The Polygraph Interrogation of Kevin Jones: Another Case of Polygraph Abuse

[T.M. Cullen]

The NBC show "Dateline" aired tonight.  Name of the episode was "Death and the Beauty Queen".

Covered a murder case in Russell Ville Arkansas.  Showed police video of the murder victim's grieving boyfriend being interrogated and polygraphed.  Polygrapher starts yelling at the boyfriend saying he has never seen somebody fail a test as bad as he did in his 20 year career as a polygrapher.  Turns out the guy wasn't even a licensed polygrapher, let alone been practicing 20 years.

The boyfriend was found innocent.  Police had ignored vital evidence and tried to coerce a false confession out of him via the polygraph.

Did anybody else out there watch this?

TC

Post title edited by AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

[yankeedog]

I didn't see it, but wish I would have known it was on.  Guess I need to watch something other than The History Channel, Discovery and the Military Channel.  I like to watch these "brow beating" interviews as they usually are superb training tools on what not to do.  It doesn't make any difference if the officer yelling at the "suspect" was a polygraph examiner, detective or street cop.  I've been in this field for more than 30 years and I have seen during some interrogations the "suspect" will be yelled at by the person doing the interview.  I generally don't agree with that technique because it is counter productive.  This is not to say that in a given situation it is not helpful or considered necessary.  However, I have found you generally get more with sugar than you do with salt.  Most of the time once the yelling starts the interview/interrogation is over!  A mentally weak interviewee may be beaten down to say just about anything.  I have stopped interrogations in the past being done by others when it was my opinion that the interrogations had moved to a coercive environment where information trying to be elicited could not be relied upon.  Mr Cullen, in this situation, was the boyfriend charged, tried and acquitted?  It sounds like that is what happened.  What was the evidence the police had to charge?  What evidence did they ignore?  Do you know if it will be aired again?

[George W. Maschke]

See NBC Dateline's web page for the story, "Death and the Beauty Queen":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24433365/

[sackett]

Cullen,

you wrote "Turns out the guy wasn't even a licensed polygrapher, let alone been practicing 20 years."

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH POLYGRAPH??!!! YOU SAY HE WASN'T EVEN AN EXAMINER!?  HELLOOOOOOO!!!? Earth to Cullen, earth to Cullen, come in Cullen...

You really shouldn't allow your prejudice and zeal against polygraph to cause your fingers to attact my profession unless you have something to hold on to.  Shame, shame, shame... and dishonest too!

And George, I would have expected better out of you. Hook, line and sinker, eh?  I'm so


Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

It is cases like this which illustrate why the myth of the polygraph must be exposed to the populace.

This case was classic "bait and switch."

BAIT - They tell the kid they want to "rule him out" as a suspect, and ask if he would take a polygraph.  Like most people, he mistakenly believes the polygraph is accurate and can prove his innocence, so he gladly agrees to take the test.

SWITCH  -  Police detectives now have a young naive kid they who has taken the bait, and they can now interrogate him WITHOUT A LAWYER present.  They use the machine to browbeat the kid.  Remember, his childhood sweetheart is on a slab in the morgue.  The kid is confused, scare, grieving.  Polygrapher lies his ass off.  Turns out the kid would not "cave", and held his ground and refused to confess.

In the meantime, the police fail to properly search for crime scene evidence.

This is a good example of how the polygraph is being used not to detect lies (which it can't), but to INTIMIDATE a gullible populace!

[yankeedog]

It is cases like this which illustrate why the myth of the polygraph must be exposed to the populace.

This case was classic "bait and switch."

BAIT - They tell the kid they want to "rule him out" as a suspect, and ask if he would take a polygraph.  Like most people, he mistakenly believes the polygraph is accurate and can prove his innocence, so he gladly agrees to take the test.

