In September 2001 a very elderly woman residing in an Albuquerque nursing home complained to a family member that she "was hurt by the man who cared for her." Albuquerque station KRQE News 13 broke the story last week, outlining allegations of rape. The caretaker, 22-year-old Andres Arviso, then agreed to undergo polygraph testing, declaring to the media that he wanted to clear his name after he was identified on the air by KRQE. After the polygraph examination, which he failed, he confessed to three sexual attacks on the 90-year-old victim. He reportedly cried to police, and said he was sorry after his confession. With her claim of repeated sexual abuse verified, the elderly victim has initiated legal action against her attacker and the nursing home. Arviso is now detained at the Bernalillo County Detention Center.
http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?s=946856
touche,
In this case, assuming that the confession can be corroborated, it appears that the polygraph technique has served its purpose in obtaining a confession from a naive and gullible guilty suspect. This case does not, however, speak to the validity of polygraphy.
When public officials believe in the pseudoscience of polygraphy, a number of problems may arise. For example:
1) a guilty subject may pass and wrongly be cleared of suspicion;
2) an innocent person may fail and wrongly come under suspicion; in at least one documented case in Chicago, an innocent man failed a polygraph "test" about a rape; Chicago police, believing the man must be guilty, then planted evidence to ensure his conviction;
3) in some cases, abusive post-polygraph interrogation tactics result in false confessions; many agencies, including the FBI, avoid video- or audiotaping polygraph interrogations so that the suspect cannot challenge the polygrapher's version of what was said;
4) in some jurisdictions, self-described rape victims are required to submit to polygraph "testing" before law enforcement will investigate; victims who don't pass this pseudoscientific trial-by-ordeal are denied justice.
Mr. Maschke,
The more I read the posts on this site the more ill I get. Do you honestly believe that every time some scum confesses that he/she is a "naive and gullible guilty suspect", or that the confession was false, or illegally obtained? There is no doubt in my mind that there have been individuals who have falsely confessed for a variety of reasons, most of which center on the individuals mental capabilies; but every time anyone posts on this site a confession resulting from an interview or interrogation that followed deceptive indications on a polygraph you jump on the "naive and gullible" bandwagon. Believe it or not, there are really bad guys out there, and they do confess to law enforcement officials who do not violate their rights.
You are the naive and gullible one if you truely believe everything you preach, or the line of bull you push on this site. If you had any experience what-so-ever in the field of law enforcement, other than your extremely limited exposure to polygraph (which in reality was not administered in a law enforcement capacity) then you may sing a somewhat different tune.
Of course you always CYA with statements like "assuming the confession can be corrorborated", but not every confession can be. In this case it appears you have a 90 year old victim who was sexually assaulted. How do propose this allegation be corroborated? Should they ask for a reinactment? If you want to call in question the use of polygraph, so be it, by all means do so, but must you always question the integrity of all law enforcement officials every time a confession is referenced on this site? Why couldn't you simply state your case against polygraph without all the crap about "abusive post-polygraph interrogation tactics result in false confessions".
Maybe, just maybe, this guy did sexually assault this 90 year old lady, and maybe his confession was obtained in a legal and proper manner. It does happen.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Sep 26, 2002, 06:44 PM
Mr. Maschke,
The more I read the posts on this site the more ill I get. Do you honestly believe that every time some scum confesses that he/she is a "naive and gullible guilty suspect", or that the confession was false, or illegally obtained?
George,
Batman has a point. LE interrogation procedure can be extremely forceful and should not be underestimated in it's ability to produce confessions in a high number of cases*. The psychology of interrogation is extensively studied and the best interrogators are held in some degree of awe by their colleagues. One of the more curious things is that LE is divided over the advisability of taping an interrogation. Juries seem to interpret the psychological "pressure" as undue force and divert the attention away from the confession. SOP is to not tape but get a written statement in the person's own handwriting.
* Gordon & Fleisher
A confession that is not written or recorded is of dubious value, and rightly so.
I have been kicking around the idea of developing a recording device where the content can not be retrieved except by court order. This would protect the privacy of all involved but allow access by the legal system where the appropriate oversite is available.
-Marty
Marty,
Your previous post includes the following statement:
Quote...SOP is to not tape but get a written statement in the person's own handwriting...
Although at first blush having a person offer a confession in his own handwriting seems to be a panacea for obtaining meaningful confessions, in reality it is not. Although handwriting analysis (if necessary) will allow for a determination of the source of the written confession, it will in no way shed light on whether the confession was knowingly and voluntarily given or was simply one given under duress and dictated by the interrogator to the examinee after a long and improper interrogation. If Batman believes the majority of interrogations are properly conducted then I presume he would have no problem with this being demonstrated through proper and complete audio and video taping of all such interrogations/confessions. This, of course, would additionally discourage improper treatment of examinees and expose any wrongful behavior when it occurred. It would also serve to protect the interrogator from any malicious and false claims made by an examinee/subject.
Your idea of a "protected" recording is quite useful. Perhaps this might entail an encrypted/biometrically-tagged recording which could only be unencrypted through the same examinee biometrics (facial recognition, retinal scan, fingerprint, etc) patterns obtained from the examinee at the time of a court-requested viewing.
Batman,
You ask:
QuoteDo you honestly believe that every time some scum confesses that he/she is a "naive and gullible guilty suspect", or that the confession was false, or illegally obtained?
I've never made the strawman argument that you ascribe to me. However, when a guilty suspect confesses after being tricked into believing that he has been caught in a lie by the polygraph, I think it's fair to say that he was "naive and gullible."
Quote...every time anyone posts on this site a confession resulting from an interview or interrogation that followed deceptive indications on a polygraph you jump on the "naive and gullible" bandwagon. Believe it or not, there are really bad guys out there, and they do confess to law enforcement officials who do not violate their rights.
My observation that in the case that touche has brought to our attention, the polygraph appears to have served its purpose in obtaining a confession from a naive and gullible suspect, does not entail that I believe that the suspect's rights have been violated in any way.
QuoteIn this case it appears you have a 90 year old victim who was sexually assaulted. How do propose this allegation be corroborated? Should they ask for a reinactment?
If the suspect's confession is genuine (again, Batman, I haven't argued that it is not), then he might be able to provide details of the crimes that had not been made known to him (or the public) prior to his confession.
QuoteIf you want to call in question the use of polygraph, so be it, by all means do so, but must you always question the integrity of all law enforcement officials every time a confession is referenced on this site?
I have not questioned the integrity of the law enforcement officials who obtained the confession from Andres Arviso, let alone all law enforcement officials.
QuoteWhy couldn't you simply state your case against polygraph without all the crap about "abusive post-polygraph interrogation tactics result in false confessions".
While I have not claimed that such is the case with regard to the case of Andres Arviso, abusive post-polygraph interrogation tactics resulting in false confessions are a recurring theme in polygraphy. Examples include the recent case of Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy in New York and that of U.S. Navy petty officer Daniel M. King. Again, as I mentioned in my reply to touche, the audio- or videotaping of all interrogations would be a powerful protection against such abusive behavior (and, as Anonymous has pointed out, false allegations of abuse).
Quote from: Anonymous on Sep 26, 2002, 09:46 PM
If Batman believes the majority of interrogations are properly conducted then I presume he would have no problem with this being demonstrated through proper and complete audio and video taping of all such interrogations/confessions. This, of course, would additionally discourage improper treatment of examinees and expose any wrongful behavior when it occurred.
According to Fleisher, there are differences of opinion about whether the entire (or any) part of the interrogation should be recorded. Sure it would eliminate any question of whether any abusive practice occurred but there are legitimate reasons why one might wish to not tape this. The public is widely influence by media and many things presented as facts are not. Examples: Cars are incorrectly expected to blow up a few seconds after a severe crash where it is really quite rare. The idea that holding a hostage will induce cops to drop their weapons is similarly bogus. Some believe it is inappropriate to lie to get a confession when it is generally not. An interrogater may chose to be sympathetic to a suspect by use of an analogy that could be quite disturbing to a jury. A lot of what is done is because the public is naive which I don't like but they are what juries are composed of. So there are reasons beyond CYA for limiting recording. On the whole though I think everything should be recorded. If I took a polygraph (I might consent to a GKT for example) I certainly would feel better if it was recorded.
As for the protected recording, biometrics and other such stuff can get very complicated very quickly. Also many states have laws that protect privacy by requiring all recordings, where there is an expectation of privacy, be agreed to in advance by all recordee's. To work around this and preserve privacy, a recording, encrypted by a public key, could be made such that it could only be decrypted by court order to a third party holding the private key in escrow. This protects ALL parties but lets a court get to the truth if ruled more important than the privacy. The technology to do this is now cheap and easily accomplished. If this were built into a car, I would likely be willing to pay several hundreds of dollars more for it and it would cost far far less.
-Marty
Marty,
I assume that the Gordon & Fleisher (http://www.polygraph-training.com/Instructors.htm) to whom you've referred are the same two who are instructors together at the "Academy for Scientific Investigative Training," (http://www.polygraph-training.com/) a polygraph school in Philadelphia, and that the work you reference is their co-authored book, Effective Interview and Interrogation Techniques (http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0122603818&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2), published by Academic Press.
I haven't read their book. Based on what you've written, it appears that Fleisher, while observing that there are different schools of thought on this point, does not necessarily endorse the notion that interrogations should not be recorded. That said, the fear that a judge or jury will be too naive (or stupid) to understand what is and is not legitimate conduct in the course of a criminal interrogation is not a legitimate reason for not recording an interrogation in its entirety. The very notion is utterly repugnant to the values upon which our system of justice is based.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 27, 2002, 05:19 AM
Marty,
I assume that the Gordon & Fleisher (http://www.polygraph-training.com/Instructors.htm) to whom you've referred are the same two who are instructors together at the "Academy for Scientific Investigative Training," (http://www.polygraph-training.com/) a polygraph school in Philadelphia, and that the work you reference is their co-authored book, Effective Interview and Interrogation Techniques (http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0122603818&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2), published by Academic Press.
