Psychology's opinion of Polygraph

[Sergeant1107]

Mr. Scalabrini

You are free to assume whatever you wish, but over these past twenty years, I have not observed any decrease in our ability to elicit truthful confessions.

Unless you know beforehand if every single person you polygraph is guilty of the crime of which they are accused, how can you tell what percentage of people make truthful confessions?

Twenty years ago what percentage of guilty people confessed?  What percentage of guilty people did not confess?  What are the percentages today?

How do you know that the last hundred people you "passed" weren't lying about every relevant issue on their exam?  How do you know if a random group of a hundred test subjects from twenty years ago that also "passed" their polygraphs were not lying in response to the relevant questions?

I'm sure that twenty years ago the polygraph was a useful device in obtaining confessions, just as it is today.  If that is what you meant I can certainly understand and agree with you.  But I don't see how you could make any comparisons more detailed than that.

[SanchoPanza]

Notguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?

I suspect the real answer is both.  
Sancho Panza

[SanchoPanza]

I suppose I should add that even had you simply and correctly reported the facts, you would have merely reported examination results that had no particular relation to Dr. Maschke's actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or even had any bearing on whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters.Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity.  

Getrealalready.

If Dr. Maschke, when he wrote his story, would have merely reported examination results and not related them to his actions or behavior regarding any relevant issues addressed or whether he actually told the truth in connection with those matters, then this discussion would be moot.

In Dr. Maschke's  self-serving "Too Hot a Potato" He characterizes the results of those examinations in the light most favorable to his position. He both claims that he told the truth and denies using countermeasures. However, if you think about it, there just might be differing opinions as to why he failed one exam and was accused of cheating on the other.

Special Agent Trimarco was obviously of the opinion that DR. Maschke Lied on his exam regarding contact with foreign nationals and releasing classified information. It is a reasonable conclusion that Special Agent Trimarco believes that he CAUGHT Dr. Mashke lying on his test. Would we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.

Mr. Youngblood was obviously of the opinion that Dr. Maschke attempted countermeasures on that examination and apparently had it confirmed by his supervisor. It is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Youngblood believes he CAUGHT Dr. Maschke trying to cheat on his exam.

At the very least there are at least three trained professionals who were present during Dr. Maschke's exams who, after careful evaluation of the circumstances and data, disagree with Dr. Maschke's characterization of the findings. There is, at the very least, as much reason, proof, evidence, (whatever you choose to call it) to believe their findings as there is to believe Dr. Maschke. It is no more slanderous of Dr. Maschke to proclaim his guilt than it is slanderous of Special Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood to proclaim his innocence. His story charges the federal government with collusion to deny him a security clearance by getting Mr. Youngblood to accuse him of countermeasures.

If our government somehow decided that they didn't trust Dr. Mashcke for any reason from suspicion of selling classified information to using the wrong fork at dinner, they could have simply revoked his security clearance or chosen not to renew it then classified their reason at a high  level for "national security " and he would never know the why. If they were "out to get him" they wouldn't need a polygraph or collusion to get it done.

Your statement "Polygraph screening examinations have no diagnostic validity." is a statement of opinion, No matter how many people might share your opinion, that is all that it is, an opinion.

Sancho Panza

[G Scalabr]

Would we have a clearer picture, one way or the other if the FBI had decided to launch a full scale investigation dissecting every aspect of his life and placing him under surveillance to see if he was consorting with terrorists or communists or something? Certainly, but they didn't so we are stuck with contradictory claims.

If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?

[SanchoPanza]

If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?

Maybe, because they believe polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim. Why would they feel the need to launch an investigation ? Dr. Maschke has been successfully denied access to information the U.S. Government has determined to their satisfaction he is not sufficiently trustworthy to possess. In goverment circles, I think they call that "Mission Accomplished".

According to S.A. Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood Dr. Maschke was "caught" lying on a polygraph examination and attempting countermeasures, neither of which have a criminal penalty involving prison in the context of a security clearance screening examination.

Sancho Panza

[T.M. Cullen]

If polygraphy is as reliable as its proponents proclaim, why was this investigation not launched? Why is George Maschke a free man if he was caught?

When I failed my polygraph, the NSA reported me to the FBI, but they found no substance to NSA security's claims.  The Special Agent actually apologized.  This was the Honolulu office, in April 2002.  I did a FOIA recently and there was nothing on me in their records.  Polygraph high drama at it's best.

If I remember correctly, trimarco claimed GW to be a spy and drug runner.  Either they chose NOT to do a follow up, or did one, and found nothing.

TC

[notguilty1]

Notguilty1 I see it took you THREE posted attempts to formulate a response to my last post, missing the essential point each time. Do you have that much trouble organizing your thoughts or do you just like making smiley faces?

I suspect the real answer is both.  
Sancho Panza

Nope.... just took me 3 shots cause I couldn't stop laughing at you