SWITCH  -  Police detectives now have a young naive kid they who has taken the bait, and they can now interrogate him WITHOUT A LAWYER present.  They use the machine to browbeat the kid.  Remember, his childhood sweetheart is on a slab in the morgue.  The kid is confused, scare, grieving.  Polygrapher lies his ass off.  Turns out the kid would not "cave", and held his ground and refused to confess.

In the meantime, the police fail to properly search for crime scene evidence.

This is a good example of how the polygraph is being used not to detect lies (which it can't), but to INTIMIDATE a gullible populace!

The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.  A typical ploy by one of Maschke's Minions.  You may not like the interrogation tactics and I may not like the interrogation tactics. But, they were not illegal or improper.  Just very aggressive.  But to blame the polygraph?  Geez!  What a vivid imagination.  The problem in that case appears to be in the investigation itself.  And one thing is absolutely certain.  This failed polygraph was not what resulted in the arrest or trial.  Other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, is why this kid was arrested and put on trial.  But, since the universal evile polygraph was involved, it is all the fault of the polygraph.  Based upon the obvious limited information available about the investigation, this girl was probably killed by someone close to her.  Someone very close.  Tell you what Cullen, next time you try to post such intellectual dishonesty and make baseless charges, make sure you fairy tale can't be checked out.  

Should a polygraph test have been administered for diagnostic purposes when it was?  No.  Should it have been utilized for utilility?  Absolutely!  

[T.M. Cullen]

The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.

They used the test to try and force a confession out of a confused, grief stricken and INNOCENT kid who just lost his childhood sweetheart.

Naw, that's not abuse.  I withdraw my statement your honor.  

Of course, he must have "reacted" pretty bad on the machine.  It just had to be deception.  What else would cause such an unprecedented (worst in 20 years) ANS reaction?  Certainly not his emotional state at the time, and the fact that he was being brow-beaten.
I dunno, maybe it really wasn't abuse.  

[notguilty1]

The situation in Arkansas is not in any way an abuse of the polygraph.

They used the test to try and force a confession out of a confused, grief stricken and INNOCENT kid who just lost his childhood sweetheart.

Naw, that's not abuse.  I withdraw my statement your honor.  

Of course, he must have "reacted" pretty bad on the machine.  It just had to be deception.  What else would cause such an unprecedented (worst in 20 years) ANS reaction?  Certainly not his emotional state at the time, and the fact that he was being brow-beaten.
I dunno, maybe it really wasn't abuse.  

TM you should know by now that ANY comment aimed at Polygraphs WILL be vigiously shot down regardless of merrit.
Now I guess it's OK for anyone to pick up a Polygraph machine and aim it at a person,which, in fact leads me to some of my comments regarding the "training" that is required.
If you use a Polygraph and the victim believes it's accurate ( even though it's not) it doesn't matter if the examiner is even a examiner at all hell, it doesn't even matter if the machine is turned on! All they are after is a confession.
It happened that way with mine failed test. If the "results" were reliable I WOULD BE IN JAIL!! But no confession ( there was nothing to confess) no conviction!  HA  

[sackett]

This is not about the abuse of polygraph, it's about the anti minions making hay about a non-polygraph issue and somehow making it relevant to their anti-position.

If someone falsely reports to be an examiner and conducts "an examination" that obviously equates to an abuse of polygraph...huh?

Wow!

I must give up on this mentality...

Sackett

[George W. Maschke]

Regarding the use of polygraphs in the Nona Dirksmeyer murder investigation, it seems that:

1) There has been no allegation that the polygraph examiner who polygraphed Kevin Jones "wasn't a real polygrapher." The allegation by Jones' lawyer, Michael Robbins, is simply that he "He wasn't a certified polygraph examiner." He may have been a recent polygraph school graduate.

