permit extra people in the polygraph room in order to avoid errors caused by distraction due to talking or movement of the 3rd party, they don't test people with recent injuries to avoid errors caused by chronic pain and they don't conduct tests on people unable to comprehend the meaning of questions to avoid errors caused by misunderstanding the meaning of a question, etc. I can't name them all but errors do occur. If you look at other scientific tests you would discover that many have a much higher error rate than any quantified by known studies for polygraph.  A TB skin test for example has an error rate between 30 and 70%.

Error rates cannot be affected from within a testing protocol. If you change your scoring/evaluation criteria to reduce false positives, false negatives will increase proportionately. Error rates can only be changed by altering the protocol in some fashion.

Since all scientific tests have error rates, necessarily forensic examinations used by the police also have error rates and a false positive in any of them could put a suspect in exactly the same predicament as a false positive in a polygraph test.
This includes but isn't limited to:

Latent Fingerprint comparison:   The FBI AFIS system sometimes provides dozens of probable matches that require further investigation. Sometimes it only kicks out one match and it's the wrong guy. Why? I don't know. Do you?
I won't do that with the rest  but they all have error rates
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Breath)
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Blood)
Handwriting Comparison
Statement Analysis
Determination of speed from skid marks
Determination of speed from yaw marks
Determination of speed from deformation of metal
Presence of blood
Presence of human blood
Marijuana field test
Marijuana Lab test
Heroin Field test
Heroin Lab Test
as a matter of fact to save time all presumptive tests for drugs whether in the field or lab have error rates.
Urinalysis
Ink analysis
Identification of trace evidence
Foot Print Comparison
Puzzle fit analysis
Ballistics
Hair Analysis
I still stand by my previous post that if you took all of the people who have posted on this board during the last 8 years whining that they told the truth and failed their polygraph and added them to the 1325 signatures including Joke Names, Duplications and  Line Voided, during that same time period, and compared them to the number of polygraph tests administered during that same time period, you would find that you are a member of a  very tiny yet vocal group, even if you assume that every one of your number is the victim of some error.  

I would argue that if every one of you were found to have some error on your polygraph you couldn't successfully invalidate the 98% accuracy rate claim that Jack Trimarco allegedly made to Dr. Maschke regarding polygraph.

While an error in your particular case may be significant to you because of your personal involvement, the mere possibility that an error was made in your case is not that significant to the big picture.

Do you really think your interrogation would have been any less traumatic if you didn't take a polygraph and the investigator decided you were the culprit? You just decided to focus on polygraph as the source of your discomfort when it was the interviewer that made you feel bad.

I don't know of anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime based solely on the results of a polygraph, but a blanket statement that they cannot be admitted as evidence is innacurate.

Sancho Panza  The character was the voice of reason in the face of insanity.

Or Perhaps a Fine Cigar

Ok since the threads title is Polygraph interrogation VS DNA testing.
I submit this scenario:
A women has been raped, a suspect is arrested, as part of the interrogation a Polygraph is administered ( as you know in an attempt   to get a confession because, thats all Polygraph is good for) suspect fails or passes the Polygraph, it's after all a possibility given the weak nature of the test, a confession is not attained. DNA evidence is found at the scene and on the victim, it's a match to the suspect.
At trial do you think that the Polygraph results will even be entered (what ever they may be) into the trial? I think not since they have a silver bullet in the DNA evidence a fully admissible scientific test that yields consistent valid and reliable results.
You stated yourself that you know of no one that has ever been convicted solely on the results of a Polygraph. However MANY have been convicted and cleared by DNA testing.
I doubt there are any DNA analysts on any web site defending their jobs.
So lets stop comparing Polygraph to actual proven and accepted  scientific tests Sancho
Now for comparison I submit crystal balls, tarot cards, psychics
(police actually use them at times in cold cases as last ditch attempts and throw logic out the window) these are all fairly comparable to Polygraph and the validity of the results.

IF IF IF IF

Notguilty1, Si su tía tuviera testículos, ella sería su tío.

It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way.

If DNA and latent Print Comparison confirms that the bloody palmprint found on the murder weapon belongs to the suspect and is the victim's blood, you're saying it would be all over right? Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.00?  

Or what if two fingerprint experts disagreed that the print was the suspects?

Or what if the DNA Match was only 1 in 1000 instead of one in a trillion?

Or what if there was a plausible reason for the boody print other than the suspect committing the murder?

