Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge

[George W. Maschke]

I haven't posted on here for a while, but I thought I'd ask the same question as I have before but in a slightly different way..


A person goes to a polygraph test not believing that it really works and says so to the examiner - the polygraph examiner smiles and shakes his head and gives a demonstration:

He hooks the guy up and asks a couple of simple questions; the guy tries to lie for each question and is horrified to see that each time he tells a lie, the needle swings wildly.  


So, is this not proof that the test works?

Or would the needle swing like that whether he lied or not?

Or could could it be that the needle never responds like that at all?

This last possibility strikes me as unlikely since it must be extremely simple to put to the test. But perhaps I'm wrong; is the scenario I have described simply a myth?  

There is no known telltale physiological response uniquely associated with human deception. Lying may or may not be accompanied by physiological changes measurable by the polygraph instrument. In this regard, see Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis."

Further posts to this message thread should substantially address the relevant topic.

[Lord_Darkclaw]

Thanks George, the link is a bit difficult for me to understand but it seems (if I am reading it correctly)  to indicate that polygraph tests are no more or less reliable than the old-fashioned method of looking someone in the eye and asking them.

[George W. Maschke]

Thanks George, the link is a bit difficult for me to understand but it seems (if I am reading it correctly)  to indicate that polygraph tests are no more or less reliable than the old-fashioned method of looking someone in the eye and asking them.

That's about right. Polygraphic lie detection has not been demonstrated through peer-reviewed research to work better under field conditions than an interrogator using a dummy polygraph as a placebo.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Just as I expected, Dr. Richardson.  A cop-out.  You don't want to answer that question, and we both know why. So, who's the coward now?  

Dr. Richardson's silence with regard to my questions, to use an oft-used expression among posters on this forum, "speaks volumes."

[1904]

Dr Drew Richardson obviously knows what he is talking about.
I can teach anyone to pass a polygraph test - in ten minutes flat.

Easy Peasy

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Since December 13, 2006, Dr. Richardson has failed to respond to this simple question, and we both know why:

As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

[InnocentWithPTSD]

There will be certain questions and circumstances for which countermeasures are not possible.

For example, if a polygraph examiner asks a distraught rape victim if she has raped herself distributing DNA she collected from some vile source upon herself, she will ALLWAYS be proved to be lying by the polygraph test.

I apologize for this observation.  However, the use of polygraphy to accuse crime victims experiencing emotional trauma of harming themselves is orders of magnitude more vile.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

I don't know of any agency, either Federal or State, that polygraphs rape victims. This is called "victimizing the victim." The victim can not be forced to take a polygraph, nor can the accused.  So, what's the point?

Dr. Richardson and I both know why he can not answer my question. It is a no-win situation for him.

[1904]

I don't know of any agency, either Federal or State, that polygraphs rape victims. This is called "victimizing the victim." The victim can not be forced to take a polygraph, nor can the accused.  So, what's the point?

Dr. Richardson and I both know why he can not answer my question. It is a no-win situation for him.

In cases of suspected false rape, 'victims' have been tested. Whether the victim was a genuine victim, or, a false victim; (and who would know) it follows that victims have been polygraphed.

[1904]

Since December 13, 2006, Dr. Richardson has failed to respond to this simple question, and we both know why:

As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

LBCB,
It should have dawned on you a long time ago already, that since 13 December 2006, Dr Richardson has been ignoring your 'challenge'.  

Why dont you rise to his challenge?

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Others have already satisfactorily explained why Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty challenge.  Maybe you don't know, but he and I both know why he can't answer my question.

[1904]

Others have already satisfactorily explained why Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is an empty challenge.  Maybe you don't know, but he and I both know why he can't answer my question.

LBCB,

As you profess to know what his answer would be / is, why dont you spare us the
ongoing agony of anticipation and simply state what you think / know his answer to be?

Please, spare us the agony.

Now, we await your answer AND we await you to take up Dr R's challenge.

Rgds,

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Didn't you read what I said?  He really can't answer that question.  The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.

[Sergeant1107]

Didn't you read what I said?  He really can't answer that question.  The truth would make him look like a fool, while anything else would be just another cop out.

Don't you think it is just a bit presumptuous to come to an antipolygraph message board, ignore a long-standing challenge posted there, issue your own challenge, and then claim some sort of victory by omission when your challenge goes unanswered?

It seems reasonable to me that one would require some standing before one could peremptorily ignore a ongoing challenge in favor of issuing one of their own.

Perhaps if you were to meet Dr. Richardson's challenge, successfully or not, you would then have some credentials with which to issue a challenge of your own.  Until then, I am at a loss to understand why you believe your challenge carries the same weight as his.

[Drew Richardson]

Sergeant,

A fool is one who uses the non de plume of LieBabyCryBaby for purposes of coming to an internet site named Antipolygraph.org –a site filled with those professing to be victims of the practice of polygraphy and its practitioner's poor behavior.  You are right, Sergeant—I don't suffer fools.  With regard to meeting my challenge, I doubt one who demonstrates such uncritical thinking would  have the credentials (even within his own community) to meet my stated qualifications for accepting the challenge.