Yes but first let me clarify. The authors note there is divergence on the issue of recording interrogation sessions. Often the interrogator is being sympathetic to the suspect perhaps going so far as saying things like "any woman dressed like that is asking for it - and if you've had too many drinks, well, things sometimes happen that a normal person just can't control." Even worse kinds of things to get pedophiles to confess. I think most juries would not be swayed - but I suspect some would. They relay some anecdotal evidence where the trial was impacted. For these reasons they say they believe not recording any part is a more efficient approach but are careful to outline a very specific protocol to assure the integrity of the written statement. It is just their recommendation though.
In spite of the issues surrounding recording the whole interrogation, I think it should be done as well, but am less suspicious of the interrogation process overall so I see it as just helping keep honest people honest.
Most of the book deals with stand alone interrogations not the polygraph but a good 20% or so is specific to the polygraph. Rare in what I have seen so far, there is a section on formulating control questions that is remarkably candid. So much so you should ask for permission to include it as it gives a "feel" to what the polygrapher is trying to accomplish from their point of view.
-Marty
Marty,
That which is inappropriate (including the contents of interrogations) should be revealed and acted upon, not hidden. Juries and the broader American public should be allowed to determine what is unseemly but justified versus what is altogether inappropriate; this determination should most assuredly not rest with the proponents of a technique/procedure (interrogation). Handwritten confessions alone will never suffice. It cannot be conclusively demonstrated (no matter how many steps are involved) that these (preamble and contents) are not merely parroted regurgitations foisted upon an exhausted, frustrated, and dispirited examinee/subject. Only complete unaltered audio/video recordings will suffice for this analysis. The material you quoted from the Gordon & Fleisher work appears to be little more than self-serving nonsense.
Thomas Cress was found guilty by a jury in 1985 of kidnapping, raping, and murdering 17-year-old Patricia Rosanski, whose body was found in a wooded area in Battle Creek, Michigan. There was no physical evidence connecting Cress to the crime, and the biological evidence was destroyed in 1992, before DNA evidence became generally available. Another convicted killer, Michael Ronning, has recently come forward and confessed that he actually committed the crime. Both men have since undergone polygraph testing, and both have passed on their respective statements. The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for Thomas Cress.
www.clickondetroit.com/det/news/stories/news-127566520020227-220226.html
Touche,
Polygraph results, in theory, could serve two important roles in the Thomas Cress matter you describe: obtaining a new trial (apparently has occurred) and serving as evidence in that new trial. Only a concealed information test would likely accomplish both purposes. For sake of conversation, if one were to assume that Mr. Ronning is guilty of the relevant crimes and Mr. Cress is not, there should be a subset of information related to the crime(s) that would be known (and could be instrumentally probed for) by the former and not the latter. It is incumbent upon investigators and polygraphers alike to assure that testable information is collected, protected (not publicly disseminated) and retained. If this is done properly even a 1985 case will avail itself to meaningful testing at this point. Because of the lack of diagnostic validity of a control question test, the prosecution in a subsequent trial would most assuredly prevail in a Daubert hearing should that type of testing be offered as evidence by the defense and contested by the prosecution. Are you familiar with the type of testing conducted?
Quote from: Anonymous on Sep 27, 2002, 12:46 PM
Marty,
That which is inappropriate (including the contents of interrogations) should be revealed and acted upon, not hidden.
Of course, but just because something is not recorded does not mean it is inappropriate. In most of life very little is recorded and that doesn't mean something nefarious was transpiring. It is also stated by the authors that sub rosa, "3rd degree" abuse does occur is some cases.
Quote
Juries and the broader American public should be allowed to determine what is unseemly but justified versus what is altogether inappropriate
I agree. Overall I think the benefits of openess outweigh the costs. I feel their arguments have some merit but society is better served by a complete recording. Also, their own argument could be used by a defense atty to attack a written confession. "You mean you have a POLICY of not recording an interrogation because it might mislead a jury.....?"
One of the basic problems here is that one needs some degree of trust of the LE process and abuse of interrogation may not be the most common abuse in the future. DNA testing has recently become the "magic bullet" in major criminal cases and rightly so. However, it requires integrity in the process for it is easily "planted" from the blood of suspect. I suspect this may occur more often when the police have someone they strongly (and probably accurately) believe is guilty but where their is insufficient evidence. Being someone that strongly believed OJ guilty, I also was boggled at the testimony of the acting director of the FBI crime lab. I concluded, reluctantly, that police did indeed plant blood evidence to help convict OJ. I have little doubt OJ did the murder, but also have little doubt the evidence was "enhanced." It wasn't to frame a black man, rather it was to put away a "bad guy" by whatever means was at hand. Henry Lee's analysis provides much greater detail. Anyway, my point is that integrity of the process is the critical aspect and that newer forensic techniques are more easily falsified than tradition physical and eyewitness evidence. A culture where this is allowed is far more damaging and easier to do than abused interrogation process.
-Marty
Marty,
You write:
Quote...because something is not recorded does not mean it is inappropriate...
I never suggested such a relationship. Because impropriety is possible, there exists potential motivation on the part of a pressured and less than scrupulous investigator to cut corners and "solve" a case prematurely, and most importantly because there is a history (not just a theoretical possibility as exists with most things in life) of improprieties with interrogations, society in general and judges and juries should not have to guess about such matters--we should simply insist upon their recording.
Although, as I have said, there is a wealth of investigative/interrogation history to suggest the aforementioned need for recording, I'm not sure I saw what you saw in the O.J. Simpson trial nor am I convinced this is a case I would highlight as a breach of trust on the part of law enforcement officers which clearly demonstrates a need for recorded interrogations. I recall shoeprint, DNA/molecular genetics, hair and fiber, and chemistry/toxicology testimony being offered on the part of the FBI Laboratory experts in that trial but don't recall the testimony of an "acting director of the FBI crime lab." Perhaps you might refresh my memory. Although evidence was introduced by the defense to suggest racial bias on the part of one investigator and cross examination of certain LAPD witnesses might lead one to question the integrity of some of the physical evidence and aspects of the crime scene processing, I saw nothing whatsoever to indicate the willful tampering of evidence leading to the "enhanced" evidence you speak of. Again, perhaps under a different thread you might care to enlighten me.
Quote from: Anonymous on Sep 27, 2002, 04:22 PM
.....with interrogations, society in general and judges and juries should not have to guess about such matters--we should simply insist upon their recording.
That is why I also believe that even though juries will have to be educated as to what is appropriate or not, they are the trier of fact so it would be best to record the entire interrogation.
My point with the OJ case is that is a case where other abuses took place. There has been a major shift to use of DNA evidence in murder/rape cases where abuse may be easier to hide than in cases of interrogation. As for the OJ case I was shocked by his testimony which detailed anti-oxidant tests he (the FBI lab guy) performed on his own blood off hours. It was shockingly sloppy with no supporting test records. EDTA tainted blood that showed up weeks later on a fence, a blood spot from Nicole on a sock of OJ's that soaked through to the opposite side (hard to do if there is a foot inside). Still, OJ did it. Anyway, the details are too long to go into on this thread but my point is not that OJ was innocent, he wasn't, but that the sort of DNA abuse he was subjected to is much simpler than browbeating a confession. If police are inclined to the latter, they must certainly be even more inclined to the former as it is a lot easier. Preventing this abuse of trust is the critical thing.
-Marty
Polygraph finds murderer of teenage boy.
Patrick Joel Free has been charged by the Burlington County (Pennsylvania) Prosecutor for the murder of a 16-year-old Moorestown boy. Free faces life in prison if convicted of killing Adam Suopys in a wooded area on Dec. 31, 1997. The trial is expected to focus heavily on statements Free provided to investigators after the murder. In those statements, Free at first denied involvement in the murder but then implicated himself and Katow after investigators questioned him about the results of his polygraph examination.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/burlingtoncountytimes/news/news/41684109.htm
Quote from: touche on Sep 28, 2002, 10:45 PM
Polygraph finds murderer of teenage boy.
Patrick Joel Free has been charged by the Burlington County (Pennsylvania) Prosecutor for the murder of a 16-year-old Moorestown boy. Free faces life in prison if convicted of killing Adam Suopys in a wooded area on Dec. 31, 1997. The trial is expected to focus heavily on statements Free provided to investigators after the murder. In those statements, Free at first denied involvement in the murder but then implicated himself and Katow after investigators questioned him about the results of his polygraph examination.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/burlingtoncountytimes/news/news/41684109.htm
Try http://www.phillyburbs.com/burlingtoncountytimes/news/news_archive/41685546.htm
Fair use quote:
Although Free was advised of his rights, defense attorney Donald Manno contends that Free's confession was not voluntary.Dave
Although Free was advised of his rights, defense attorney Donald Manno contends that Free's confession was not voluntary.
Golly gee...BT...that is the first time I EVER heard of anyone contesting the confession.....seems to me that he had nothing else to contest.....might as well go for it all....Just for grins...let's follow this story and see if the protestations of the defense attorney holds water...I know nothing about the case, but I will bet you it won't cut the mustard! You on?
Quote from: touche on Sep 29, 2002, 09:47 PMGolly gee...BT...that is the first time I EVER heard of anyone contesting the confession.....seems to me that he had nothing else to contest.....might as well go for it all....Just for grins...let's follow this story and see if the protestations of the defense attorney holds water...I know nothing about the case, but I will bet you it won't cut the mustard! You on?
I am in the same position as you-- I know nothing about the case. I'd be foolish to bet either way; the purpose of posting that particular quote was to get some semblance of balance to those readers who don't bother to read the hyperlinked story.
