I have been following this site with interest for just about one year now. I have finally decided to share my two experiences becuase I really want feedback from the members of this site. Here it goes.
I was a reserve police officer for the LAPD from 1990 to 1993. In 1993, I was accused of fondling my 16 year old neighbor's breasts over her clothing. A criminal investigation was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's Department (I lived in a county area at the time) and I was cleared completely. I had proof that she was lying. To keep this post short and readable I have omitted the details, but I would be happy to discuss the entire incident in other posts if anyone is interested.
Since I was a police officer, LAPD's Internal Affairs also investigated the incident after the LASD completed the criminal investigation. The lead IAD investigator told me that it came down to my word against hers. While he felt that I am a credible person and that my neighbor was not very credible (she kept changing major detials of her story), he would like me to take a polygraph to erase any shadow of a doubt in his mind. He told me that if I passed the poly, he would be convinced of my innocence and he would close the case as unfounded.
When I took the poly, I was told that I was DI on all relevant questions and that I used countermeasures by controlling my breathing. I was telling the entire truth during the exam. I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner. While I was controlling my breathing, I was not attempting any countermeasures. At that time, I did not know what countermeasures were or how to employ them. I was controlling my breathing by breathing in deeply and rhythmically as way to remain calm. I have done this since I was a child. If I had any idea that this behavior could be considered an indication of deception, I would not have done so. During the test, the poly examiner never said anything about my breathing. I only learned that the examiner accused me of using countermeasures after the test.
I was subjected to a hostile post test interrogation by not one, but two investigators. I contuined to insist that I was not lying, no matter what the machine said. Again, to keep this post readable, I am leaving out a lot of detail but the second investigator told me that if I confessed I would just be suspeneded and not fired. Since being a police officer was the fullfillment of a lifelong dream, I foolishly belived him and said I was guilty of fondling my neighbor. Of course, I was immediately fired and not suspended as I was told.
This has kept me out of law enforcement for 9 years. Over this past year, I have decided to apply to numerous law enforcement agencies in the LA area, since other than this incident I have a lily-white background and lot of time as passed since the incident. As soon as I tell them in the oral interview what happend to me with LAPD, I fail the interview. Except one. A small suburban agency decided to give me a shot. I passed the interview and proceeded to the background.
Last week, my background investigator called me and told me that everyone he has spoken to about me has given me a positively glowing reference. He said that he has reviewed the LAPD incident and that he is willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. He told me that if I pass his agency's CVSA exam, he would recomend me for hire.
I took the CVSA exam two days ago, and failed that one as well. This exam was a relevant/irrelevant test. Once again, I told the entire truth, and employed no countermeasures. The CVSA examiner refused to tell me which questions he says I was deceptive on. He did say that I was showing deception on a question that I should not have shown any deception on. I found this very interesting. I am curious to know what others on this site think of my situation. I would really like to hear what polycop and publicservant have to say. I was totally honset, employed no countermeasures, but still failed. Why is that? ???
Johnson,
Let me be the first to give a reply. It took you 15 sentences into yout post to offer some sort of denial regarding the allegation against you. In that denial you simply state, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner." Interesting way to pu it. You "had" never (slight change in tense) touched your neighbors breasts , or (gramatical error) in any other sexual or inappropriate manner (qualifier). In what manner did you touch her breasts then?
Again, another "innocent" who admits guilt just to get out from under. You actually admitted to sexually assaulting your 16 year old neighbor when you didn't really do it, and only because you were offered some sort of deal?
Here's the answer as to why you failed both the polygraph and the CVSA, you lied! You touched that girl's breasts in some manner. She may not have been totally factual in her allegation, however the gist of her allegation was true and you know it.
No doubt some on this site will jump to your defense, however I would caution them about continuing to give advise to individuals such as yourself.
Batman
Batman,
When you accuse Joseph of having lied (you wrongly addressed him as "Johnson," which makes one wonder just how carefully you read his post), you draw too much conclusion on the basis of too little evidence.
First, you claim that it took Joseph 15 sentences before he made some kind of denial. Not true. His 6th & 7th sentences are:
QuoteA criminal investigation was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's Department (I lived in a county area at the time) and I was cleared completely. I had proof that she was lying.
Joseph also attests to his innocence in his 14th sentence, where he writes:
QuoteI was telling the entire truth during the exam.
Your conclusion that Joseph lied seems to be based largely on the following sentence (the 15th):
QuoteI had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner.
You assume based on a grammatical error in the above sentence that Joseph must have touched his neighbors breasts in some manner. That's not necessarily the case. What Joseph seems to have meant to write is, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, nor had I touched her in any other sexual or inappropriate manner."
Joseph's use of the past perfect tense is entirely consistent with his use of the past continuous in the previous ("I was telling the entire truth during the exam") and following ("While I was controlling my breathing, I was not attempting any countermeasures") sentences. While Joseph's use of the past perfect does leave open the possibility that he touched his neighbor's breasts some time after the polygraph interrogation, there is no rational basis for assuming this to have occurred.
Batman, you seem to be a student of what is called "statement analysis." Perhaps you've been trained in the "Scientific Content Analysis" or "SCAN" technique advanced by Avinoam Sapir, a former Israeli police polygrapher who now runs what he calls the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. (http://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm) While the methodology Sapir teaches may be useful in critically evaluating a statement,
there is nothing "scientific" about it, and the "Laboratory for Scientifc Interrogation" has not published any research whatsoever. For further reading, see Robert A. Shearer's article, "Statement analysis: SCAN or scam? (scientific content analysis)" (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/3_23/54600095/print.jhtml) which was published in the May-June 1999 issue of
Skeptical Inquirer.Because of the emotionally charged nature of the relevant questions in Joseph's LAPD polygraph interrogation, it is especially easy to understand how he could have "failed" this pseudoscientific "test" despite telling the truth.