Real Life isn't a Sherlock Holmes novel or CSI Miami. Crime Scene Specialists hardly ever get involved in shootouts or interviews and criminal cases are never won or lost based on one person's interpretation of a single piece of evidence.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 31, 2008, 08:38 AMIF IF IF IF

Notguilty1, Si su tía tuviera testículos, ella sería su tío.

It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way.

If DNA and latent Print Comparison confirms that the bloody palmprint found on the murder weapon belongs to the suspect and is the victim's blood, you're saying it would be all over right? Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200.00?  

Or what if two fingerprint experts disagreed that the print was the suspects?

Or what if the DNA Match was only 1 in 1000 instead of one in a trillion?

Or what if there was a plausible reason for the boody print other than the suspect committing the murder?

Real Life isn't a Sherlock Holmes novel or CSI Miami. Crime Scene Specialists hardly ever get involved in shootouts or interviews and criminal cases are never won or lost based on one person's interpretation of a single piece of evidence.

Sancho Panza
[/quote
FACT STILL REMAINS THAT DNA HAS, AND DOES ROUTINELY CONVICT CRIMINALS AND EXONERATE THE INNOCENT.
POLYGRAPH ON THE OTHER HAND HAS AND STILL DOES NOT. ANY EXPLANATION FOR THAT???? SANCHO???
Besides my example did not include a murder or a weapon, finger or palm prints, it was a rape with DNA left on the victim, semen if your need specifics
Very true to your style you alter the scenario to suit your needs. NICE TRY!
As I stated in my case scenario ( not CSI Miami, this scenario happens in real life every day) the DNA evidence would surly convict the suspect and Polygraph results would most likely not even be brought in. Why??? Because the Polygraph results ( without a confession as a direct result of the Polygraph interrogation) would be laughed at by any defense attorney and most likely by judge too.
My failed Polygraph is still sitting on the detectives desk doing NOTHING! Why would that be if it was so reliable ( the examiner told me 98% accurate!!) you'd think with a scientific, expensive ( I'm told) with a examiner with over 30 years experience why would it not be a slam dunk conviction?? I WAS NOT EVEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME IN SPITE OF MY FAILED POLYGRAPH.

NotGuilty! Wenn Ihre Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein

Let's use your example minus your unfounded presumptions.
"A women (Do you means woman or multiple victims?) has been raped, a suspect is arrested, as part of the interrogation a Polygraph is administered. The suspect fails or passes the Polygraph, a confession is not attained. DNA evidence is found at the scene and on the victim, it's a match to the suspect.
At trial do you think that the Polygraph results will even be entered (what ever they may be) into the trial? I think not since they have a silver bullet in the DNA evidence a fully admissible scientific test that yields consistent valid and reliable results. "

As to your question about Polygraph,  It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way.

As to whether or not the DNA is a "Silver Bullet" It is not absolute proof. In order to admit the DNA, the prosecutor has to prove that the victim was indeed raped, that the rapist actually ejaculated or leaked seminal fluid,(Many Rapists Don't),that the source of the DNA was really seminal fluid and uncontaminated by blood or epithelial cells,  that the seminal fluid was not transferred from another surface to the victim by contact,(Locard's Principle in action), that other possible suspect's know or unknown semen or DNA samples were not present. (Hotel Bedspreads may have stains or transfers from dozens of donors; Home bedding may have several depending on the habits of the people who live in the house and the quality of the alleged match. (1 in 1000 vs 1 in a trillion).  Then you have to prove that the sample was collected according to accepted forensic protocols, that the laboratory followed proper analysis procedure and finally that there was no police misconduct.

I assure you any defense attorney that didn't get his Law Degree from a box of Cracker Jack is going to attack all of those issues because if he can raise reasonable doubt in the mind of a single juror on just one of those issues, then the rapist walks out of court laughing at the system. Assuming of course, they had the right guy to begin with.  Remember, due to pre-trial discovery the defense attorney gets to plan his attack for months before the trial.

Even if you reconstruct your scenario to repair all those dents I just put in your "Silver Bullet" my answer regarding polygraph will still be based on what the courts have said so far. In other words It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way. One of the errors in your scenario would be that if the polygraph were offered as evidence by EITHER SIDE the results of the examination would be material to the probative value of the evidence, whether it bolstered the states evidence or refuted it.