Dave
There you go again Beech, giving us the true meaning of your post, after you've been called on it. I guess we should all just assume you're always just trying to either stimulate debate or provide the more insightful viewpoint.
Touche, You've been putting up a valiant fight against this crowd. Put the tag on and I'll jump in the ring with ya! Oh, what the heck, I'll jump in anyway.
Even though we would like to look upon our jury system as being the best (and it very well may be), the truth is most juries are manned by idiots who couldn't find thier asses with both hands if they had directions. If anyone thinks a jury, even with a judge's instructions, could comprehend the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement officer to deceive a subject in an interrogation, then they're dumb enough to qualify to be on a jury! The average American schmuck could no better understand this fact then he could understand Einstein's theories. They stand a better chance of understanding Einstein's bagels. Even though we don't want to admit this, it's true. Take the OJ Simpson trial. The defense did a real number on that jury. Did they really introduce any proof that the LAPD planted any evidence against Simpson? All they did was introduce the possibility. Just like they introduced the possibility it was Columbian drug dealers who killed the victims. The jury bought it hook, line, and sinker. The man got away with murder for one primary reason, the jury decided to overlook the facts, and ignore what they knew to be true. They were IDIOTS! Do you think they could have comprehended that it is OK for Law Enforcement Officers to lie to subjects? Can you imagine the field day Simpson's defense would have had with that one? The interview of Simpson was taped, but was never entered into testimony only because the clowns who did the interview didn't have a clue. If they did, and they had lied in some way to poor OJ, and if they had obtained a confession (No doubt from a naive OJ, right George?), the jury would most likely have ignored it once they found out OJ had been lied to.
So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
Batman
"A former U.S. Army Sergeant and former Egyptian Army Major, Ali Mohamed, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court of New York to five counts of conspiring with known terrorist Osama Bin Laden in the 1998 bombings of U. S. embassies that killed 224 people that included 12 Americans. In December 1995, the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) - now DSS - conducted a polygraph examination of Mr. Mohamed as a result of allegations developed during his PSI that he taught terrorist tactics in Middle Eastern countries. This revealing and vital information was referred to another government agency for further investigation that ultimately led to Mr. Mohamed's arrest and conviction."
Source:
Spotlight, Defense Security Service Newsletter, "The results of a polygraph examination used to convict a terrorist," November/December 2000 Issue, page 8.
Batman
At the risk of being labeled a biggot, I will tell you why O.J. was found "not guilty". The jury was all black. They would not have convicted him with a ton of evidence against him. This fact was printed in some newspapers. Anyone who can assess reality knows this. The prosecution team were the dummies here for letting this happen.
Your statement that all juries are dumb is to, in my belief, raise hackles. There a some of us who can tell when prosecutors, defense lawyers and, yes, polygraphers are lying and we don't go for it.
Batman,
You write, among other things:
QuoteEven though we would like to look upon our jury system as being the best (and it very well may be), the truth is most juries are manned by idiots who couldn't find thier [sic] asses with both hands if they had directions. If anyone thinks a jury, even with a judge's instructions, could comprehend the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement officer to deceive a subject in an interrogation, then they're dumb enough to qualify to be on a jury! The average American schmuck could no better understand this fact then he could understand Einstein's theories....
...
So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's [sic] on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
You've made your contempt for the average American (whom you reckon a "schmuck") clear enough...Leaving aside for the moment the ethical implications of the attitude you've expressed toward the public that you ostensibly serve, your argument that not all interrogations should be recorded because "juries for the most part are made up of idiots" is not logically sound:
the fact that an interrogation was not recorded does not preclude a suspect from disputing an interrogator's account of what was said and done during the interrogation. On the one hand, when an interrogator fails to video- or audiotape an interrogation (a simple and inexpensive measure), a juror might reasonably attach more weight to the suspect's account of what actually transpired during the interrogation. On the other hand, as Anonymous has pointed out, the routine recording of interrogations would serve to protect interrogators by discouraging false claims by supects.
If the disdain for the average American in general and jurors in particular that you've expressed is as widely shared amongst your colleagues in law enforcement as you would have us believe, then perhaps this in and of itself is an argument for state and federal governments to compel the recording of all interrogations.
Apart from criminal interrogations, would you object to the routine audio- or videotaping of all employment-related polygraph interrogations?
Quote from: touche on Sep 30, 2002, 07:10 PM
"A former U.S. Army Sergeant and former Egyptian Army Major, Ali Mohamed, pled guilty in the U.S. District Court of New York to five counts of conspiring with known terrorist Osama Bin Laden in the 1998 bombings of U. S. embassies that killed 224 people that included 12 Americans. In December 1995, the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) - now DSS - conducted a polygraph examination of Mr. Mohamed as a result of allegations developed during his PSI that he taught terrorist tactics in Middle Eastern countries. This revealing and vital information was referred to another government agency for further investigation that ultimately led to Mr. Mohamed's arrest and conviction."
Source:
Spotlight, Defense Security Service Newsletter, "The results of a polygraph examination used to convict a terrorist," November/December 2000 Issue, page 8.
touche,
How were the results of Mohamed's polygraph examination used to convict him (as the titled of the referenced DSS newsletter article suggests)? The brief text you've cited merely mentions that he was polygraphed "as a result of allegations developed during his PSI [Personnel Security Investigation]."
Geroge,
I bow to your knowledge and experience when it comes to showing disdain. You display disdain for the Law Enforcement community with your assumptions and rantings about illegally obtained confessions. You display disdain for the Government with your protestations about its reliance on polygraph, which you know full well is not entirely true. You diplay disdain for the entire legal system when you profess that teaching countermeasures is good for the whole even if it allows a few criminals to escape justice. And all this disdain simply because you couldn't pass a polygraph examination. You sit in your comfy little cubby pumping out your retoric with now concern as to the damage you do.
When I speak about the legal system I back that up with over 24 years of pratical experience. When I speak about the juries that are manned by idiots I draw upon first hand experience. How about this one? A man shoots his wife with a shotgun, right to the heart from about 10 feet. She's dead before she hits the floor. He claims the weapon "just went off". The weapon is tested in every manner possible and the only way it "just goes off" is when the trigger is pulled. He is reinterviewed and admits to having his finger on the trigger, but when he was lifting the weapon up by the barrel he pulls forward, thus applying "reverse" pressure to the trigger. Bang, a shot straight to the heart. When he testifies in court he says the weapon's trigger gets caught in a blanket and it goes off. Now the jury is fully aware of his other versions, yet they aquit him. What classification of idiots do they fall within?
It situations like this that lead one to the conclusion that for the most part juries are made up of idiots. If this is disdain then so be it, at least I come by it through real life experiences. Other than your poor experience with polygraph and your uncanny ability to pull up inane facts via internet research, from what do you formulate all you disdain George?
As for my colleagues, I don't assume to speak for them, much unlike yourself, the great seeker of justice for all, regardless of the consequences. You don't fool anyone but that little group of small minded individuals who hang on your every word, and yourself of course. How's that for disdain?
Batman
Last January in Upper Darby, Delaware, Arthur M. Heyward was found dead from multiple gunshots. A 16-year-old witness came forward and identified two young males, Chiamaka Williford and Cron Slowe, as the murders to the investigating officers. Police offered polygraph testing to Williford and Slowe, and they both agreed to the examinations. Both suspects passed their examinations regarding the murder of Heyward. Williford was released from jail, but Slowe was held on an unrelated charge. Subsequently, the investigation led to two other men, who were arrested and charged with the shooting. The 16-year-old witness who provided the false statements regarding Williford and Slowe has been charged with making a false report to law enforcement authorities.
The Delaware County Daily Times, March 19, 2002.
On August 12th, 26-year-old Steve Fetters of Blissfield, Michigan, went to his parent's home to pick up some laundry. He had a conversation with two girls there, ages 7 and 5, who were friends of his niece who lived at his parent's home. The 7-year-old subsequently reported that Fetters had tried to entice the girls into his car. Fetters denied the claim, and acknowledged talking to the girls, but never tried to get them into his automobile. On August 28th, Fetters was charged with attempted kidnapping and child enticement based on the statement of the 7-year-old. He was held without bond following the allegations.
In a preliminary hearing on September 9th, the prosecutor interviewed the two girls, and came away unsure as to whether the accusations were true. Fetters was held in jail until a polygraph examination was completed. After spending nearly a month in jail, he was freed on September 25th, having passed his polygraph examination the day before. The Fetters' father was quoted as saying "I feel anger toward the woman and daughter. I can forgive her but I can't forget. This has caused a lot of stress on the family and Steve. He's lost quite a bit of weight. I can forgive, but I can't forget."
Tecumseh Herald, September 26, 2002
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5503417&BRD=2078&PAG=461&dept_id=380356&rfi=6
Batman,
You write:
QuoteI bow to your knowledge and experience when it comes to showing disdain. You display disdain for the Law Enforcement community with your assumptions and rantings about illegally obtained confessions.
It is you, my friend, who described the average American as a "schmuck." I've made no similar characterization of the law enforcement community. I don't see how my comments regarding the risks of false confessions (not necessarily illegally obtained), and the benefits of recording all interrogations, amounts to disdain for the law enforcement community.
QuoteYou display disdain for the Government with your protestations about its reliance on polygraph, which you know full well is not entirely true.
What is not entirely true? You seem to be asserting that I'm lying about something. What?
I certainly do hold disdain for our government's reliance on polygraphy, but that does not translate into disdain for the U.S. Government in general, whose constitution I have sworn an oath to support and defend. With regard to the U.S. Government's reliance on polygraph screening, I share the sentiments of Dr. David Dearborn (http://www.spse.org/Polygraph_comments_Livermo.html#dearborn), a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who said at the Department of Energy's sham public hearings on polygraph policy, "If you choose to implement this astrology surrogate, and to treat us with such deep disrespect, do not confuse our contempt for arrogance."