Moreover, it is not unheard of for innocent persons to make false confessions. Joseph seems to have been naive and gullible. His interrogators falsely convinced him that he was going to be fired if he did not make a confession, but that if he confessed, he would only be suspended. Such a Hobson's choice gives a trusting innocent person a powerful incentive to make a false confession. This seems to be precisely what happened in the case of Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, from whom an FBI polygrapher coerced a false confession regarding his alleged ownership of an aviation radio, leading to Higazy's wrongful incarceration in solitary confinement for about a month. He'd no doubt still be in jail had not the rightful owner of the radio come forward. (For more on this, see the message thread, Polygraph helps coerce false confession (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=700.msg3979#msg3979).)
Batman,
Thanks for your response. Sorry about my grammatical errors, but I tend to write how I talk. I qualified my denial with, "in any sexual or inappropriate manner" because there were times when I had touched my neighbor on her arm, her back, and her shoulder. Once again, these were not sexual touchings and that is an important distinction. So, one of the relevant questions on both my LAPD poly and the other agency's CVSA was, "Have you ever touched XXXX in an inappropriate way?" rather than just, "Have you ever touched XXXX?"
As far as my false confession goes, like George says, I was young (22 at the time), naive, and terrified. The IAD investigator made it clear that the only way to clear my name was to pass this poly exam. I was afraid of the consequences should I fail the exam (loss of my childhood dream, shame and embarassment in front of my fellow officers, not being able to work in law enforcement ever again, etc) and was under extreme pressure and stress. The night before the exam, I only got about two hours of sleep, because I was so worried about the outcome of the poly. I did not eat or drink anything before the poly. So when I walked in the door of Parker Center I only had a been awake for about 20 hours and had nothing to eat for over eight hours. I have no doubt that these two circumstances contributed to my lack of judgement that day.
In addition, the poly examiner who actually administered the exam to me subjected me to a very unpleasant post test interrogation for about two hours, during which I steadfastly denied my guilt and I maintained that I had told the entire truth during the exam. The first examiner left (the "bad cop") and about 30 minutes later the second examiner (the "good cop") entered and interrogated me for about another hour.
During the second interrogation I continued to deny my guilt and insisted that I was not lying during the poly exam. This second interrogator was much more pleasant than the first. It was the second examiner who told me that he knew I was guilty, and as a result I was going to be fired. But not because of what my neighbor accused me of doing, but because I was lying during the investigation. He said that was a much more serious charge. If I just told the truth and confessed, the department would know I was trustworthy and deserved to be a police officer. If I confessed, he would see to it that I just got suspended and not fired. I could then resume my law enforcement career with a clean slate. Becasue of all the mitigating circumstances I listed above, I stupidly believed this second person and agreed to confess just so I would not be fired.
The next day, I realized what I had done, so I called up IAD and told them I was retracting my confession. I only confessed because the second poly examiner told me I would only be suspended and not fired if I confessed. As a result of that, I was reinterviewed by IAD, but they refused to throw out my confession. They said that once it was out of my mouth, there was no taking it back. As a result of my confession only, the complaint was sustained. All my evidence that proved my neighbor was lying about the whole incident was ignored.
Joseph,
I am inclined to believe your statements as I work for the LASD and they are VERY thorough investigating police officers accused of crimes as well as their own through the IAB. What is suprising is that the LASD didn't run a polygraph on you. How long did they investigate the allegations? If they were that satisfied with the results without a poly, then it would be a fair assumption you did nothing wrong.
What I find troubling is that the LAPD seems to have totally ignored the LASD investigation. You don't mention the LAPD IAD having any comment on the LASD's inquiry. Will you please elaborate on that point? It seems like there is no spirit of cooperation between agencies here.
You were a police officer, you had your integrity challenged and you stuck to your guns. The LASD cleared you, that wasn't good enough for the LAPD. The LAPD invstigators LIED in order to extract a confession that didn't exist. You were young and naive, they worked that to their advantage. I hope that you have read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector and educated yourself about the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Fred F. ;)
Batman,
A quick thought for you. If everyone who can't pass a polygraph is guilty, then why do our revered leaders in Congress refuse to submit to one if they are not guilty of leaking information. Maybe a chance of Deception Indicated?
Joesph,
Let me tell you, I know how you feel about watching your childhood dream fade away. You may want to look into a non-polygraph department such as NYPD or Phili PD. They hire LOTS, especially NYPD, They hired almost 900 officers. Some with misdermeanors that were waved. Do three years there then re-apply in California. Thats what a friend of mine did.
Batman,
You never seem to amaze me, you would change the wording on COPS on TV theme song to "all suspects are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law!" I noticed you havent answered my question in reference to the Drill Sergeant wrongfuly court martialed, who passed the poly but was still court martialed.
OK, OK,
Joseph, Johnson, Bnicknell, Friendtoall, I admit it, I sometimes get them all mixed up. My apologigies to Johnson for throwing him in with such a group as the rest.
Now Joseph, how naive were you at age 22 and having been a reserve police officer from 1990 to 1993? You would want me to believe you just fell off the turnip truck, however it is apparent you had been hanging around the lamp post for at least a few years. You were afraid of the "shame and embarassment" in front of your fellow officers, and "not being able to work in law enforcement ever again, etc." First, what exactly is the "etc" that you seem reluctant to reveal. Second, it would seem to me it would be better to be thought a molester, than to confess and leave no doubt. Did you really think that by confessing you would put yourself in a better position to remain in law enforcement or maintain the respect of your fellow officers? Of course you would want me to believe you confesssed because of all the "mitigating circumstances" you listed, not because you actually touched this girl's breasts.
You admit that you had touched your neighbor on her arm, back, and shoulder. Under what circumstances? Were you dating, horsing around, just brushing by? Over what period of time did this occur? Was it when you were 19 and she was 13 or was it when you were 22 and she was 16? Were you two alone or were there others present? Did you have any other type of physical contact with her, and was your contact limited to one time? Why do you think the allegation was made? What prompted her to accuse you of touching her breasts when, as you state, you only touched her arm, back, and shoulder? You may believe your touching of her (to whatever extent this was) was appropriate therefore you believe you were telling the truth during your polygraph. If the polygraph examiner was so stupid as to actually ask, "Have you ever touched XXXX in an inappropriate way?" then shame on him. How would you have done if he simply asked, "Did you ever touch XXXX's breasts at any time?"