2) It seems that the Russellville Police Department did rely on polygraph results to "conclusively eliminate" suspects. A Russellville Courier News report posted to the CrimeLibrary.com message board states:

For the past month, Russellville police investigators have continued to pursue any and all leads provided to them by various sources in the apparent homicide of Arkansas Tech University sophomore Nona Dirksmeyer.
On Tuesday, all the work and effort put into the investigation was handed over to the 5th Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney's Office for review.
Russellville Police Chief James Bacon released a statement Tuesday regarding the reports.
"At the request of the prosecuting attorney, to further support our initial statement of suspects being conclusively eliminated, we have re-evaluated each person of interest," Bacon said in the released statement. "Subsequently, we requested the Arkansas State Police to administer additional polygraph examinations, and yet again we can say that all but one suspect has been conclusively eliminated."

3) CBS 48 Hours also covered the Dirksmeyer murder story, and has made about five minutes of video from Kevin Jones' post-polygraph interrogation available with its story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/48hours/main3802230.shtml

The first sequence of the video shows investigators asking Jones whether he would be willing to take a polygraph test. The time stamp on the video shows 17:17 hours on 21 December 2005. In the next sequence, the post-test interrogation has already begun, and the time is 18:26 hours. So the pre-test and in-test phases of Jones' polygraph examination took at most 69 minutes. By way of comparison, the video of Louis Rovner's polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma, which includes only pre-test and in-test phases, is more than twice as long, running a total of 157 minutes.

[T.M. Cullen]

1) There has been no allegation that the polygraph examiner who polygraphed Kevin Jones "wasn't a real polygrapher." The allegation by Jones' lawyer, Michael Robbins, is simply that he "He wasn't a certified polygraph examiner." He may have been a recent polygraph school graduate.

Yet the polygrapher yelled at Jones saying that this was the worst failure of a polygraph he had seen in his "20 years as a polygrapher".

IOW, he lied.

There should have been an attorney present.

TC

[sackett]

Cullen,

would that be a licensed, practicing attorney who passed the BAR? Or would that be a lawyer who simply graduated from a law school?  

I guess in George's rationalized manner of thinking, it really doesn't matter...huh?!

Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

Turn around is fair play.  When people refuse to take a polygraph they are accused of hiding something.

So why would polygraphers be so afraid of having an attorney present during the pretest/interview, and post test/interrogation of a criminal polygraph adminstered by LE.  Do they have something to hide?

In the jones case, I doubt they would have gotten away with all the lying and brow-beating.

Polygraphers, experienced or not, lie during the test. Mr. Trimarco lied on national TV about the accuracy of the polygraph.  

In the case of a criminal LE polygraph.  Suppose you got some young kid suspected of a crime.  Gullible and naive about the polygraph like most of the public.  During the pretest the polygrapher claims "the test is scientific, and 98% accurate".  An attorney present, asks for a sidebar, and whispers to his client:  "There is absolutely no scientific evidence to his claim.  Don't believe it!"

As for the post test interrogations.  The mere presence of an attorney would probably stop the usual shennanigans.  "This test proves you're lie!  This is the worst failure I've ever seen!  The chart doesn't lie Junior!  Are you going to level with us or not!  You make me sick!"...etc.

It's kind of like a young kid shopping for a car.  Rather than go to the car dealership by himself, he brings his dad along so he doesn't get taken advantage of.  It's alone that vein....

[nopolycop]

Cullen,

would that be a licensed, practicing attorney who passed the BAR? Or would that be a lawyer who simply graduated from a law school?  

Sackett

But, in all states of the union, an attorney cannot practice unless he passes the bar, and is licensed by the state.  The same cannot be said for polygraphers.  In fact, it is my understanding that most states have no licensing provisions what-so-ever for polygraphers, and of course, a J. D is a well respected professional degree, whereas graduating from a polygraph trade school takes perhaps. 10 or 12 weeks.

[sackett]

"n.p.c."

you wrote, "But, in all states of the union, an attorney cannot practice unless he passes the bar, and is licensed by the state.  The same cannot be said for polygraphers.  In fact, it is my understanding that most states have no licensing provisions what-so-ever for polygraphers..."

Yes, that is true and probably one of the biggest problems within the profession.

Sackett