QuoteYou diplay disdain for the entire legal system when you profess that teaching countermeasures is good for the whole even if it allows a few criminals to escape justice.
Again, you make a bizarre and entirely unwarranted leap of logic in supposing that my position regarding the ethics of making polygraph countermeasure information publicly available somehow amounts to "disdain for the entire legal system." (Note that our legal system, in the main, holds polygraphy in low regard.)
QuoteAnd all this disdain simply because you couldn't pass a polygraph examination.
Not true. My disdain ("contempt" is an apter word) for polygraphy is based on much more than my personal experience. It is based on extensive research (see the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) for a partial listing of sources I've consulted) and the knowledge that great harm has come to individuals, national security, and public safety as a result of misplaced institutional reliance on polygraphy.
QuoteYou sit in your comfy little cubby pumping out your retoric [sic] with now [sic] concern as to the damage you do.
I believe that when the pros and cons are weighed, the public interest is served by the truth about polygraphy (including the availability of effective countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect) being made known. Note that the countermeasure information available on AntiPolygraph.org was not invented here. If we're compelling the law enforcement community to confront the reality that polygraph "testing" is easily countermeasured, then I think the public interest is also served thereby.
QuoteWhen I speak about the legal system I back that up with over 24 years of pratical experience. When I speak about the juries that are manned by idiots I draw upon first hand experience. How about this one? A man shoots his wife with a shotgun, right to the heart from about 10 feet. She's dead before she hits the floor. He claims the weapon "just went off". The weapon is tested in every manner possible and the only way it "just goes off" is when the trigger is pulled. He is reinterviewed and admits to having his finger on the trigger, but when he was lifting the weapon up by the barrel he pulls forward, thus applying "reverse" pressure to the trigger. Bang, a shot straight to the heart. When he testifies in court he says the weapon's trigger gets caught in a blanket and it goes off. Now the jury is fully aware of his other versions, yet they aquit him. What classification of idiots do they fall within?
It [sic] situations like this that lead one to the conclusion that for the most part juries are made up of idiots. If this is disdain then so be it, at least I come by it through real life experiences....
Let me see. Your line of reasoning seems to run roughly as follows: a jury concludes that reasonable doubt exists as to a defendant's guilt of the crime with which he has been charged. You disagree. Therefore, the jurors are idiots. Therefore, "juries for the most part are made up of idiots." (Q.E.D.)
QuoteOther than your poor experience with polygraph and your uncanny ability to pull up inane facts via internet research, from what do you formulate all you disdain George?
Again, I refer you to the bibliography of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for examples of the sources on the basis of which I've reached my opinions regarding polygraphy and polygraph policy.
QuoteAs for my colleagues, I don't assume to speak for them...
Oh. I see. Forgive me for having concluded something different when you wrote, "So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is.
Attornies [sic] on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this" (emphasis added).
Quote...much unlike yourself...
For example?
QuoteYou don't fool anyone but that little group of small minded individuals who hang on your every word, and yourself of course. How's that for disdain?
In what way do you believe that I am attempting to fool anyone?
To conclude, I don't think your opinions regarding the intelligence of jurors amount to a credible argument against the routine recording of interrogations, for reasons I addressed in my earlier post (and to which you did not respond).
Perhaps you'd care to address this question I asked you earlier: Apart from criminal interrogations, would you object to the routine audio- or videotaping of all employment-related polygraph interrogations? (If so, why?)
Quote from: touche on Oct 01, 2002, 08:34 PM
On August 12th, 26-year-old Steve Fetters of Blissfield, Michigan, went to his parent's home to pick up some laundry. He had a conversation with two girls there, ages 7 and 5, who were friends of his niece who lived at his parent's home. The 7-year-old subsequently reported that Fetters had tried to entice the girls into his car. Fetters denied the claim, and acknowledged talking to the girls, but never tried to get them into his automobile. On August 28th, Fetters was charged with attempted kidnapping and child enticement based on the statement of the 7-year-old. He was held without bond following the allegations.
In a preliminary hearing on September 9th, the prosecutor interviewed the two girls, and came away unsure as to whether the accusations were true. Fetters was held in jail until a polygraph examination was completed. After spending nearly a month in jail, he was freed on September 25th, having passed his polygraph examination the day before. The Fetters' father was quoted as saying "I feel anger toward the woman and daughter. I can forgive her but I can't forget. This has caused a lot of stress on the family and Steve. He's lost quite a bit of weight. I can forgive, but I can't forget."
Tecumseh Herald, September 26, 2002
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=5503417&BRD=2078&PAG=461&dept_id=380356&rfi=6
touche,
The article you've cited states that "Fetters was held pending the results of the polygraph, which turned out in his favor...."
I find it disturbing that such weighty decisions would be made on the basis of a procedure (polygraphy) that has
no scientific basis (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and
zero diagnositic value.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 02, 2002, 03:42 AM
touche,
The article you've cited states that "Fetters was held pending the results of the polygraph, which turned out in his favor...."
I find it disturbing that such weighty decisions would be made on the basis of a procedure (polygraphy) that has no scientific basis (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and zero diagnositic value.
I suspect that Mr. Fetters would disagree with your notion that polygraph has "zero diagnostic value." Yep, I am willing to bet that he is sitting in his kitchen right now, drinking a cup of coffee, a free man, and UTTERLY happy he ignored the advice of people like you and took that polygraph exam...
PDD-Fed
PDD-Fed,
Mr. Fetters is no doubt pleased that he submitted to a polygraph interrogation: after all, he won his polygraph crap shoot. But his experience does not indicate that polygraphy has any scientific basis or any diagnostic value, any more than the experience of any one truthful individual who fails to pass indicates that it has no such basis or value.
My statement that polygraphy (CQT polygraphy, in particular) has no scientific basis and no diagnostic value is well-supported. I'd be happy to debate this question with you, perhaps in a separate thread. You might begin by citing any peer-reviewed research supporting the conclusion that polygraphy works any better than chance under field conditions, and by pointing us to a standardized, repeatable protocol that has meaningful control.
Quote from: Batman on Sep 30, 2002, 05:45 PMEven though we would like to look upon our jury system as being the best (and it very well may be), the truth is most juries are manned by idiots who couldn't find thier asses with both hands if they had directions.
Here is quintessential bm-- disdain for all who do not think, act, or are employed like him.
Since by law juries consist of a random cross-section of the populace (one's peers) what 'batman' is really saying is that we are ALL idiots, and that he holds the very people who employ him in lowest regard. His utter contempt for the Constitutionally-mandated jury system means he also is an oath-breaking malcontent, as he attacks here the very system he has sworn to protect and defend. Is it any wonder I have long disimissed his acerbic, foul, unprofessional attacks on me?
QuoteIf anyone thinks a jury, even with a judge's instructions, could comprehend the fact that it is legal for a law enforcement officer to deceive a subject in an interrogation, then they're dumb enough to qualify to be on a jury!
So what you're saying is, the law cannot be interpreted intelligently by the lay person. If that's the case, how can a 'lay defendant' interpret it? After all, unless one of your fellow prosecutors or leos are on trial, wouldn't they too be too stupid-- i.e., 'incompetent') to stand trial?
Fortunately, as a law enforcement officer, you have NO SAY in how a jury arrives at its verdict. The proper and essential role of a jury is to apply the common sense and conscience of the community to the question of whether government is running roughshod over the rights of the individual -- a decision which no fewer than three articles of the Bill of Rights assure us shall never be left up to the sole discretion of some government-salaried judge and CERTAINLY not by you.
You complain we're all idiots bm... The sad fact is that current
voir dire procedures and jury oaths verge on jury-stacking, by screening out those who might represent the conscience of the community by refusing to enforce bad or misapplied laws -- just as the Salem witchcraft trials and later prosecutions under the infamous Fugitive Slave Act were finally ended by randomly selected juries that simply refused to enforce those bad laws. (For those of you who don't know what 'voire dire' means, it's the lengthy process in which judges and prosecutors stack our modern juries to make sure no one who disagrees with the government is allowed to be seated.)
Here is something I have no doubt you have never, ever read 'batman':
"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or ... for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."-- U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1006
Or how about this, have you ever read this?
[the jury] has an unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge ... The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. Most often commended are the 18th century acquittal of Peter Zenger of seditious libel, on the plea of Andrew Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in prosecutions under the fugitive slave law."-- U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139
<snip OJ rant>
QuoteSo the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
A good criminal defense attorney, upon reading your above spittle-ridden diatribe, would subpoena IP Logs, identify you, and then forever after-- whenever you testified from now until you were fired from your job, submit same for the jury's consideration.
All concerned
As one who has actually seen Arviso's charts, talked to the polygrapher who gave the test, and been brought up to speed on details of the investigation (no progress prior to polygraph) any speculation that he was a dim witted simpleton ready to confess if someone looked at him hard is simply not true. This rapist had fooled everyone, and chose his victim well. Since she was delusional, and he was in a position of trust and responsibility over her (he physically cleaned her), and there was almost no physical evidence-he was not going to be prosecuted by the local AG's office. The polygraph was given basically as a last resort in a stalled investigation. And before I hear anything about a faulty investigation know that this victim is not lucid and had allready retracted her allegation on previous occasions.
So I guess its a good thing we have this "interrogation prop" that clearly showed measurable responses to the relevant questions. Im glad the coin toss came down on the right side this time.....
Breeze,
You write:
Quote...Im glad the coin toss came down on the right side this time...
And so are we are. If one is to engage in such foolish behavior (making decisions based on polygraph results), we should all pray for blind luck. Because there are only two determinate possibilities with polygraph lie tests (DI, NDI, one of which is correct), I suppose we will continue to see such sporadic reports evidencing such luck and the laws of probability. Unfortunately a large number of people will be victimized in order to claim these victories that (as you allude to and would have us believe otherwise) might well be obtained through other less harmful means, i.e., thorough investigation and competent interview/interrogation in the absence of the polygraph charade.