Once again, in a rather lengthy post you still do not come right out and deny the allegation. You spin a good tale as to how you denied your guilt in past interviews, but you have yet to simply say, "I did not touch her breasts in any way at any time."
I have been told that I have drawn too much conclusion on too little evidence. I draw my conclusion on what is provided, which in reality is enough. Joseph, you consciously left out details on both posts which in and of itself is very telling. Again if I were a betting man, I would say that on at least one ocassion you had some type of sexual encounter with your 16 year old neighbor. It may have gone further than she alleged, but the bottom line is she eventually levied an allegation that you touched her breasts, over her clothes. Now the question is, was it a willing encounter that maybe she wanted to build on, but you did not, therefore she makes the allegation, or is it possible that maybe you read something into your 16 year old neighbor's actions and took it upon yourself to go one step further. Maybe she never stopped your touching of her arm, shoulder and back therefore you tought you could go to the next level. What do you think Joseph?
Jet-Journalist: Sorry, didn't catch your question about the Drill Sergeant who was wrongfully Court-Martialed. You mention he passed a polygraph but was still Court-Martialed. What does the polygraph have to do with his being courted? I would think the anti-polygraph folks would be glad to see this; the Government actually ignoring the results of such bogus science and pressing on ;D. Also, if polygraph is such a farce, then why would a passed polygraph prove anything? We all know it simply doesn't work. ;) It all Voodoo Science. It would be interesting to know more about the case. Where can I go to obtain more information?
Batman
PS: Joseph, I appreciate your coming to your own defense, however you'll have to a bit quicker on the draw to beat George and a few others. Beech Trees must be on vacation or he would have been right behind George. George, when you come to a quick stop do you ever feel Beech Trees?
Batman,
You write in part:
QuoteI have been told that I have drawn too much conclusion on too little evidence. I draw my conclusion on what is provided, which in reality is enough....
No. It's not enough. Your analysis is seriously flawed, for the reasons I explained in detail above, and to which you have not substantively responded. Your childish quip, "George, when you come to a quick stop do you ever feel Beech Trees?" is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.
Roger that George, but why not let Joseph speak for himself. Again, what's with you guys that you can't let someone offer their own defense, and how come nobody defends little old me when folks like Jet come after me :'(.
Joseph, what do you think? How far off base am I? Even though others want to deflect what I am saying, you are the only one posting on this site who really knows how accurate I have been here.
Like I said, you have to be pretty quick in your response or folks like George will beat you to it. Don't let thme speak for you. Offer up your own denials if you will, or will you keep :-X.
Batman
Batman,
You accused Joseph of lying based solely on your "statement analysis" of his initial post. Again, as I have pointed out, your conclusion went well beyond the evidence of that text.
Why won't you substantively respond to my critique of your analysis (in the 3rd message of this thread)? I take your lack of any substantive response (combined with your puerile taunts and request that I "let Joseph speak for himself") as a tacit admission on your part that your conclusion that Joseph lied was not well-reasoned.
George,
Are you Joseph by proxy or what? Let the guy have some air time will ya! I don't know what you want me to respond to. I have come to my conclusions, whether you believe them to be right or wrong is of no consequence. Regardless, there is no way I would be able to convince you so I will simply state again, I believe Joseph did what his 16 year old neighbor accused him of, if not more. This is based on a variety of factors. He did not deny it in either of his posts (someone saying he was "telling the truth during the entire exam" is not a denial when he doesn't tell us exactly what he was asked during the exam), he failed a polygraph (even though we all know that doesn't count for anything), he confessed to it (but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired), and he failed a CVSA (for what that may or not be worth), but to his credit, he did not specify as to what issue he actually failed that particular test on, even though I suspect it pertained to the neighbor's allegation.
Why do you believe he didn't do it? What do you base that conclusion on? Whatever basis you have for that conclusion is most likely less sound than mine. Or do you believe he is not being totally honest in his postings? You mention the possibility of his "leaving open the possibility he touched his neighbor's breasts...". What do you mean by this? Do you believe him or not? I would think you would get a little sore by constantly riding that fence. Personally I think you don't believe him, you're just afraid to say it. Well, I'm not. Joseph did what was alleged by his neighbor, if not more.
Batman
Batman,
You write:
QuoteAre you Joseph by proxy or what? Let the guy have some air time will ya!
My critique of your analysis does not deny any "air time" to Joseph. But it seems to upset you.
QuoteI don't know what you want me to respond to.
Honest? ::)
QuoteI have come to my conclusions, whether you believe them to be right or wrong is of no consequence.
Perhaps.
QuoteRegardless, there is no way I would be able to convince you...
The only person you can truly know will not be convinced by rational argument is yourself, Batman.
Quote...so I will simply state again, I believe Joseph did what his 16 year old neighbor accused him of, if not more. This is based on a variety of factors. He did not deny it in either of his posts (someone saying he was "telling the truth during the entire exam" is not a denial when he doesn't tell us exactly what he was asked during the exam), he failed a polygraph (even though we all know that doesn't count for anything), he confessed to it (but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired), and he failed a CVSA (for what that may or not be worth), but to his credit, he did not specify as to what issue he actually failed that particular test on, even though I suspect it pertained to the neighbor's allegation.
Joseph very clearly denied his then 16-year-old neighbor's accusation in his first post, multiple times, as I pointed out in my first reply to you. It's true that he did not explicitly state, "I did not fondle my 16-year-old neighbor's breasts," but he did state the following:
- "A criminal investigation was conducted by the LA County Sheriff's Department (I lived in a county area at the time) and I was cleared completely. I had proof that she was lying."
- "I was telling the entire truth during the exam." (The matter under investigation in the LAPD IAD polygraph exam was the neighbor's allegations.)
- "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, or in any other sexual or inappropriate manner." (Again, this sentence admittedly contains a grammatical error, but the intent seems to have been, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts, nor had I touched her in any other sexual or inappropriate manner.")
