just a thought

[eric]

 I have been charged with a crime I didn't commit. As part of our defence strategy I took a polygraph test, and passed (no CM's). The DA was given a copy of the test and was obviously disappointed.  Now the DA wants me to take the test again with one of THEIR people.
  To me this shows how obvious it is that the real testing is done by the interviewer, and not by the machine.  The machine is used purely as a scare tactic to rattle your nerves, while the interviewer trys to intimidate you into a confession. I guess by having polygraphers it helps to keep the unemployment rate down.

[Saidme]

Eric

They want you to take a polygraph examination with the police department because they usually have no way of verifying a private examiner's polygraph examination.  Police departments don't have a dog in the hunt where private examiner's do ($$$$$).  Not to say that you get what you pay for but sometimes, unfortunately, that is the case.  Police departments also have QC sections which double check to make sure the exam is conducted correctly.  If you were falsely accused, go take the PD's exam and pass it.  I suspect once you do, your case will fade away.  

[orolan]

eric,
It's great that you passed your exam. Sometimes innocent people are successful in passing. I doubt the examiner conducted much of a post-test interrogation though, if at all.

The difference between private and police polygraph tests is that the police polygrapher will use any tactic available to force you to confess during the post-test interrogation, including making claims that you "had trouble with question x" when in fact there is no response indicated. This grilling can get quite brutal sometimes, and can go on for hours.
You should demand that the police ask the exact same questions asked by the private polygrapher, in the same order and under the same conditions. And do not allow a post-test interrogation. You should also receive a copy of the test.
These steps will assure that you have an "apples-to-apples" comparison of the two tests, and if you are NDI on this 2nd test, the DA needs to drop his case.
Others on this board will advise that you refuse the test outright, and I usually do the same. But in your case, for some reason I think you would serve the cause better by taking it, only if they will do it under the conditions I outlined above.

[Saidme]

Eric

Don't let some of the posters on this website confuse the issue.  You passed your initial exam and you'll pass your next exam.  Just tell the truth.

Orolan

The reason there was no post-test interview is because Eric passed his polygraph examination.  You have a slightly (putting it mildly) skewed view of the polygraph profession.  Since Eric has an attorney I'm quite certain his attorney won't allow a post-test interview if he fails the examination.  He has absolutely nothing to lose in taking the police polygraph.  Orolan, you've been watching too much of the scifi channel.

[suethem]

Eric,

Saidme is a polygrapher who believes that the National Academy of Sciences (all the different scientists and staff) got together in a conspiracy to avenge the mistreatment of their friends, in the Department of Energy, by the greater polygraph community.  

I would not put any faith in what he says.  He may be getting beamed up pretty soon.

If I were in your shoes and knew that I had not committed a crime, I would not talk to the police at all.  

The police polygraph session would be nothing but a drawn out interrogation with only one purpose -for you to spill your guts.  

Saidme is completely wrong in suggesting that you have nothing to lose by taking a Police department polygraph.  ---That is just plain ridiculous! ---   You have been charged with a crime and now they want to 'talk to you about some things', come on!!

 Your freedom is at stake, ofcourse you have something to lose.


Passing a polygraph with your lawyer does not guarantee a pass with the police.  Get real!!

When Ex-polygrapher Doug Williams set up a sting on three NYC polygraphers, they all accused an innocent person. The polygraphers actually accused three differnent innocent people all of the same crime.  Maybe you saw this on 60 minutes?

Does your state even allow polygraph evidence (and I use that term loosely) in court?

Be careful and good luck.  Give us an update and more info if you like!!

[orolan]

Saidme,

The reason there was no post-test interview is because Eric passed his polygraph examination.

Not quite. The reason for no interrogation (a more accurate term than "interview") is because the polygrapher had no incentive to conduct one. If Eric had failed, the polygrapher would have simply told him he failed. It would be up to his attorney to then ask Eric to explain why.

You have a slightly (putting it mildly) skewed view of the polygraph profession.

And you don't

Since Eric has an attorney I'm quite certain his attorney won't allow a post-test interview if he fails the examination.

I agree, assuming they will allow the attorney to be present in the room during the examination.

Orolan, you've been watching too much of the scifi channel.

I don't watch TV. Too much sex and violence, and that's just the evening news. It goes downhill from there.

Considering the fact that I advocated Eric submitting to the 2nd examination, I find your reaction puzzling. Perhaps you are upset at my inferences regarding "interrogation", an aspect of polygraphy you claim to be quite adept at?
 

[Saidme]

Orolan

He had no incentive to conduct a post-test interview (or interrogation if you prefer) because Eric was NDI.  Regarding Eric's attorney, I can't speak for him, but in my experiences most attorney's don't want to know the truth from their clients in case they have to put them on the stand.  A lawyer can't knowingly put a client on the stand who intends to perjure him or herself.