Breeze, PDD-Fed, & Touche,
You gotta love guys like George, Anonymous, and Beech. No matter what information, facts, opinions or results you put forward they will never come off their stance. Offer polygraphs witrh confessions then we have naive criminals who were duped by evil Law Enforcemnet officials, offer polygraphs that cleared people and it's just a lucky crap shoot that is bound to make the right call once and awhile, offer chicken salad and they say it's chicken shit, throw they're own chicken shit back at them and they say it's now chicken salad.
Yep, you gotta love 'em. Anyway keep at it guys, I will.
George, doesn't the Federal Government already audio/video tape all the Counterintelligence Security Polygraph examinations it administers? I know these are not "pre-employment" exams but it is something.
Batman
Anon
Even though I told you what the party line comeback would be
(do a better investigation, wont need polygraph) You still used it on me. Since I am forced to repeat myself often here-I will just tell you again that the victim was so erratic, and the offender had such access that it was stalemate. Are you going to call us incompetent because a viable LE tool was used in a professional way that elicited a full confession? You will not tell me next that it was a false confession will you?
Will a polygraph opponent be open minded enough to admit that the device functioned exactly as designed, gave information to interviewers not otherwise available, and got a sick rapist off the street in way not possible (in this case at least) without polygraph?
Those that actually have working knowledge in the areas that you are speculating about know this random event is anything but.
Quote from: Batman on Sep 30, 2002, 05:45 PM
So the reason we don't record all interrogations is simply that juries for the most part are made up of idiots. Like it or not, that is the way it is. Attornies on both sides know this, Law Enforcement Officers know this, and judges know this. It seems the only ones who don't know this are the Bozo's on this site who believe we should be taping every interview and interrogation.
Batman,
Interesting response. Assuming you believe this there are 2 principal possibilites. What you assert is indeed true and your experience is sufficiently broad to have come to these conclusions OR it is not true but forms the basis for rationalizations for a specific behavior. Probably the former, I would sadly guess.
I've only been on a criminal case jury once and the person was convicted only after a careful review of all available evidence. I would hate to think the system depends on LE spoonfeeding info even though I have little doubt that the overriding motivations are catching the bad guys.
-Marty
Breeze,
CQT polygraphy has no validity as a diagnostic tool. Only a fool would use it assuming that it did. Assuming you are not such, you are left with using it to bluff a (hopefully) guilty suspect into making admissions/confessions. This ruse, however, requires that you misrepresent the technique as a valid diagnostic procedure to the subject/examinee in order to obtain that which you seek. The problem with this lie (I'm actually not too concerned about the ethics of this specific lie but with the required logistics for success) is that it depends upon widespread, if not universal, ignorance on the part of a potential examinee population.
The sort of misinformation and disinformation that is required to bluff the guilty is of necessity (for the benefit of the innocent wrongly accused of deception) being countered on a daily basis on this site and elsewhere. I strongly suggest you find yourself a better play toy that will neither injure the innocent nor require you to engage in these sorts of pathetic embarrassing discussions in your attempt to bluff the guilty through the maintenance of widespread ignorance. You ask will the polygraph, as currently used, on occasion produce results coinciding with truth and (as apparently happened in this case) outcomes that you and I would mutually want (the guilty implicated, the innocent exonerated)? The answer, of course, is yes, but only in the midst of great tribulation and trauma for many citizens and for society in general due to the rampant error of this nonsense in the hands of those who fall prey to their own bluffs and misrepresentations about technique validity.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 02, 2002, 01:40 PM
So I guess its a good thing we have this "interrogation prop" that clearly showed measurable responses to the relevant questions. Im glad the coin toss came down on the right side this time.....
I am, too, just as I am glad that someone who would have died in a car crash had they worn a seatbelt was not wearing one.
But I wouldn't recommend not wearing a seatbelt to the average person, would you?
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Oct 02, 2002, 05:11 PM
Breeze, PDD-Fed, & Touche,
You gotta love guys like George, Anonymous, and Beech. No matter what information, facts, opinions or results you put forward they will never come off their stance.
Perhaps you should attempt to present some facts, Batman, before assuming such. And no, the anecdotes you folks dig up do not constitute scientific evidence of the polygraph's validity.
I always assumed criminal investigators had a good grasp of scientific procedure and logical deduction. That notion has been badly shaken by what I've seen here -- I guess "CSI" really is just a TV show :)
Quote
Offer polygraphs witrh confessions then we have naive criminals who were duped by evil Law Enforcemnet officials, offer polygraphs that cleared people and it's just a lucky crap shoot that is bound to make the right call once and awhile, offer chicken salad and they say it's chicken shit, throw they're own chicken shit back at them and they say it's now chicken salad.
It's really not attractive to see a caped crusader reduced to incoherent babbling. Tough week on the beat, BM?
Skeptic
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 02, 2002, 05:47 PM
Will a polygraph opponent be open minded enough to admit that the device functioned exactly as designed, gave information to interviewers not otherwise available, and got a sick rapist off the street in way not possible (in this case at least) without polygraph?
Those that actually have working knowledge in the areas that you are speculating about know this random event is anything but.
All of the above are certainly possible. But what do you mean by "the device functioned exactly as designed"? To which function are you referring? Do you mean it accurately recorded blood pressure, heart rate, chest/abdomen expansion/contraction and the electrical resistance of the subject's skin? If so, I think we can all assume (barring device malfunction) that it worked as advertised.
If you mean the polygraph is intended to "elicit" truthful confessions and it in fact did so, then again, it evidently worked as designed.
If you mean it accurately detected lies, we simply have no way of knowing this. Assuming he reacted to specific relevant questions, why did he do so?
Remember, it is actually possible that any reactions were not due specifically to lying, even if he wasn't telling the truth in his responses. However, it is certainly possible that he was lying and afraid the device would catch his lie (per standard polygraph "theory") and that fear caused him to react.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
I think there is no material argument that the polygraph works to a very great extent because people are kept ignorant of it's secrets. Pro polygraph persons often make the point that the information provided on anti-polygraph sites is potentially harmful since it may allow criminals that would otherwise be put away to avoid discovery. They have a point. The problem is that it becomes impossible to debate something if it is maintained that it's working mechanisms should not be disclosed if they are also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.
I have a very visceral negative reaction to the concept that people must be kept ignorant, or worse, that the validity of a tool should be exagerated in order to maximize the value of the tool. That visceral reaction doesn't make less valid the ignorance is best argument.
However, safety and freedom are frequently not congruent and choices will be made. Personally, I favor Franklin's bias in this regard.
-Marty
Batman and the other LE posters.
There are as many dumb-ass idiots in your ranks as there are in juries. A few examples:
1. The idiots who nearly beat Rodney King to death in Los Angeles.
2. The Idiots in New York who committed sodomy with a broom handle.
3. How about this one - Dallas narco idiots, working through their hand picked informants and using gypsum as cocaine, planting said gypsum in vehicles and getting unsuspecting Mexicans to drive the vehicles to a given location where the busts were made. Said unsuspecting Mexicans wound up in prison. Would you believe a "few" have been released and are filing large damages suits. These damages will be paid by the idiot taxpayers , along with the $200,000.00 to the informants, and whose taxes also paid those idiots salary.
But, I guess you poo poo these as "cops will be cops".
Question: Do you believe the idiots who serve on your juries pay taxes to pay your idiot salaries?
Quote from: Marty on Oct 03, 2002, 12:59 AM
Skeptic,
I think there is no material argument that the polygraph works to a very great extent because people are kept ignorant of it's secrets. Pro polygraph persons often make the point that the information provided on anti-polygraph sites is potentially harmful since it may allow criminals that would otherwise be put away to avoid discovery. They have a point. The problem is that it becomes impossible to debate something if it is maintained that it's working mechanisms should not be disclosed if they are also necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool.
I have a very visceral negative reaction to the concept that people must be kept ignorant, or worse, that the validity of a tool should be exagerated in order to maximize the value of the tool. That visceral reaction doesn't make less valid the ignorance is best argument.
However, safety and freedom are frequently not congruent and choices will be made. Personally, I favor Franklin's bias in this regard.
-Marty
Keeping information from widespread dissemination is not evil in and of itself, but in our free and open society, there generally needs to be a pretty good reason.
As Dr. Barland has pointed out, certain tests such as the MMPI work best if most people know little about the test. Fair enough. But the MMPI is a scientifically valid test. It has been established as such through extensive peer-reviewed double-blind research.
In the polygraph's case, we have a "test" that has
not been scientifically validated, its "theory" is hotly disputed, and frequent examples of abuse and/or inaccurate results are surfacing. Yet the public generally holds polygraph testing as synonymous with "lie detection."
So the question becomes: "is secrecy regarding the polygraph designed to preserve a valid test's accuracy, or is it designed to preserve ignorance and false impressions about a process that is really snakeoil?"
This is the reason why, so often, we see posters on this site requesting peer-reviewed research into the polygraph's validity. In the absence of such, maintaining ignorance regarding the polygraph seems intended to preserve cash flow, the esteem of polygraphers and the ability of certain unscrupulous people to psychologically bludgeon a subject without counsel, rather than preserve the validity of the test.
Skeptic
Twoblock,
That's the beauty of the American system brother. There are idiots in all walks of life, in all professions, so it only makes sense that juries are made up of idiots. Can't be anything but, seeing that we have so many. It's just that when you get twelve of them together they're called a jury.
Lets just say, it makes life interesting.