These statements substantively amount to a denial of the neighbor's accusation. But you seemingly disregard all this because Joseph did not explicitly state "I didn't do it." Your thinking in this regard seems to be heavily influenced by the doctrines of Avinoam Sapir of the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. (http://www.lsiscan.com/index.htm) As I recall (I took his "Scientific Content Analysis," or "SCAN" course in the mid-1980s), one of the cornerstones of his technique was to "scan" a suspect's statement for an explicit "I didn't do it" statement, and that the absence of such a statement was an indication of guilt.
It should be borne in mind, however, that Sapir's methodology (like CQT polygraphy) has no grounding in the scientific method. It's codified conjecture (some of it admittedly plausible) masquerading as "science." A second point that should perhaps be borne in mind is that Sapir's statement analysis methodology is centered on suspects (or potential suspects) who have been asked to "tell their story" to investigators. Joseph wrote his statement under a different set of circumstances. He didn't write this statement to give his side of the story to investigators who may have suspected him of a crime. Everything he wrote was prefatory to his question about how it is that he failed a CVSA "test" even though he was totally honest and did not employ countermeasures (a question I have not yet addressed).
You cite Joseph's failure of a polygraph "test" as a reason for not believing him, parenthetically adding, "even though we all know that doesn't count for anything." Well, obviously, his having "failed" a polygraph "test"
does mean something to
you, Batman. Why else would you cite it as a reason for not believing Joseph?
You note that Joseph confessed to the neighbor's accusation. Here at last is a plausible reason for doubting his denial. But you flippantly add, "but he was young and naive, hungry, and tired." I suggest that Joseph's explanation of how he was induced to make a false confession is entirely plausible, and consistent with experience in other cases, like that of Abdallah Higazy. (On the subject of false confessions, see Peter Brooks' op-ed piece "The Truth About Confessions" (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/opinion/01BROO.html) in today's (1 Sep. 2002)
New York Times.)You also cite as a reason for doubting Joseph's veracity his failure of a CVSA "test." But failing (or passing) a CVSA "test" is evidence of absolutely nothing, and your citing this as a reason for disbelieving Joseph speaks more to your ignorance than to Joseph's truthfulness or lack thereof.
CVSA "testing" is completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever. Like CQT polygraphy,
it's a fraud. Some anecdotal evidence that may nonetheless be of interest: I had the opportunity earlier this year to experiment with a CVSA laptop computer. I simply uttered the word "No" into the microphone without any question being asked. I was under no stress whatsoever. But about 1/3 of the time, the CVSA software indicated stress (and hence deception) in my voice.
You also write:
QuoteWhy do you believe he didn't do it? What do you base that conclusion on?
I have not said that I believe he didn't do it. My point to you was that your conclusion that he did goes well beyond the evidence of his statement.
However, I do find that Joseph's account is completely plausible. His civil reply to your venomous and ill-reasoned accusations adds to his credibility, in my opinion.
QuoteYou mention the possibility of his "leaving open the possibility he touched his neighbor's breasts...". What do you mean by this?
If you understood what the past perfect tense is, you would not have asked this question. What I meant was this: Joseph wrote in his first post, "I had never touched my neighbor's breasts..." If this is true, it still leaves open the possiblity that he had touched his neighbor's breasts at some point in time
after the polygraph examination. Get it? Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, there is no rational basis for assuming this post-examination touching of breasts to have occurred.
QuoteDo you believe him or not?
I see no compelling reason not to. Of course, it's possible he has not told the truth here, but your ill-reasoned "statement analysis" is not convincing.
QuoteI would think you would get a little sore by constantly riding that fence. Personally I think you don't believe him, you're just afraid to say it. Well, I'm not. Joseph did what was alleged by his neighbor, if not more.
Perhaps I'm just more reluctant to label people as liars based on the scantest of evidence (or no evidence at all) than you are, Batman.
George,
I'm tired and have to take a nap so I'll get back to you tomorrow, however, I'd swear you and Beech Trees are one and the same. This last post of yours looks and sounds a lot like his responses to several of my past posts. It's almost creepy how similar they are. The pulling of the quotes with short little one word responses, and the tone; just rings a lot like Beech. Kinda wierd, don't ya think? :-/ Honestly, are you him or is he you. I know I'm me, but I don't know if you're him. You know what I mean?
Tomorrow I'll adress some of his/your comments in your/his last post. You know this can get confusing, how about I just refer to you as "G-B" from now on. ;) Later.
Batman
Batman,
I am not "Beech Trees." I give you my word of honor, for what it may be worth to you.
Quote from: Batman on Sep 01, 2002, 09:34 PMI'm tired and have to take a nap so I'll get back to you tomorrow, however, I'd swear you and Beech Trees are one and the same. This last post of yours looks and sounds a lot like his responses to several of my past posts. It's almost creepy how similar they are. The pulling of the quotes with short little one word responses, and the tone; just rings a lot like Beech. Kinda wierd, don't ya think? :-/ Honestly, are you him or is he you. I know I'm me, but I don't know if you're him. You know what I mean?
Tomorrow I'll adress some of his/your comments in your/his last post. You know this can get confusing, how about I just refer to you as "G-B" from now on. ;) Later.
Schizophrenia (http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc2415.htm) (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions)... the
paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur.
Other symptoms (I have taken the liberty of placing in
bold face those symptoms most glaringly obvious):
- Inability to make decisions
- Confusion
- Hallucinations
- Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
- Delusions
- Nervousness
- Strange statements or behavior
- Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
- Neglect of personal hygiene
- Anger
- Indifference to the opinions of others
- A tendency to argue
- A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you
Enjoy your nap. We'll be here when you wake up.
Batman,
I have noted over the months, that others in the poly camp (as did you) have doubted the independent existences of George, Gino, Drew, Beech and other regular contributors to this site. Is this because no polygrapher has ever seen 3 or 4 educated articulate people in the same room at the same time?? ;)
I HAVE NEVER, EVER, TOUCHED MY NEIGHBOR'S BREASTS!!!