I also have a problem with calling a test that can return match results anywhere from  1 in a thousand to 1 in a trillion "Consistent"

Of course all things being equal, an admissible confession in a rape case generally results in a Plea Deal, thus saving the victim from further trauma at the hands of the defense attorney and the state would save the time and expense of defending all of those attacks on your Silver Bullet.

Really Notguilty1   MOVE ON


Sancho Panza

NotGuilty1  

If Just If your polygraph was in fact a false positive what damages have you sufferred as a result other than an uncomfortable interrogation.

If you  really want to know why you weren't charged and it didn't have anything to do with you begging your boss for mercy and paying the money back, why don't you just ask the detective?

That would end the speculation, but if you want to claim it wasn't filed because the polygraph was the only evidence they had, be prepared to be asked for proof.  You aren't very believable.

Or if you're too embarrassed to ask,  send me his name and number and I'll call him for you.

If he submitted the case and the D.A. decided to Nolle prosequi with or without explanation the detective probably wasn't too happy either.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 31, 2008, 04:44 PMNotGuilty1  

If Just If your polygraph was in fact a false positive what damages have you sufferred as a result other than an uncomfortable interrogation.

If you  really want to know why you weren't charged and it didn't have anything to do with you begging your boss for mercy and paying the money back, why don't you just ask the detective?

That would end the speculation, but if you want to claim it wasn't filed because the polygraph was the only evidence they had, be prepared to be asked for proof.  You aren't very believable.

Or if you're too embarrassed to ask,  send me his name and number and I'll call him for you.

If he submitted the case and the D.A. decided to Nolle prosequi with or without explanation the detective probably wasn't too happy either.

Sancho Panza

Sancho again you show your pompous ass attitude and thanks for that.
No there is no IF in my case I did not commit the crime and there was also no IF in the false positive ( or better yet it did what Polygraphs do  "measure a reaction to a question)  and it had nothing to do with guilt.
I know this falls on deaf ears with you since your thing is to find liars with your silly machine.
I did not need to beg anyone and the accuser was not my "boss" and certainly didn't pay anything to him. I had nothing to do with that theft  so there was nothing to pay.
As to what I suffered. In dollars and cents probably little. What it showed me however was that there is a scam being perpetuated on the american public so I have been taught that when you see injustice you attempt all you can to right it. I am sure this was lost in your upbringing and you obviously have been taught to get yours no matter what the method.
As for asking the detective I have 2 responses.
1) I had nothing to do with the theft so if they have something to charge me with they know where I am. I am done being "cooperative"
2) The detective and his "examiner" have shown themselves to be liars and not above lying to an honest citizen that was more than willing to cooperate with the assumption that I was dealing with a man of honor. He clearly was not. In my subsequent research into the matter I discovered that the police are not on the side of the honest and simply want a confession ( this comes from police friends and family I have spoken to as well as other legal research).
The detective knows all he has is his silly poly result and that is inadmissible in court!

All I wish for you Sancho is that one day you'll be on the receiving end of your "test" . It can happen unless as I am sure you may, you decline to be tested because of your knowledge of the test in an attempt to get out of being tested.

JUST BECAUSE I DID NOT SUFFER ANY MONETARY LOSS AS A RESULT OF MY FAILED POLYGRAPH DOES NOT MEAN I DON'T STAND UP FOR WHAT I KNOW IS INJUSTICE AND GO AFTER GEEKS LIKE YOU AND THE SCAM YOU PERPETUATE ON OTHERS.

Sancho, sei proprio un deficente che non hai mai imparato il modo che si vive con horore !
how's that for language?

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 31, 2008, 04:27 PMNotGuilty! Wenn Ihre [highlight]Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein[/highlight]

Let's use your example minus your unfounded presumptions.
"A women (Do you means woman or multiple victims?) has been raped, a suspect is arrested, as part of the interrogation a Polygraph is administered. The suspect fails or passes the Polygraph, a confession is not attained. DNA evidence is found at the scene and on the victim, it's a match to the suspect.
At trial do you think that the Polygraph results will even be entered (what ever they may be) into the trial? I think not since they have a silver bullet in the DNA evidence a fully admissible scientific test that yields consistent valid and reliable results. "

As to your question about Polygraph,  It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way.