As for the idiots you referenced, no arugement there, but you know I once heard someone say that only an idiot would get into the Law Enforcement career. Maybe he was right. What person in their right mind would even consider for a minute taking a bullet for John Q. Public, or walking into a domestic only to get stabbed by the supposed victim, or getting into a shootout with heavily armed bank robbers on the streets of LA. Yup, gotta be an idiot to be willing to do that.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Oct 03, 2002, 02:50 PM
Twoblock,
That's the beauty of the American system brother. There are idiots in all walks of life, in all professions, so it only makes sense that juries are made up of idiots. Can't be anything but, seeing that we have so many. It's just that when you get twelve of them together they're called a jury.
Lets just say, it makes life interesting.
As for the idiots you referenced, no arugement there, but you know I once heard someone say that only an idiot would get into the Law Enforcement career. Maybe he was right. What person in their right mind would even consider for a minute taking a bullet for John Q. Public, or walking into a domestic only to get stabbed by the supposed victim, or getting into a shootout with heavily armed bank robbers on the streets of LA. Yup, gotta be an idiot to be willing to do that.
You know, I've found people who complain the loudest about the stupidity of others are usually in need of the most self-improvement.
Regardless, Batman, it's painfully obvious you need to find another line of work. I would never want anyone with your level of disdain for the people he protects defending me, my family or friends.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 03, 2002, 01:42 PM
As Dr. Barland has pointed out, certain tests such as the MMPI work best if most people know little about the test. Fair enough. But the MMPI is a scientifically valid test. It has been established as such through extensive peer-reviewed double-blind research.
What about the honesty tests that are becoming widespread and are less legally limited than the polygraph? One of the suppositions in those tests is that a thief tends to believe in a higher prevalence of thieves than someone who is not. Presumably, most thieves are not aware of this statistic.
Quote
So the question becomes: "is secrecy regarding the polygraph designed to preserve a valid test's accuracy, or is it designed to preserve ignorance and false impressions about a process that is really snakeoil?"
I think there is also universal agreement that the belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is a key component to obtaining confessions which have much higher reliability than an unconfessed DI. From that point of view, widespread ignorance is an asset, regardless of how poor the science.
-Marty
Gentlemen
If I read only the texts you read and adhere to, I would not think the polygraph had any diagnostic value either. You know full well research has been conducted to support the utility of polygraph, as well as refute it. Seek balance.
Unless you are an experienced investigator please dont make blanket statements about having to be a fool to use polygraph or referring to this device as a playtoy. Have you ever been involved with testing in any way except when you failed (I presume) your test? Do you really know anything more than what you have read from a limited group of authors reflecting your view point?
I was not aware until you pointed it out to me that I was involved in pathetic, embarrasing, discussions at work. I thought I was working to put bad guys in jail. What a fool I've been....
Breeze,
My reference to "pathetic embarrassing discussions" had nothing to do with your conversations at work, but with your defense of a completely invalid procedure(s) on this message board. I realize you may be blind to the nature of your own contributions. You suggest your employment as an investigator is necessary, if not sufficient, to have a familiarity with the scientific literature regarding issues of diagnostic validity and a basis for an evaluation of same. Yet your inappropriate commingling of the terms "diagnostic value" (validity) and "utility" in the first two sentences of your last post would lead one to seriously question such an assertion.
Quote from: Marty on Oct 03, 2002, 04:06 PM
What about the honesty tests that are becoming widespread and are less legally limited than the polygraph? One of the suppositions in those tests is that a thief tends to believe in a higher prevalence of thieves than someone who is not. Presumably, most thieves are not aware of this statistic.
In general, I'm not a big fan of the widespread, unfocused use of most tests that require ignorance on the part of the test-taker. This is because of their potential for misuse and the ramifications of confounding conditions (such as lack of subject ignorance).
To use the MMPI example again, this test was intended as a supplemental diagnostic tool for psychologists, and was to be used narrowly in conjunction with a general psychological evaluation. In such a setting, the worst that could happen from lack of subject ignorance is that the subject doesn't get the best treatment. Psychologists use a whole set of criteria for making diagnoses, anyway (please see the DSM-IV), and would not rely upon the MMPI if the results simply didn't add up (would that polygraphers, who conduct a far less reliable "test", had the same scruples).
Yet this test (in the form of the MMPI-2) is now routinely used for employment screening. It has not been validated for this purpose. Moreover,
even the test-makers don't know why the test works to accurately measure what it measures, which means use beyond areas in which it has been specifically validated is extremely risky.
QuoteI think there is also universal agreement that the belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is a key component to obtaining confessions which have much higher reliability than an unconfessed DI. From that point of view, widespread ignorance is an asset, regardless of how poor the science.
Of course. But we then have an ethical question regarding whether the ends justify the means. And if taking criminals off the streets is our absolute highest priority, then we have a bunch of constitutional rights that need rethinking.
Skeptic
Anonymous-
That was fast, we both must not be doing anything worthwhile at this particular time...
Thanks for clarifying that I am merely pathetic on this site, I was worried that I had lost focus at work. Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic. My use of a phrase such as "diagnostic value" is not a technical term like validity or reliability- just a literal definition. Value to an investigation based on diagnostic features as seen on a polygraph chart. (yes some believe they do exist)
Utility means usefulness. How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI. This in turn led to a tearful confession and resolution. This clearly threatens you and does not fit into your notion of the tools worthlessness, but there it is.
Do you really think calling me pathetic will change my mind about what I know to be true? You are strong on belief alone.
Unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of other prominent posters here who think personal attack and no experience will carry the day.....
Breeze,
You write:
Quote...Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic...
I'm sorry to evaluate you on the basis of your own words...hmmm...perhaps if you could take credit for the words of other posters on this message board you would fare better.
;)
Quote...Utility means usefulness. How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI...
Actually you were not taken to task for associating utility with this case. If you had (and not suggested any connection to validity) I would not only have not taken you to task, but have actually agreed with you. In fact if you re-read your own preceding post you will see that you brought up utility not in connection with this or any other specific case but with "research" that somehow associates utility with this newly made up term of your creation, "diagnostic value." As an investigator and law enforcement officer, I believe we can expect a bit more precision on your part, yes? Such imprecision would never suffice with crime scene investigation or the use of firearms, yes? ;)
But I suppose you are right in one regard...this most recent series of exchanges would indicate underemployment on both our parts. I'll leave you now for more productive pursuits.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 03, 2002, 07:36 PM
Anonymous-
That was fast, we both must not be doing anything worthwhile at this particular time...
Thanks for clarifying that I am merely pathetic on this site, I was worried that I had lost focus at work. Im sorry you are reduced to picking apart my sentences as a tactic. My use of a phrase such as "diagnostic value" is not a technical term like validity or reliability- just a literal definition. Value to an investigation based on diagnostic features as seen on a polygraph chart. (yes some believe they do exist)
Utility means usefulness. How could I be taken to task for pointing out the fact that the polygraph did in this case contain diagnostic features (according to polygraph procedure), that when interpreted by a trained polygrapher, led to a decision of DI. This in turn led to a tearful confession and resolution. This clearly threatens you and does not fit into your notion of the tools worthlessness, but there it is.
Do you really think calling me pathetic will change my mind about what I know to be true? You are strong on belief alone.
Unfortunately, you have joined the ranks of other prominent posters here who think personal attack and no experience will carry the day.....
Congratulations, The Breeze. A scant 23 posts ago (24 really, I note you deleted your very first post-- why?) you stopped by this website in search of information about the polygraph and cvsa. Apparently, you knew so very little about either that you were unable to answer your superiors' questions concerning same and were forced to search the Internet for information to give them.
Two months later you now sit comfortably denouncing the life's work of legitimate scientists, PhD's, and researchers who categorically, in plain English, have calmy refuted every assertion you make about the validity of the polygraph.
I will now suprise you and agree with a point you almost made: The polygraph is a powerful criminal interrogation tool when your test subject is ignorant of the facts concerning polygraphy. No one disputes that fact. No one disputes that you may legally lie to a criminal subject in order to obtain a confession. No one disputes that you may use the polygraph as part of that lie.
What IS disputed is the scientific validity of drawing conclusions with regard to truth or innocence based on the scribblings produced by a polygraph machine. There are many permutations of how an interrogator could arrive at a confession. Certainly one of them is:
Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Guilty suspect is confronted with his charts and, believing the lie behind the lie detector, confesses. Great. That's wonderful. I'm happy for you. Here is another way it could go:
Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation, is polygraphed, and produces chart recordings deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts, at which time he insists he is innocent. Police continue to focus on him rather than the true perpetrator. Because the investigation can go nowhere (as it must, he is, after all, innocent), they begin interrogating his friends, family, coworkers, etc. in an attempt to develop further incriminating evidence. Along the way, this person's friendships, marriage, reputation, and career are ruined. Oh well, too bad/so sad.
Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. The interrogator lies to the suspect because he just KNOWS that bastard is lying. I'd be very curious how often this one occurs. Pity such statistics aren't available. But I digress...
How about this one? Guilty suspect agrees to polygraph interrogation and produces charts deemed 'NDI'. Ok, off with you laddie.
Hey, here's a fun one: Innocent suspect agrees to polygraph, is interrogated, and produces a chart deemed 'DI'. Innocent suspect is confronted with his charts and, for whatever reason, confesses. Of course now police fail to obtain from the guilty suspect a confession.
My Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA.
The police polygraphers here ont he boards are fond of boasting of the utility of their investigative tool. "Today I helped put a rapist away." I commend that. Will you now step forward and say likewise, "I helped convict an innocent man today."
"Today I helped ruin an innocent man's reputation."
"Today I extracted a false confession."
Who's first?
Dave,
Superb post.
Skeptic
Beech Tree
You obviously are quite proud of your self, and have recieved the much needed cyber high 5 from skeptic. You have much time to spend here but if you are going to call someone immature you may want to back off the silly references to pigs, just a thought.
My point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here. You are merely strident when you repeat others conclusions. Since you have no background and bring little to the table except aggressiveness, dont ask me to refute your assertions. You have none.