Since I made a clear and unequivical denial in the first line of this post I hope that puts to rest any more discussion of any significance in the location of my denials.
I will answer all the questions Batman and Fred F. have asked me in their posts.
Fred F., thanks for your support. I do not know how long LASD's investigation lasted. My next post will answer Batman's questions, and in that post I will discuss exactly what my neighbor accused me of and how I proved she was lying about the entire thing. I do know that LASD interviewed her three times before they interviewed me. Once was by the patrol deputy who wrote the preliminary report, and twice by the LASD detectives assigned to the case. They interviewed me twice, the second time just two days after my first interview at the station. The second interview was conducted in my home. I was told by the detective the day after my second interview that I "disproved her allegations" (The detective's exact words. I still remember them after all these years) and that no criminal charges would be filed aganist me.
Per LAPD's policy, I notifed my station's reserve coordinator of the criminal investigation and the results of it. I found out that the LASD detectives had already been in touch with LAPD's IAD, so there was some cooperation between them.
You're right when you say that they ignored the results of LASD's investigation. They glossed over the evidence I had that proved my innocence and the fact that my neighbor kept changing major details in her story by claiming that she "exaggerated some details" and that the fondling was "consensual."
I HAVE NEVER, EVER, TOUCHED MY NEIGHBOR'S BREASTS!!!
Batman,
I hope that statement puts to rest any lingering doubts you might have that I have not denied fondling my neighbor in my previous posts.
Anyway, here are my responses to the questions you asked me. You asked:
"Now Joseph, how naive were you at age 22 and having been a reserve police officer from 1990 to 1993?" I think I was pretty naive then. I had lead a sheltered life. In fact, I was still living at home with my mother and my sister in 1993 when this incident happened. I was hired by LAPD when I was just 19, practically right out of high school. You know how xenophobic police officers can be. I did not socialize with people outside of law enforcement, and I was a shy person to begin with.
You asked: "Did you really think that by confessing you would put yourself in a better position to remain in law enforcement or maintain the respect of your fellow officers?" Yes, Batman, I really did. I know better now, with the benefit of 9 years of hindsight. As I said in my previous posts, I suffered from a major lack of judgement back then.
In an effort to keep my post short and readable, I will lay out her entire allegations and my proof she was lying about the entire thing in my next post. That will answer most of the other questions you asked me.
You said: "Joseph, you consciously left out details on both posts which in and of itself is very telling." As I explained in my first post, I was leaving out a lot of detail in that post to keep it short. Most people (me included) do not like to read a lengthly post. I want as many people as possible to read my post and give me their opinion as to why I failed a polygraph and a CVSA when I told the truth. I also said that I would gladly fill in those missing details in subsequent posts, and that is exactly what I am doing right now.
Finally, you said: "but to his credit, he did not specify as to what issue he actually failed that particular test on, even though I suspect it pertained to the neighbor's allegation." I asked the CVSA examiner what questions he claimed I was deceptive on. He refused to tell me! He actually said, "I am not at liberty to discuss that." Like you, I think it was at least one of the questions he asked about my neighbor's allegations. He told me that the chart showed "something is bothering you about touching XXXX's breasts." In another post, I think I will list all the relevant questions he asked me. I would be interested in your opinion.
Ok, here is the entire story. First some background:
My neighbor, I'll call her Mary here, though that is not her real name, was good friends with my sister. Mary and my sister were in the same grade in school, that is how they met. I think Mary moved to the neighborhood when she was seven or eight, so I would have been about 14 when we first met. Mary was always coming over to the house to play with my sister. Mary and my sister remained friends all the way up to high school, then they began to drift apart. By that time, I had graduated from high school and was hired as a reserve police officer with LAPD. I was attending the local community college part time, and I was working part time, waiting until I turned 21 when I could become a full-time officer. In fact, when the incident occured, I was going through the process to get hired full-time.
Even though Mary and my sister were not as close as they once had been, she came over to the house on almost a daily basis. She did not want to see my sister, she came over to see me. I think that she had a crush on me. She would come over to the house, and ask me to "help her with her homework." Instead of asking me about her schoolwork, she would ask me if I thought she was pretty, what kinds of women I found attractive, would I ever consider going out on a date with someone like her, and other questions along those lines. All the time she would be asking these questions, she would try to touch me. Each and every time, I pushed her hands away. Although I did think that Mary was pretty, I was not ever sexually attracted to her. She was underage, and she was not my "type". Even if I was, I would never have acted on those feelings. Not only would it have been illegal, it would have been immoral as well. While I am far from being a saint, I do have a solid moral compass.
When she was not talking to me about sex, she would complain to me that she does not have any friends. She would tell me that I was the only person in the world she could talk to. This was the reason I never told Mary to get out of my house and not come back. I really and truly felt bad for her. When I was in high school, I did not have very many friends either. I was never invited to the "cool" parties or events. I could empathize with her situation, since it was not too long before that I was in the same boat. When I could see her getting upset I would pat her arm, or her shoulder, or her back in a "there-there" type of gesture. I am of Italian decent, and we Italians tend to be "touchy-feely" people. This is what I meant when I said that I had touched her arm, back, and shoulder in the past. My intent was for my touch to comfort her, not to induce sexual arousal. I genuinely felt compassion for Mary. Also, my hands only touched her arm, shoulder, and back. They never came near her breasts, buttocks, or vagina.
This post is getting way to long, so I was make another post that will discuss her specific allegations.
.
Joseph,
Guilty and innocent visit this website alike. Several contributors are open and honest about their culpability, others are just as honest in claiming their innocence.
Rest assured, we will treat your posts at face value. Regardless of a person's guilt or innocence in the face of sex offense charges, one fact remains constant: The polygraph is a pseudo-scientific fraud with absolutely no validity whatsoever.
Bear in mind you play right into the hands of your tormentors on this site when you launch into explanations. To them, the more detailed the explanation, the more you appear guilty. The fact that you directly ask 'the opposition' to comment upon the lack of accuracy on both your polygraph and cvsa, but they instead focus like a laserbeam upon the lascivious nature of the charges against you, should be evidence enough as to the reliability of their opinions. You made it easy for them to go into ad hominem mode, because the inflammatory nature of sex offense charges (especially where it concerns a juvenile) quickly obfuscates any other matter, the scientific validity of the polygraph being no exception.