I don't have a skewed view of the polygraph profession.

If the attorney wants to be present in the room than the examiner will either allow it or have the attorney view the examination from an observation room.  It's not really the examiner's call (unfortunately).

You advocated Eric placing unrealistic demands on an examiner.  Exact questions, blah, blah, blah.  Most examiner's would boot the examinee out the door so you're really not advocating a second exam.  You're advocating Eric picking a fight with his second examiner which will rapidly go down hill (much like tv).  So you're advice to Eric would be somewhat counterproductive, particularly if he's truly innocent which he claims he is.  If he goes in and takes his exam and passes, case most likely closed.  If he goes in and doesn't resolve the issue with the DA/Police, hold on tight for an extended investigation.

I enjoy interrogations because we (LE) resolve a lot of investigations that way.  Maybe we should quit because they lack scientific validity.  

[orolan]

Saidme,
Are you thinking that the questions asked of Eric in his first examination were constructed by the polygrapher in such a way as to assure that the result would be NDI? If not, why shouldn't the police use the same ones?
I actually was advocating that the DA provide the examiner with the questions to ask, not Eric waltzing into the room waving a piece of paper saying "This is what you're asking me." But I guess I wasn't clear on that. I see no reason why the conditions I proposed can't be met without the examiner being biased against Eric. And I assume the examiner would not be told that Eric had already taken one exam and been NDI?
As for "interrogations", yes they are quite useful. But the issue is that your polygraph machine is just another prop used in the process. I bet most of the confessions you have obtained in your career could have been obtained without ever turning the machine on.

[Canadian Crusader]

Eric,

You are correct when you said the real testing is done by the interrogator.  There might as well have been a truth detecting blender on the table when you took the test.  The poly itslef is worthless without a trained interrogator behind it and an examinee who believes the blender actually works.  The DA was disappointed with the results of your test because the results by themself are useless.  The DA needs a confession and your seance session did not provide one.

I laugh at the polygraphers on this site when they spew their garbage statements like "don't worry, you already passed a poly so you have nothing to worry about taking one with the police".  Hollow statements like that might work with 8 year olds.  You guys are starting to sound like the polygraphers on polygraph place.  Comical.

If the poly was all it was cracked up to be (as the polygraphers on this site would have us believe) the results should be scientific, uniform and verifiable by the DA's polygraphers.  I am fairly confident that the question asked was undeniably accurate and to the point.  "Did you commit XXXX on XXX date?"  Why should Eric have to take one with THEIR people if this "machine" is all its cracked up to be?  This case is a prime example of how unscientific a poly really is.  It's results are absolutely useless without a post test interrogation.  How can the polygraphers on this site continue to state otherwise?

I don't think I have to state the obvious here Eric but you would be nuts to allow yourself to be "interrogated" by one the THEIRS.

[Saidme]

Thanks CC for putting us all on the right path.  If it weren't for you knowledge and wisdom I don't know where we would be.  You're not french canadian by any chance?

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

Of what possible relevance do you believe Canadian Crusader's ethnic background to be?

[Saidme]

George

You need to develop that sense of humor a bit.  You're starting to worry me.

[Canadian Crusader]

LOL.  No offense taken.  Saidme has an accurate feel for how we Western Canadians also think of the French in this country.    

However, I must have struck a cord and some truth in my post if that was the strongest defense Saidme could muster.

Why don't you enlighten us Saidme as to why the DA's polygraphers could not use the accurate "scientific" poly results obtained from Eric's test?  Is the polygraph community that poorly trained and monitored that you can't trust a fellow polygraphers results?  Do you honestly feel that specific questions regarding Eric's so called involvement in this crime were not asked by his polygrapher as requested by his lawyer?  What do you believe they were polygraphing him on?  

[eric]

  My examiner covered every angle of questioning, and then some.  (We made a point to be as thorough as possible). The DA cant possibly come  up with a different set of questions, and if they do "bring it on".
  Keep in mind these allegations are from 13yrs. ago, and they have no proof.
  I just find it comical that when the "machine" they seem to worship doesn't give them the results they want, they result to using a different examiner, in the hopes of intimidation. If an examination is set up by the DA's office you would almost think the examiner may be a little bias.
  The machine is the same, the polygrapher "interigator" is different, so why not throw the machine out the window!

[Saidme]

CC

Glad to see someone's got a sense of humor.  Police department's generally will not rely on a private examiner's findings because they have no way to verify how the test was conducted.  It boils down to quality control.  As I've stated in the past, unfortunately there are unscrupulous examiner's out there who will provide whatever results their customers are willing to pay for.  Not all private examiner's, just some.

Eric

Interesting statement....."and they have no proof"

Why would they have any proof since you didn't do anything?