As to whether or not the DNA is a "Silver Bullet" It is not absolute proof. In order to admit the DNA, the prosecutor has to prove that the victim was indeed raped, that the rapist actually ejaculated or leaked seminal fluid,(Many Rapists Don't),that the source of the DNA was really seminal fluid and uncontaminated by blood or epithelial cells,  that the seminal fluid was not transferred from another surface to the victim by contact,(Locard's Principle in action), that other possible suspect's know or unknown semen or DNA samples were not present. (Hotel Bedspreads may have stains or transfers from dozens of donors; Home bedding may have several depending on the habits of the people who live in the house and the quality of the alleged match. (1 in 1000 vs 1 in a trillion).  Then you have to prove that the sample was collected according to accepted forensic protocols, that the laboratory followed proper analysis procedure and finally that there was no police misconduct.

I assure you any defense attorney that didn't get his Law Degree from a box of Cracker Jack is going to attack all of those issues because if he can raise reasonable doubt in the mind of a single juror on just one of those issues, then the rapist walks out of court laughing at the system. Assuming of course, they had the right guy to begin with.  Remember, due to pre-trial discovery the defense attorney gets to plan his attack for months before the trial.

Even if you reconstruct your scenario to repair all those dents I just put in your "Silver Bullet" my answer regarding polygraph will still be based on what the courts have said so far. In other words It's not up to me, It's up to the judge what evidence is admitted and if you have read my previous post regarding the courts where polygraph has been admitted and the criteria for admission you will see that it might go either way. One of the errors in your scenario would be that if the polygraph were offered as evidence by EITHER SIDE the results of the examination would be material to the probative value of the evidence, whether it bolstered the states evidence or refuted it.

I also have a problem with calling a test that can return match results anywhere from  1 in a thousand to 1 in a trillion "Consistent"

Of course all things being equal, an admissible confession in a rape case generally results in a Plea Deal, thus saving the victim from further trauma at the hands of the defense attorney and the state would save the time and expense of defending all of those attacks on your Silver Bullet.

Really Notguilty1   MOVE ON


Sancho Panza

Your childish posts show your fear that the truth is upon you.
sancho wrote at the start of this post:
Wenn Ihre Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein

Sancho, My grandmother did not have testicles so she wasn't my grandfather. Me on the other hand .... I do have them and use them when appropriate and look behind you sancho because a set of testicles attached to a large bull is on you. ;D ;D ;D
BTW I will withhold any comment on your grandparents or parents. I am sure they are fine people that have enough with dealing with how you turned out.  :'( :'(

QuoteSancho, sei proprio un deficente che non hai mai imparato il modo che si vive con horore !
how's that for language?

Hows that for language???  I guess it's  about normal from you it contains misspellings and syntax errors that render translation difficult if not impossible.  Sorta like your english.

Sancho Panza

Quotesancho wrote at the start of this post:
Wenn Ihre Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein

Notguilty1 I want to make this very clear that statement was not meant to cast aspersions on your grandmother and if that is the way you interpreted it, I sincerely apologize.

The correct translation is "If your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather". and it was a comment on your constant "what iffing"   Sort of like "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped.
I have no direct knowledge of your grandmother and if I did I would be too much of a gentelman to say.

As for your threat.

QuoteMe on the other hand ....  I do have them and use them when appropriate and look behind you sancho because a set of testicles attached to a large bull is on you.

Are you threatening me with rape?  I hate to dissappoint you but I don't roll like that. Not that I have anythng against you, Your sexual habits are none of my concern. Live like you want to live. Just don't try to force your lifestyle on me.

BUT you need to put your "Silver Bullet" argument back in your shirt pocket Barney and move on before you shoot your toe off.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 31, 2008, 09:46 PM

QuoteSancho, sei proprio un deficente che non hai mai imparato il modo che si vive con horore !
how's that for language?

Hows that for language???  I guess it's  about normal from you it contains misspellings and syntax errors that render translation difficult if not impossible.  Sorta like your english.

Sancho Panza

If you knew language instead of using a dictionary you would understand what I wrote.
You seem to have no difficulty reading my english.  :o :o :o :o

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Aug 31, 2008, 10:14 PM

Quotesancho wrote at the start of this post:
Wenn Ihre Großmutter Hoden hätte, würde sie Ihr Großvater sein

Notguilty1 I want to make this very clear that statement was not meant to cast aspersions on your grandmother and if that is the way you interpreted it, I sincerely apologize.

The correct translation is "If your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather". and it was a comment on your constant "what iffing"   Sort of like "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped.
I have no direct knowledge of your grandmother and if I did I would be too much of a gentelman to say.