When I spoke of mockery, I was thinking of Batman. I dont mock you, I just dismiss your hysteria as unimportant and one sided. I was not aware that any of my posts had been deleted, and honestly dont know how that would be accomplished, since it concerns you and you think your on to something, talk to george.
Finally lets talk about your continual references to abuses by LE officers. Since you clearly have never conducted anything resembling an investigation, and have no idea what might be involved in a practical sense- you might as well know that your assertions are insulting. Basing your arguements on scattered news reports that reinforce your notions may pass for open mindedness where you are, but should not be respected here.
Your father on the other hand sounds like a great guy, thanks for sharing.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 04, 2002, 04:06 PM
Beech Tree
You obviously are quite proud of your self, and have recieved the much needed cyber high 5 from skeptic.
Judging by how long and how vociferously he's been posting here, Dave needs no such thing from me, Breeze, nor was it solicited. I was simply expressing sincere admiration for a very good post. Keep trying, and you may earn the same.
Stick to the issues.
Skeptic
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 04, 2002, 04:06 PM
My point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.
One other thing -- being dependent on others' research is irrelevant. Many well-read and knowledgable people have never done their own original research on a topic. Your point is a specious one, and frankly you're dodging the issues.
Skeptic
Skeptic, Beech Trees & Anonymous,
I have made it very obvious what I do for a living, and from the experiences upon which I form my opinions (whether they be good or bad, accepted or rejected). I was wondering, would either of you be willing to give an indication as to what you do for a living? No specifics, but maybe in general terms, or whatever you feel comfortable with. Thanks,
Batman
PS: Skeptic, even though you state, "I would never want anyone with your level of disdain for the people he protects defending me, my family or friends.", regardless, if the situation ever arose, I would do my job, what is required of me, and what I have taken an oath to do. If, after I was done defending you or your close ones, you chose to simply turn and walk away, or curse at me, or spit at me, or simply say thanks, it would make no difference. The bottom line is, I would have done my job, and you, your family, and your friends would be protected. After all is said and done, that's all that really matters.
Batman
I feel very slighted. You didn't include me in "what you do for a living. Shame on you. I will include myself.
I am a 72 years young gold miner, during the summer months, in Alaska. I can still shovel 4-1/2 yds. of gravel in 4 hours. Side note: (I don't plan on serving on any more juries).
All seriousness aside - I am still opposed to the polygraph. As posted here before, I have a very big problem with one person operating one machine (who can manipulate said machine any way he wants to) holding another persons livelyhood, even their lives, in his hands.
Years ago, my daughter took an employment polygraph. It showed deception on every question. Even her age and where she lived. The operators question: "You can't tell the truth about anything, can you"? This operator can keep you from getting a job or even send you to prison?? As Stossel says "Give me a break!!
Batman,
Thank you for your kind invitation, but I think not. You and your pro-polygraph soul mates have gotten your intellectual butts kicked (would you believe I'm a scorekeeper in real life?? ;) ) in every debate so far (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Why would we be inclined to change the playing field from that of relevant issues to identities or even job descriptions? I suggest you might try redoubling your efforts and better prepare to debate the issues. Do have a pleasant weekend.
Twoblock,
A gold miner! Well I gotta say, that is something different. I must also admit, I have never met a gold miner I would classify as an "idiot", but then I've never met a gold miner. So it's up to you to uphold the reputation of the profession.
Anonymous,
Not too surprised by your response. As for what I believe you to be in real life, well, maybe a professional juror for starters.
Maybe Skeptic and/or Beech Trees will be a little less fearful of giving a slight indication as to their professions. As for the debate, it has nothing to do with "changing playing fields", however it does offer some insight as to one's thinking. Most of the "pro-polygraph soul mates" who post here make it clear they are in the law enforcement profession at some level, and one would expect them to be in favor of anything that might assist them in their duties. So maybe Skeptic or Beech Trees will allow a little insight into their experiences, which may explain their thinking, by just giving a slight indication as to their line of work. After all, lifes experiences play a major role in the forming of opinions. George M's life experience with failing a polygraph resulted in his forming a very anti-polygraph point of view, which ultimately resulted in this site.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Oct 04, 2002, 08:58 PM
Maybe Skeptic and/or Beech Trees will be a little less fearful of giving a slight indication as to their professions.
Current circumstances prohibit me from being too specific. I am a current applicant to a position that requires a polygraph. If it turns out that I do not get the position, I will be more than happy to be more candid. But unfortunately, I believe I have good reason to fear retribution for revealing identifying information at this time.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Oct 05, 2002, 01:33 AM
I am a current applicant to a position that requires a polygraph.
Sorry to hear that Skeptic, In addition to TLBTLD, I would recommend you acquire texts written for polygrapers and interrogaters. Deep understanding of what these people do will help you not appear to be adversarial. Also, don't underestimate the power of human element, Get Cialdini's book and grok it. Remember, they are just trying to do a job too. Try to put yourself in their place.
You are a bright individual. It's very clear from the reading I've done that these are far more likely to have done internet research on the polygraph. How will you respond if the test is partially a CKT. Do you recognise the names "Douglas Adams" or "Douglas Williams". Just think carefully.
I won't advise countermeasures, I think that's an individual decision.
-Marty
Batman, you write in part:
QuoteGeorge M's life experience with failing a polygraph resulted in his forming a very anti-polygraph point of view, which ultimately resulted in this site.
This is not quite correct. When I failed my FBI pre-employment polygraph examination despite having told the truth, I was dumbfounded. I couldn't believe it. But it didn't directly cause me to form an antipolygraph point of view. My polygrapher had told me that the polygraph was 98% accurate. I naively believed him, and supposed I must have fallen within the 2% margin of error of an otherwise valid test.
It was only after reading David T. Lykken's seminal book on polygraphy,
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector that my position against polygraphy solidified. I was outraged to learn that my government had branded me as a liar based on a procedure that has no scientific basis whatsoever. Whereas I had adhered to a code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do, my government (through an FBI polygrapher) had deliberately lied to me, just as it continues to lie to every single employee or prosepective employee it polygraphs. And I had no avenue of appeal.
For several years, I bit the bullet. I said nothing publicly. I had no idea how many others had been similarly affected. That changed in 1999, when I found the website NoPolygraph.com and linked up with other polygraph victims, who are much more numerous than I had supposed. I was at first reluctant, but ultimately felt compelled to take a public stand against the fraud that is polygraph screening.
A year later--and after much research, correspondence, and cooperation with others--I co-authored
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) and helped to launch AntiPolygraph.org.
So, in some sense, my experience in failing a polygraph "test" ultimately led to my forming an antipolygraph viewpoint and the establishment of this website. But it was not so direct a path as your post suggests.
Skeptic
Your correct in that an astronomer does not have to gather moon rocks to be respected. But my problem with BT is that he is talking of matters that must be considered practical, not theoretical. To have one such as he, speak of police abuse, or comment on investigative procedure is galling. But even so, Im going to make a real attempt (I may fail) to stop this acrimonious back and forth. Because someone is closed minded and not worthy of serious consideration, is not a good reason for me to be disrespectful. Im sure if he worked with me I would not spend the time it took to go down to the DARE office to talk to him.
Im sorry you think I stray off topic. My original points have all been on the topic that was important to me when I first logged on. Many here want to debate the various studies that support thier viewpoint. I do not. I do not feel I could add to the work of Barland, Honts, Matte or even Kleiner or Krapohl in any significant way. I am also reading the opposing viewpoint and see some points of concern.
Someones experiences are important if they are to be respected, simply having memorized the anti-polygraph literature is not exactly a scholarly pursuit.
In my opinion, attempting to "shout down" by e-mail any moderate view will hurt this site more than help it, but that does not concern me. All that will be left are those that have failed.....
Skeptic
I forgot to wish you good luck in your applicant process
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 07, 2002, 01:09 PM
Skeptic
I forgot to wish you good luck in your applicant process
Breeze,
Thanks for the sentiments :D I have several employment options at this point, so I'm not utterly dependent on the results of the polygraph.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Regardless, I would like to hear (in a general way) how you fared, what your impression was of your process and results. Im sure others would want specific details of any countermeasure attempt you made.
Im not sure why, but I dont think you intend to use any.
Anyway, I hope in your case you end up where you want to be.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Oct 04, 2002, 04:06 PMMy point to you remains and is a constant, You have no basis to state anything with certainty about the polygraph. You are completely dependent on others research, have obviously overlooked or dismissed any source that does not conform to your viewpoint, and completely lack input here.
I see. Hmm.... An interesting new theory on why you don't have to answer direct questions posed to you. If I am to understand your tortured logic, I also may not make comments about the negative impact rape has on women, because not only have I never raped anyone, I have never been raped, and can only point to psychological textbooks to support my assertion that rape hurts a person physically and mentally.
I may not make the assertion that slavery is a heinous institution because I have never owned slaves, nor have I been a slave. I can only point to the sordid history of the slave trade in the United States (which I read about in books), which apparently leaves me unqualified to challenge someone who promotes slavery. "Have YOU ever owned a slave? Well, then I don't have to answer YOUR questions, you rank amateur!"
I guess comments and questions about the Constitution are right out also, since I didn't author it. Oh well......
And apparently, most incredibly of all, questions I pose about the validity of the polygraph may be dodged because (according to you) I am not a law enforcement officer of (in your eyes) equal stature.
Tell me, are you dodging my direct question concerning Edward Curran's televised statements for the same reason, because you don't like who is asking the question? You remember that question, right? It's the yes-or-no answer one you took two lengthy paragraphs to explain you were far too busy to answer.
I expect someone will challenge me on the source of this quotation....it is coming..I just wanted to post it......
"Because of the great attraction police work has for the psychopath and other dangerous types, polygraphic screening for jobs on the police force or for other sensitive occupations may be in the public interest."
Dr. David Lykken
Touche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Quote from: Anonmyous on Oct 08, 2002, 01:36 AM
Touche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Anonymous,
I wouldn't count your chickens just yet, but I too am looking forward to the report.
