can this be right?

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme writes in part:

Could there have been bad examinations conducted in the case, of course.  Could they have failed because they had committed other murders/kidnappings? Of course.  Could they have failed because they were involved?  Of course.  Could they have failed because they had knowledge of the perpetrator but didn't (for whatever reason) want to disclose it to authorities?  Of course.

The foregoing is precisely the kind of ad hoc hypothesis that polygraphers typically resort to to explain away the failures of the polygraph. Couldn't the eleven suspects have failed the polygraph in the Molly Bish case simply because CQT polygraphy is not a valid diagnostic test for deception?  

[Saidme]

No.

[Anonymous]

Saidme,

With regard to your commentary regarding the Molly Bish matter, you offer an initial ridiculous suggestion for what might have taken place to produce what is highly likely to be a series of  wrong polygraph results.  Once again (although this time as opposed to the NAS study you admit it in advance), you offer commentary without reading or otherwise becoming familiar with the easily obtainable and publicly available information.  When that information is forced on you (the nature of the crime is given to you), you seek cover by raising a serious of possible but improbable explanations for the results.  It is apparent to anyone with any common sense that the only of several possible explanations that explains the totality of the results includeis a massive polygraph screw-up.  And this result is not the outcome of a view bad days in the polygraph suite (malpractice on the part of the examiner(s) involved to be reasonably followed by the, "If only I or my colleagues had conducted these exams..." typical explanation), but just one more example of when employed in a multi-suspect matter, the CQT polygraph technique itself is revealed to be completely flawed (quackery).  Although your recent, series of one word "yes" and "no" answers to various thread posts serves to hide the fact that you don't even pretend to make yourself knowledgeable about that which you comment upon, it offers little and is not nearly as cute as your attached emoticons would indicate or you think it to be.  Perhaps you might want to give some serious attention to this post and the probabilities associated with the straw man scenarios you offered to us before in this matter.

[orolan]

Saidme,
It disturbs me that you would believe all 11 of these people who failed are guilty of either complicity in the crime or of a similar crime as yet undiscovered or unsolved. Interestingly enough, none of the 11 cracked under their post-test interrogation. As one who claims a near 100% success rate in gaining admissions, don't you find it odd that not one of these 11 offered anything? Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they didn't because they had nothing to offer?

Your 7-11 analogy seems plausible for that specific incident. I would not consider it uncommon for 7-11 clerks to occasionally drink a soda without paying for it, or take a few bucks out of the drawer when they shorted the last customer. In your analogy, however, you have "loaded the dice" so the results support your conclusions. How would you explain the same scenario using 3 employees and 8 random people off the street, and 9 of the 11 are DI?

How is it possible to be DI on a specific-incident polygraph when one has no involvement in the specific incident? Aren't they supposed to be more accurate than the fishing expeditions called pre-employment screening? Doesn't look like it to me.

The fact is the polygraph is junk, you know it is junk, and you don't care that it is junk. It is nothing but a prop, but one that works well on people stealing $100.00 at the 7-11. And I get the feeling most of your "successful" examinations are of this ilk.

Your comments regarding the Molly Bish case lead me to believe you have never been involved in polygraphing people in a capital crime investigation, particularly one involving the probable rape and murder of a teenage girl. And if you have, it was a case with plenty of physical evidence, 1 suspect, and the DA just wanted a confession to force a plea.

[s-X-e]

Let's say you're going to polygraph a group of employees working at the 7-11 over the theft of $100.  You're going to polygraph them on that specific issue.  Let's say for arguments sake, only one in the group stole the money.  Let's say the group consists of 11 people (I'll use your number).  At the conclusion of the 11 polygraphs let's say 9 were DI.  Obviously, one person stole the money, why would 8 others go DI?  What might cause that is a little bleed over from other incidents.  Maybe the other 8 people stole money from the 7-11 in the recent past, but they didn't steal that $100.  That would explain why you had more than one DI.  Of course you would interrogate them all equally.  From an examiner's standpoint, not only might he/she solve the crime of the stolen $100, but could resolve many other thefts that went unreported.  I've seen this very scenario occur.

Aren't you showcasing here the flaws in polygraphy? After all, the goal here is to resolve which one person stole the $100 from 7-11. If no one out of the 9 DIs admits to doing it, do you mark them all as DI? That would not seem fair, since the purpose of this particular test would be to locate a single perpetrator. The 8 examinees who answer "no" to the question "did you take the $100," should, regardless of "bleed over," not be marked deceptive since they are in fact telling the truth. What you've said is that an issue not directly related to the matter at hand can screw you up on your test. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.

[Saidme]

Orolan

Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me.  Maybe George has got a spell on me.  Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it.  As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway).  I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand.  As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.  

SEX (put it like you mean it)

Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear.  Blah Blah Blah

[s-X-e]

SEX (put it like you mean it)

But that's not what I mean....

Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear.  Blah Blah Blah

Yes, but what you described reflects an accuracy rate well below 100%. In the case of Molly Bish, I am reluctant to believe that 11 people had something to do with her murder.

Would I be correct in assuming that accuracy is just as useless as scientific validity, so long as you get some guilty people to confess?  

[orolan]

s-X-e,
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.

Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?

[Saidme]

Earth to Orolan

What are you talking about?

xes

If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.

No serious, accuracy is everything.  That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first.  That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.  

[Canadian Crusader]

Why are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?

I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans.  I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.

Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.  

Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?  

[Saidme]

CC

You've taken sides!  You should take your own advice.  I truly believe polygraph's detect deception (through physiological changes brought about by psychological consequences).  Why?  Because I see it work everyday. The confession happens to be a bi-product of the polygraph which I see as an added bonus.  For all you non-believers, I don't interrogate NDI suspects.  

[suethem]

Saidme,

So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?

How many polygraphs have you given?

[Canadian Crusader]

Sadime,

I have always been on the anti poly side when it comes to preemployment screening.

What are your stats if you don't mind me asking?

You must only be able to determine your efficacy with corraborating confessions.  Or do maintain that indicated deception on the charts is without a doubt undisputed and proven indication of deception?

In the context of using a poly when it comes to a criminal investigation I can't see your deparment wasting valuable dollars on a poly when you have irrefutable evidence proving ones guilt.  Irrefutable evidence of ones guilt would be the only other way, I see, that you could use to test your efficacy.  

So..

What is your ratio for obtained DI's to confessions?

[orolan]

Saidme,
This is what I'm talking about:

As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you

Why not? Surely if these people you have polygraphed and obtained confessions from are real, they are now members of the prison population. And their criminal records are a matter of public record. So why can't you disclose that info?

And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:

How many people have you accused of lying that did not give you a confession and were later found to be guilty in a court of law?

To which Saidme replied that same day:

I can't give you an exact number but many.  And you're right, they were all found guilty.

(Emphasis added)
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.

[s-X-e]

If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.

Why would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever).

No serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first.

Why would you ascertain the truthfulness of an examinee by first giving them a test you yourself just demonstrated is not accurate?

That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.

Only if they confess though, right?

Why are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?

I can only speak for myself here, but I find it somewhat comical. I also think Saidme's attacks on other posters, and blatant unwillingness to address issues that would no doubt damage the reputation of his little box reflects poorly on the polygraph community. If I were just beginning to research polygraphy, and I came upon this board, seeing some polygrapher verbally attacking others, dodging reasonable questions, and outright dismissing the importance of scientific validity would certainly push me into the camp opposed to polygraphy.

So I guess I he is doing us a favor.