As for your threat.

QuoteMe on the other hand ....  I do have them and use them when appropriate and look behind you sancho because a set of testicles attached to a large bull is on you.

Are you threatening me with rape?  I hate to dissappoint you but I don't roll like that. Not that I have anythng against you, Your sexual habits are none of my concern. Live like you want to live. Just don't try to force your lifestyle on me.

BUT you need to put your "Silver Bullet" argument back in your shirt pocket Barney and move on before you shoot your toe off.

Sancho Panza

Clearly my ignorant geek my statement went over your head which from your posts is not that high.
However it has uncovered another character flaw. Homophobia!
Not surprised at all by the way.
I will not participate in lowering myself to making the kind of judgmental comments you have. I have no interest in your sexual habits. ( I highly assume you have none so any would be an improvement )

If you cannot understand my "threat" as you put it you will in due time.

But we digress, In Sancho's feeble attempt to take the eye off the topic at hand which is he is totally losing any logical argument in favor of Polygraph's validity as a test to measure deception.
This is the point of this site and the point we want to make to all that come here to find the truth about Polygraph
Sancho has reduced himself with arguing with someone who he finds to be ignorant and illiterate. Sad place to be Sancho.
I would hate to have a job were I have to spend the time you do defending what I do for a living..... ;D ;D
Ma Sancho, sei proprio un mal'educato parlando nella maniera che parli.
Peccato che non capisci cosa ti dico. ;D ;D ;D

If not trusting you  behind me with your testicles exposed is all it takes to make me a homophobe,  BUY ME A T-SHIRT.

If you lack the capacity to accept a sincere apology, I suggest you alternately  pracitice aviated intercourse with a perforated pastry in axial motion.

As to me understanding your threat in due time. All I can say is that it takes a real brave guy to threaten someone from behind the anonymity of a bulletin board.

as to changing the subject...  What happened to your "silver bullet" barney?  What happened to your contention that If you got DNA the outcome of a case is on auto pilot? You seem to know even less about criminal investigation than you do about polygraph and I'm suprised. I didn't think it was possible.

Notguilty1 you are exibiting the behavior of a pusillanimous supercilious twit.

Over my head? Poor boy, you couldn't reach the soles of my shoes with a 3 section extention ladder.
You have yet to make a single supported point except for the one located between your ears.
And for now, You and I are DONE.

Sancho Panza

Quote from: SanchoPanza on Sep 01, 2008, 12:28 AMIf not trusting you  behind me with your testicles exposed is all it takes to make me a homophobe,  BUY ME A T-SHIRT.

If you lack the capacity to accept a sincere apology, I suggest you alternately  pracitice aviated intercourse with a perforated pastry in axial motion.

As to me understanding your threat in due time. All I can say is that it takes a real brave guy to threaten someone from behind the anonymity of a bulletin board.

as to changing the subject...  What happened to your "silver bullet" barney?  What happened to your contention that If you got DNA the outcome of a case is on auto pilot? You seem to know even less about criminal investigation than you do about polygraph and I'm suprised. I didn't think it was possible.

Notguilty1 you are exibiting the behavior of a pusillanimous supercilious twit.

Over my head? Poor boy, you couldn't reach the soles of my shoes with a 3 section extention ladder.
You have yet to make a single supported point except for the one located between your ears.
And for now, You and I are DONE.

Sancho Panza

Sancho it was YOU who brought the classless "testicle" or, as you so eloquently put it "balls" element into this conversation and now, "exposed" testicles! ( wow Sancho what an imagination can anyone say..... therapy?)
How very consistent of you to twist reality to bolster your "findings"
sounds like classic polygrapher crap to me. Do you ever do anything else like think for your self?

My scenario would result in a conviction as a direct result of DNA evidence. Of course, the likes of you and Polygraph would have no influence in that, and that kills you and your pseudo- science world. You so much want to be taken seriously in the "real" world.
It would, and does every day constitute a "silver bullet" in this scenario and in scenarios like it. Maybe you should get your head out of the APA books and actually read a newspaper.

As for my "threat" again, a twist of reality from you Sancho.
I decline to be the person to educate you.  :-? :-?
If you need to have a persecution complex I completely understand given the unrealistic position you hold on Polygraph.
I am sure the readers here WILL understand what I meant. I am not concerned if you do. ;) ;)
News flash......THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU SANCHO.  ;D ;D ;D ;D