Skeptic
Chew on this (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/81.html#page_middle), the_breeze et. al.:
"There has been no serious effort by the US Governement to develop the scientific base for the psychophysiological detection of deception by the polygraph or any other technique, even though criticisms of the polygraph's scientific foundation have been raised prominently for decades. The reason for this failure is primarily structural. Because polygraph and other related research is managed and supported by national security and law enforcement agencies that do not operate in a culture of science to meet the needs of detecting deception and that also believe in and are commited to the polygraph, this research is not structured within these agencies to give basic science its appropriate place in the development of techniques for the physiological detection of deception."
I find it irritating and hypocritical that I be accused of lacking knowledge on this subject simply because I am not a Primary Source of (some of) the information I post. As far as I'm concerned, the pro-polygraph law enforcement types on this board better keep up the home-owner's insurance on their glass houses.
Dave
Quote from: Anonmyous on Oct 08, 2002, 01:36 AM
Touche,
Apparently your rush to print such nonsense out of context and without source attribution must be driven by your knowledge that the National Academy of Sciences will likely tomorrow formerly declare the use of polygraph screening invalid.... thus putting it in the category of "formally stupid" and on the road to being discontinued and likely outlawed. Stay tuned...
Dear Anonymous.....I do not think an apology is in order, but this was not nonsense...Dr. Lykken did in fact say this...Gosh do you think this will affect his credibility with you folks who get great pleasure in bashing the polygraph at every turn....you can't play on both sides of the street....Oh, by the way...here is the source attribution:
Psychology Today, 1974 (March)
Touche,
I did not question that such a quote might not have existed, but that you did not/have not presented it in any context, and initially presented it without source attribution. What was your rush to do so? Do you really have any question what David Lykken's position is regarding polygraph screening?? If so, you must have existed on the far side of the moon for the last forty years. Nevertheless--no longer (if ever) an important issue...such a quote is the proverbial pimple on the elephant's behind. Have you managed to look at the new elephant that has invaded your playground--the NAS report that completely and forever debunks polygraph screening as a diagnostic instrument?? There is no longer any defensible basis for continuing CT polygraph screening at the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, FBI, DOE, MI, etc or for employee/applicant screening at these organizations and the ATF, USSS, DEA, Customs, etc, or any state or local PD in the country, or the nonsense associated with post conviction testing of convicted sex offenders. The NAS report has provided the evidence and the roadmap—get ready to have your world rocked...
Quote from: Anonymous on Oct 09, 2002, 04:27 PM
There is no longer any defensible basis for continuing CT polygraph screening at the CIA, NSA, DoD, DIA, FBI, DOE, MI, etc or for employee/applicant screening at these organizations and the ATF, USSS, DEA, Customs, etc, or any state or local PD in the country, or the nonsense associated with post conviction testing of convicted sex offenders. The NAS report has provided the evidence and the roadmap—get ready to have your world rocked...
It gets worse...several don't even use CQT -- they're still in the dark ages with R/I.
I have a sneaking suspicion they already knew the polygraph was bunk for screening, so they didn't bother with anything more "advanced" than R/I...
Skeptic
I have been reading the posts on this thread and for the most part it has been most enjoyable -- Downright hilarious at some points.
The first point I would like to make (though somewhat delayed) is that I in no way share Batman's view that jurors are idiots. Juries are diverse in all ways to include intellectual ability. However, potential jurors with expertise in areas of law and investigation are excluded from juries for obvious reasons. Therefore, jurors are sometimes susceptible to defense attorney pleas to ignore solid evidence. This is what often inflames LE types into making such comments. This fact about jurors also plays into the discussion of if suspect interviews should be taped and used as evidence. There are also issues of admissibility of things said, since the interviewer might imply existence of evidence in the interview. Thus portions of a taped interview might cause the jurors hearing the interview to believe the evidence exists (though it may or may not) and be prejudicial to the defense.
Also, to Beech:
Quote
My Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA.
Quote
You, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country. However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory. In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you. Perhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.
When you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?
Quote from: Public Servant on Oct 10, 2002, 01:11 AMYou, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country. However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory. In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you.
Fortunately for me, I didn't include several of my dad's demographics in my post for such a purpose. Regardless of my strong feelings of love and respect for my father and his intelligence, his military service and association with the NRA makes him no more qualified than I to criticise the recently-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy.
QuotePerhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.
Rantings? Oh that's right, I forgot-- everyone who disagrees with you is a ranting lunatic. I seek neither your forgiveness nor your admiration for my service to my country.
Perhaps you could explain how a military record would make one more knowledgeable about the recently and wholey-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy?
QuoteWhen you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?
Any quarterback for the Washington Redskins, going back to approximately 1979.
Beech,
Take a deep breath and calm down. All this anger is bad for your health.
Quote
Fortunately for me, I didn't include several of my dad's demographics in my post for such a purpose. Regardless of my strong feelings of love and respect for my father and his intelligence, his military service and association with the NRA makes him no more qualified than I to criticise the recently-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Quote
I'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make. I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father. (I personally have great respect for the former quality, but have mixed feelings about the latter). Though some on this site have stooped low, I don't think Mom or Dad jokes would have occurred. My point was simply: if you want to win favor by irrelevant facts, at least make them about yourself. You could have quoted the cliche without bringing up your father at all.
Quote
Rantings? Oh that's right, I forgot-- everyone who disagrees with you is a ranting lunatic.
Quote
You must have me confused with someone else. Of course I forgot that you seem to categorize all pro-poly (perhaps even pro-government, pro-law enforcement) types into one lump. So of course when you say you, it is aimed at the evil monolith that I represent. If you look back at old threads, you are likely to see you are the only person about whom I have used such descriptions. Oh, and you said lunatic, not me.
Quote
Perhaps you could explain how a military record would make one more knowledgeable about the recently and wholey-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy?
Quote
It doesn't. Nor does that of a relative. My point exactly. And for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report. You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.
I won't touch the blind squirrel thing any further. I've picked on you enough today. I just wanted to let you all know that I'm still around, though I have not recently posted. I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up. Hope you don't take it personally. As I told George once, maybe someday over a beer...
Quote from: Public Servant on Oct 10, 2002, 04:47 AM
Beech,
Take a deep breath and calm down. All this anger is bad for your health.
'Public Servant',
Although I'm certain you delight in fancying yourself a master button pusher and something of an agent provocateur on these boards, you will be saddened to learn you are neither, at least where I'm concerned. You have never angered me, nor do I think you could even if you tried-- oh wait, you really ARE trying, aren't you?
QuoteI've picked on you enough today... I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up. Hope you don't take it personally.
Well, regardless, your efforts to date to 'rile me up' have been ineffective to say the least.
Perhaps a more accurate description of your activity with regard to this post would be:
"In an effort to bolster my own self-esteem, I've waded into an argument of which I know very little, latched onto a bit of personal info of someone of whom I know nothing, and extrapolated a false hypothesis in an effort to discredit that someone with whom I disagree."
Do you render opinions of polygraph charts with equal zeal towards ignoring anything but your own personal feelings?
QuoteI'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make. I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father.
Sigh. Go back and read past posts made by the user 'The_Breeze'. He makes repeated claims of military service, hints at being a member of the NRA, and somehow wishes us to leap to the absurd conclusion that such affiliations make his unresearched opinions on the scientific validity of the polygraph more credible than mine. Tagging on my father's life experience was half joke, half sincere attempt to see 'The_Breeze' stick to the issue at hand rather than digress into ad hominem attacks as is his usual m.o. (oh, sorry to use a 'police term' there breeze).
QuoteAnd for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report. You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.
I see. Have you brough your opinions to your superiors? Or do you just keep on pluggin' away with the CQT, playing both sides of the issue, snug in your insular world as you criticise your bread & butter here?
Beech,
Look around on this site. It is only you whose buttons I push. You can't post without an angry tone. You are a magnet for abuse.
What the Breeze says has nothing to do with me. I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons. Again go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy. I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.
You are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem. In fact many say just the opposite. And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph. I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations.
Oh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little. Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.
Quote from: Public Servant on Oct 11, 2002, 12:27 AM
Beech,
Look around on this site. It is only you whose buttons I push. You can't post without an angry tone. You are a magnet for abuse.
I see that I have failed to sway you from your delusions of grandeur, so I will aquiesce and allow you to believe your own hype, oh grand button-pusher.
QuoteWhat the Breeze says has nothing to do with me. I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons.
When did I ever make the assertion that you and user 'The_Breeze' enjoy some sort of relationship? For what purposes do you now engage in this strawman argument? I was explaining why I posted the paranthetical comments about my father, button-pusher. I guess the aphorism, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink' holds true here. Your hypothesis for WHY I posted what I did was INCORRECT. I CORRECTED it. For you to then make the illogical leap that I am insinuating some sort of relationship between you and another poster is somewhat baffling.
QuoteAgain go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy. I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.
Will you then answer my pointed questions about how you conduct that job? Do you refuse to administer CQT's? Do you alert your superiors as to the fallibility of such an unstanderdized interrogative exam?
QuoteYou are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem. In fact many say just the opposite. And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph. I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations.
Yes, of course you will. Congratulations on all your success.
QuoteOh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little. Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?? My accusation extended only to the discussion at hand between myself and 'The_Breeze'. YOU YOURSELF just posted that what that user posts has nothing to do with you. It's evident you read a late post of mine in that thread and immediately went on the attack without benefit of actually reading the entire thread. Try educating yourself before leaping in with the ad hominem attacks.
Finally, thank you for dodging the only substantive matter in this entire circuitous, wasteful argument:
QuoteHave you brough your opinions to your superiors? Or do you just keep on pluggin' away with the CQT, playing both sides of the issue, snug in your insular world as you criticise your bread & butter here?