Dave
George, I believe you.
Anonymous, if Beech Trees is accurate in diagnosing my mental illness then yes I have seen 3-4 educated, articulate people in the same room at one time, problem is, they've all been me.
Beech Trees, thanks for letting us in on your little secret, do you have to medicate for your SKITSohFREENeeuh?
Joseph, I'm listening, please continue.
George, when Joseph finishes with the details, if Beech Trees will allow him to, then I'll comment further on why, at least up to this point, I believe he is withholding some information regarding his 16 year old neighbor and her allegation against him.
Did I leave anyone out? There's only one of me, but never let it be said that Batman didn't take on all comers, however I do wish I had a Robin. Any takers? The position appears to be open, does not pay well, have to be willing to take a lot of lumps from a pretty rough crowd on this site, and must be willing to stand tall and fight for the honor of all evil police interrogators (to include the most evil of all - Polygraph Examiners).
One last question for George, Beech, and Anonymous, would you guys have ever confessed to an allegation of sexual assault/molestation IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT? Just wondering?
Batman
Batman,
Quote...One last question for George, Beech, and Anonymous, would you guys have ever confessed to an allegation of sexual assault/molestation IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT? Just wondering...
The others you questioned will no doubt speak for themselves, but I thought I would share the following anecdote with you. In the recent past in connection with my current work an individual representing a close relative approached me. That individual told of me a story that included his belief that this family member was innocent of the sex crime allegations that had been made (irrelevant to the point I will make although I should say that I was contacted in order to evaluate whether I could help these people establish truth not circumvent it).
This individual further advised me that the relative had been charged and was awaiting trial but had been offered the following two alternatives to taking the matter to trial: (1) offering a plea and accepting a substantially reduced sentence followed by parole or (2) becoming a part of that state's registered sex offender program. The alleged sexual criminal had been advised by a nationally known and respected attorney to avoid taking the matter to trial (not because he believed there existed a scintilla of evidence to convict), but that in this particular jurisdiction, and, in particular with regard to sex crimes, he felt the burden rested with the accused to show that he/she was innocent (as opposed to the statutory requirements for the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty). Although no decision had been made regarding the alternative choices and more information was being sought at the time of my last contact, based on the attorney's recommendation, one of the latter two options was then the likely route that would be chosen by the accused.
The point of all this is exactly this--it should be quite easy to see that under circumstances such as these and upon the advice of highly respected counsel, that a client might well be led to plead guilty to a crime that he/she did not commit. Of course, on a lesser scale of false statement against one's interest, we have all read about various alleged false confession(s) following a polygraph examination(s). Regards,
Drew Richardson
Batman,
You write in part:
QuoteGeorge, when Joseph finishes with the details, if Beech Trees will allow him to, then I'll comment further on why, at least up to this point, I believe he is withholding some information regarding his 16 year old neighbor and her allegation against him.
It seems you're backpedaling from your initial accusation -- based on nothing more than your "statement analysis" of Joseph's first post -- that Joseph "failed both the polygraph and the CVSA, [he] lied" and that "[he] touched that girl's breasts in some manner."
QuoteOne last question for George, Beech, and Anonymous, would you guys have ever confessed to an allegation of sexual assault/molestation IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT? Just wondering?
Under similar circumstances, and at a similar age, I can't say I wouldn't have. Joseph trusted his interrogators. I grew up with a deep respect for and trust of authority (e.g., law enforcement officers and military), and I might well have become convinced, as Joseph says he did, that I needed to make a false admission to save my job. Especially at the age of 22.
When I took my FBI pre-employment polygraph, I was considerably older than Joseph was at the time of his LAPD IAD interrogation. I myself had been trained as an interrogator. But I was still naive. I went into the polygraph suite expecting to be dealing with an intelligence professional who shared my sense of duty, honor, and country, and who would treat me as a fellow professional. (It was only later that I discovered that my FBI polygrapher, like all others involved in polygraph screening, was a lying charlatan.)
As it turns out, upon being accused of deception, I received only a very brief and not at all hostile "post-test" interrogation. Had I received a vigorous good cop/bad cop routine such as Joseph described, I might have been pursuaded that it was in my interest to make something up to confess to. I like to think I would have had the presence of mind not have done such a thing, but not having been put in that situation, I cannot know for sure how I would have handled it.
As promised, here is the rest of the story. Beech, I appreciate you looking out for me with your warning. But I don't feel tormented by Batman. I appreciate his input. He has shown me that the way I explain the incident makes me look guilty, even though I am not guilty. I am sure that this impression contributed to a poly examiner and a CVSA examiner determining that I was being deceptive when I was not.
Anyway, Mary did not go to the police with her allegations. She told a classmate that she came over to my house, that she began to kiss me, and then I fondled her breasts over her clothing. The classmate told a teacher. As required by law, the teacher called the police. A patrol deputy responded to the high school and tried to speak with Mary. She refused to talk with the deputy, but she did say I never touched her. The deputy wrote a sexual battery report naming me as the suspect. I think that Mary made up the story to impress her classmate with the fact that she was so hot and desirable that an older man wanted her. She did not think that her classmate would take her story at face value and report it to a teacher. That is why she did not cooperate with the patrol deputy. This development took her by surprise.
The detectives got a hold of the report, and they also tried to interview Mary. Once again, she told the detectives that no sexual contact took place between us. A few days later, the detectives spoke with Mary again. This time, her story changed. Now Mary said that she came over to my house because she wanted my help with her homework. We talked for a while, then she began to kiss me. While she was kissing me, I fondled her breasts over her clothing. She claimed that she tried to push me away, but was not able to. She said that I stopped fondling her when my pager went off. When I got up to answer the page, she ran out of the house. Once outside on the sidewalk, she encountered another neighbor. She told this neighbor about what happened, and this neighbor came into my house and beat me up. Every single thing Mary alleged is false! The reason I think she repeated her lies to the detectives is because she liked the attention she was getting. If you remember from a previous post, Mary used to complain that she had no friends and had no one else to talk to other than me. Now, all of a sudden, she is the center of attention. I think that Mary liked this attention and would have said anything in order to keep it. Including telling a whopping lie.
When the detectives interviewed me, I told them the same things that I have said in my previous posts. I never touched Mary's breasts, nor have I ever touched her in any sexual manner whatsoever. On the day and time in question, Mary did not come over to my house at all. In fact, it had been at least a month since Mary was last over. Even though I did not want to hurt Mary's feelings by telling her directly to get lost, her visits were annoying and uncomfortable, and I was finding more and more excuses to not invite her in when she came knocking.
I had two pieces of evidence to prove that Mary was lying about the entire thing. First was the other neighbor. The other neighbor told the detectives that Mary never told him that I sexually assualted her, and that he never came into my house, and that he never fought with me. He also said that on the day and time in question, he was at work, not at home. He told the detectives (and IAD) that Mary was lying. So a completely independent witness confirmed my verson of events.
The second piece of evidence was my pager. I had paperwork that proved I cancelled my pager service about two to three months before Mary made these allegations. Thus, it was impossible for my pager to go off on the date and time Mary said it did. This also proved that Mary was lying. This is why the LASD detectives believed me and not Mary. Unfortunely, IAD pretty much ignored this evidence and concentrated solely on the polygraph. Even if I did not falsely confess, failing the poly was enough for them to fire me. As a reseve, I did not have the same rights and protections that full-time officers enjoy. I was not entitled to a hearing, nor did I have the right to appeal the Chief's decision. The only thing I was allowed to do was write a response to the investigation, known as a Skelley Response. My Skelley Response says pretty much the same things that I am saying in these posts.
Batman, does this answer your questions?
Joseph,
Thanks for the additional details, I just printed your last post and will give it a good read (gotta save those internet minutes ya know.)
George,
I wouldn't call it backpedaling, how about coasting. As for your somewhat lengthy answer to my question about falsely confessing to an allegation of sexual assault/molestation, is it safe for me to say your answer is "no" regardless of all the retoric. It sounded like maybe a very qualified "no", but still a "no". I believe you are a very intelligent individual (no Batman BS here) and I find it hard to believe that at any time, under any circumstances (short of torture) you would confess to a crime you did not commit.
Still waiting to hear from Beech and Anonymous.
Batman
Batman,
You write in part:
QuoteAs for your somewhat lengthy answer to my question about falsely confessing to an allegation of sexual assault/molestation, is it safe for me to say your answer is "no" regardless of all the retoric. It sounded like maybe a very qualified "no", but still a "no". I believe you are a very intelligent individual (no Batman BS here) and I find it hard to believe that at any time, under any circumstances (short of torture) you would confess to a crime you did not commit.
I think my answer to your question speaks for itself. Don't expect a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a question that demands a more complex answer. In any event, what I might or might not have done in similar circumstances has no bearing on Joseph's credibility.
Quote from: Joseph on Sep 02, 2002, 08:04 AM
You asked: "Did you really think that by confessing you would put yourself in a better position to remain in law enforcement or maintain the respect of your fellow officers?" Yes, Batman, I really did. I know better now, with the benefit of 9 years of hindsight. As I said in my previous posts, I suffered from a major lack of judgement back then.
I'm not sure it would be fair to characterize yourself in this way. The whole point of polygraphy is to convince you your interrogators already know everything and that they and others have complete confidence in the results (it doesn't take much convincing for most people who don't know what bunk polygraphs are), that what you did wasn't that bad, and that your best bet is "honesty". If you're convinced that the polygraph has already damned you (the deliberate impression the polygrapher strives for), it is a logical conclusion to come to that an admission is your best option.
IMHO you were guilty of a lack of knowledge and/or bullheadedness, not judgement.
Skeptic
Batman,
You have asked a question of several well-educated people all of who have demonstrated a willingness to take on the federal government if necessary to bring about changes they believe justified and important. As George said in his last reply to you, our decision making given Joseph's situation may or may not have been his, might not be expected to have been his, but most assuredly has no bearing on his believability with regard to either his decision-making or his story in general. The real world situation related by Drew Richardson likely has more bearing on the nature of the difficult decision Joseph may have been confronted with and the plausibility of the ultimate decision he claims to have made.
Batman,
I am mournful in having to deliver this sullen message to you: you are 'Mary.' As dreadful as it might be for you to accept this realization, you have to embrace this fact and seek help in correcting your behavioral ailment.
Unfortunately, you are just like Joseph's 'Mary,' in which, because of your loneliness, you crave attention. This feeling of worthlessness that you possess directs you to 'pick fights' with individuals just so that you can be recognized. That is, be singularly identified from the herd.
I certainly do not want to attribute the physical aspects of 'The Simpson's Comicbook Guy' (a cynosure reference that profilers in federal law enforcement like to use because of its universal cognition) to yourself, but the underlying personality is relevant. I cannot affirm this, but I am quite sure that you participate in other internet chat rooms and pursue the same line of adversarial behavior, just to gain attention. I suspect that you are an individual who has been neglected.
Not only did you waste your own time in this thread, but you also wasted the time of dedicated individuals who are earnest in their effort. In addition, you blindly accused a man of something that you have no evidence in which to back your claim. Again, you were just fishing for attention. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I apologize if the reality of all this comes as a shock to you, (the truth hurts) but please do not expect me to reply to your rebuttal because I am well aware of the game that you play and I will not join in. Please take your meaningless fight off this website and apply it somewhere else.
POST SCRIPT FOR SENIOR MEMBERS: You fell into Batman's trap because you recognized [him] and lent [him] the credence and credibility that [he] has not established. (but so sorely desires) [He] constantly attacked your character and integrity, but because of your kind nature, you failed to question [him] on [his] achievements and credibility. Please, for the purpose of our mission, don't veer from the path in order to entertain 'Comicbook Guys' like Batman. Focus on the task at hand. For every reply written to Batman, an equal amount of time could have been spent petitioning a Congressman or Senator. ---Rick
I'm sorry Batman. I apologize for my psychological analysis of your person. I had no idea. See, I work in federal law enforcement, like you do, but the difference is that I am one person, whereas you constitute an entire office. Probably Bureau, maybe a NSC offshoot.
Conducting criminal investigations is very time consuming, so I have little time to participate in chat rooms like Antipolygraph.com. I only read the 'sexual molestation/Joseph-Mary' thread and responded to that, but as I currently enjoy my cakewalk TDY, I researched other messages that you have submitted to this board. All I can say is that your cover is blown. Back to the drawing-board, ladies and gentlemen.
Tell the boys in SFFO/SSG and LAFO/HRT that I said "Hello."
I'll see you at the next JTTF meeting. Take care, Rick.
Joseph,
As promised, here is what I make of your situation, given that I only have your side of the story. You mention that Mary came to your house on almost a daily basis, yet when talking about the day of the alleged assault you state she hadn't been to your house in at least a month. However, given this you still felt compelled to state that you found her visitis annoying and uncomfortable and you were finding more and more excuses to not invite her in when she came knocking. Not real clear on this, especially if she hadn't been over to your house in over a month. You mention that you "do" have a moral compass, but what you have now is not really at issue. What about 1993, when you were 22 years old? You mention that you were able to recognize all of Mary's problems and that you empathised with her due to your own high school experiences. This sounds like a rather mature attitude for a 22 year old who was young and naive enough to falsely confess. You mention that you thought Mary was pretty, however you were not sexually attracted to her, that she was not your "type". By your description she was a pretty girl, who was obviously attracted to you, and you were an immature 22 year old who did not appear to have many, if any, serious relationships. Your "evidence" relating to Mary's having lied about being at your house that day is compelling. It certainly does not bode well for her that she stated she told your neighbor and he beat you up, when if fact (as related by you) this did not occur and your neighbor verified same. So where does that take us? One might say it's possible you really wanted to act on some feelings for Mary, however there is a strong indication you were actually turned off by her, and one would have to believe these thoughts would not impact any type of physiological testing nine years later. Is it possible there is some bit of information about yourself that you are not providing since you do not see it as being relevant to the allegation made by Mary; yet whenever the topic of Mary and her allegation is brought up this bit of information comes to the forefront? If so, do you believe that this bit of information, if known, would prevent you from obtaining a career in law enforcement? These are personal questions, and you owe me no answer to them!
For Passedbutfailed (Rick),
You got me buddy! I'll see you at the next JTTF meeting. Since you know me I guess we won't need any introduction, but will you do me two favors before we meet? One, wear a red tie so I'll know who you are, and two, please tell me what the JTTF is, and when and where the next meeting is. I don't want to miss it if I'm suppose to be there. Also, SFFO/SSG & LAFO/HRT? OK, color me stupid, it wouldn't be the first time, but what do these stand for? Please tell me so I can pass on your greetings to the "boys", and also so I can contact someone about why I haven't been receiving my paychecks.
If we were playing "Hot/Cold" I'd say you must be wearing some serious cold weather gear right about now. Try again.
Batman
Batman,
You are to be congratulated on a considerably more cogent and rationale analysis than that which you began with. It should be pointed out though, that your outstanding questions left for Joseph, in no way leave him implicated nor in any way excuse the rather rash analysis and the accusatory nature of your initial posts. But again, a vast improvement on your part...perhaps your friends on the dark side will promote you to the "A" team and day shift with this effort.... ;)
Anonymous Wrote:
"...perhaps your friends on the dark side will promote you to the "A" team and day shift with this effort.... ;)"
That was a dumb move Anonymous (although your professional experience is no longer anonymous) to expose yourself in that fashion. Better luck next time.
sorry batman, read my post in personal statement, most recent posts. And back, to your last in this thread. I am explaining that the government relies so much on the polygraph to DQ people from employment but when it back fires they claim its only a tool that doesnt work that well. so my point is that the polygraph and you DOESNT WORK. Will write more when i am not so limited on time.
Batman,
In response to your questions, Mary would come and knock on my door just about every day. However, for about 4-6 weeks before Mary made her allegations, I would find some excuse to get rid of her. What I should have said was that Mary had not been INSIDE my house for at least a month before she claimed I fondled her.
You are right about my attitude toward her feelings being rather mature. But, it is only now, 9 years later, that I can articulate that attitude. If you asked me the same question when I was 22, I would not be able to answer it. All I knew back then was that I had some vague concern about not hurting Mary's feelings. I could not have told you why I had that concern, as I can do today.
Finally, you asked me if I ever wanted to act on any feelings I may have had toward Mary, and if so, did I ever do anything with her that might cause a significant reaction when asked about it. This is a good question. As I have said in my previous posts, I did not find Mary sexually appealing. She was physically attracive, but I did not like her personality or her mental state. Now, there were a few times when I did discuss sex with Mary, when she would ask what kind of women I was attracted to. She would also ask what sexual things I would do to that woman, and what I would like that woman to do to me. It was almost like discussing a sexual fantasy with Mary, but Mary was not the subject of the fantasy. No, I did not ever have any sexual feelings toward Mary, nor would I have ever acted on them even if I did. It would not only be illegal, but immoral as well.
I am wondering if because I have discussed sex with Mary, that this could be something that could cause a significant reaction! I could believe this could be the case with my LAPD poly. When the examiner asked me the various questions about Mary and my relationship with her, I do remember many different thoughts and concerns running through my mind, including sexual discussions.
However, during my CVSA exam, I did not have any of these thoughs during the test. I actually kept my mind as blank as possible and just answered the questions truthfully. On one question (it was an irrelevant one, like "Is there a computer on my desk") my heart suddenly started beating like a racehorse for no reason whatsoever. I was not thinking about anything disturbing, and there was noting about the question itself that would have caused a reaction, but I reacted anyway. I am thinking that I am just one of those people who get very nervous when questioned, and this nervousness was interpeted as deception during my poly and CVSA exam.