THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TEXAS POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY

[Joe McCarthy]

Dan, that is speculation, though there is an instance when I get a confession from an offender, Wood knows who he is, that bragged that he beat every test he was ever given there.  Well, until he got caught, by me.

Moreover, it doesn't explain my low inconclusive rate. 

I am thinking it is option A, or option B from video 2.

Either he sucks (might as well speak plainly) or the inconclusive rate was that high to pad the wallet.  Mr. Wood or Baby Wood can come here and defend his numbers, or he can simply call me.  That is, if he has the Wood

[assclown]

The 45% inconclusive rate that irish cites in his videos very likely speaks to the effectiveness of mental countermeasures, which are well known to the sex offender community.

Or to make more money with repeat exams

[Joe McCarthy]

I have noticed though, other than my email box getting a wee heavy, there is not the defending I saw back on 2008.  I guess it is easier to hide and ignore the facts than it is to face and address them.

[Joe McCarthy]

I am still shocked about one thing.  If they were so confident I was lying and that they were telling the truth, and confident in the 89 to 93% accuracy rate, I gave them the opportunity to take me out of polygraph forever on a silver platter earlier this year.  I mean, I served it up to them like a pudding.  Maria Holden..... I mean Hubbard..... Maria Hubbard..... (Freudian slip) could have been the hero of Texas Polygraph.  Instead, she chose to run in the opposite direction like Tony Romo getting chased by the Patriots defensive line.

I don't understand that, especially when you see her website touting 94% accuracy rates. 

Then with everyone else following her to hide behind her skirt, even people deeply involved in APA studies like Holden.  And Andy Shepard former presiding member of the polygraph examiners board, what does that say about his confidence in if he has been on the up and up?  How do they feel no shame by selling a product they either don't believe in or are too scared to use themselves because they will be caught in their lies?

AH.... but it doesn't matter, I gave them and expiration date on the test thing and that ship has now sailed.  Now they have to live with being known as hypocrites and charlatans by running from using the very thing they sell.

Anyway, they are going to get caught in their lies anyway; I have one hell of a paper trail and I am nowhere near done exposing that trail yet. 

I do after all want to give people a fair chance to resolve this personally.  It's really their choice and one that it seems was already made.  Just a shame it has to be this way.  They can end this anytime they want.

[Dan Mangan]

Sex offenders talk among themselves, in part to share tips and tricks on how to beat the 'box -- and the entire treatment system.

If sex offenders with something to hide know of an approved  polygraph exam resource with a near 50/50 chance of coming up inconclusive rather than DI, that's where they will tend to flock, in my opinion.

Then, they can better manipulate their therapist and PO.

[Joe McCarthy]

No, because very test that is inconclusive, Tarrant County CSCD considered a fail.  INC after INC is just insane from a money vantage point; especially sex offenders who usually don't have much of it.

Texas is a different animal than most other places from what I understand.  Too many inconclusives will get you revoked in some places where the judge is a prosecutor on the bench. 

Now I am not going to say that a person with INC after INC isn't lying about something possibly.  What I am saying that maybe the real problem is not the examinee, but in fact the examiner. 

Inconclusive, 95% (ball parking) of the time is just another word for piss poor test.  In my opinion

[Dan Mangan]

So, riddle me this, Irishman...

How can the "test" be scientific if it's almost entirely examiner dependent?

Moreover, where is the (non-self-report) research -- in authentic PCSOT settings -- that validates the industry's accuracy claims?

[Joe McCarthy]

There are better people to toss that question to.  And when you do, ask why the examiners in Texas are so scared of their own tests.  I would sell my soul to the devil for a straight, on the record answer.

I am not blowing you off, my mind is just on this texas issue.  I'll be in Boston sometime this summer and we can have the long debates about all this other crap.

You want to argue validity, ask the polygraph illuminati why the test is good enough to see to other people, but it wasn't good enough to clear up this texas issue?

You may get the answer you are looking for with that question; should anyone have the sand to answer it

[Drew Richardson]

How can the "test" be scientific if it's almost entirely examiner dependent?

The test (lie detection in general, PCSOT in particular) has no diagnostic validity, Dan.  I presume that is what you mean by "scientific." 

If it ("the test") did, there would exist a compelling rationale for compulsory pre-conviction sexual defendant testing  relative to the compulsory fishing expedition (PCSOT) of individuals rightly or wrongly relegated to a class of people who have little public appeal and/or personal clout.

Actually there is more of a basis for my mock-suggested defendant testing than with PCSOT--at least with the first, the examiner knows a crime has been committed and is often assisted by investigator bias (admittedly considerably more so for guilty subjects brought in for a polygraph exam than innocent subjects) developed through his or her involvement in the relevant criminal investigation.

[Joe McCarthy]

OK, but SOT is a fact of life, it is here and being done and it is not going anywhere...... for now.

I can't speak for other states, but here in Texas, it is a dirty business filled with people who are too scared of polygraph when there is a basis for testing, in your words.

I am now on a crusade to do the right thing and expose it all, and/or fix it; and if the industry don't get on board with cleaning up from within, the integrity of the PCSOT market will lose what credibility it has left.

The Polygraph Examiners in Texas lost the right to partly regulate our own industry because we have shown that we are not trustworthy enough to do so in a manner that is fair and reasonable.  TDLR only got half the job done though; but more on that later.

How can you make the public feel warm and fuzzy about a procedure that a given industry avoids using itself like the black plague; all while telling the public that this is a good fix to the issue of sex offender self report?

Moreover, if we are here, for lack of a better term, to judge the integrity of others, should we not be willing to look from within and judge our own though the use of facts, adherence to our own rules, and a sense of equity to ALL involved. That when something is an issue, fix the issue over cutting off the hand of the person pointing out the issue?

Or maybe I have simply consumed too much koolaide.

All I know is this Texas issue is not going away until it is solved.  This has been made clear by the actions of the examiners involved in this Texas mess.  There are examiners down here that are more obsessed with their vendetta against me for coming here in 2008 that they just didn't want to let everything pass quietly and let it go.  If I am going to be forced out, I will not go without letting people know the truth and provide documentation to prove it up. 

This just makes me see what a destructive group of people they are, and if they will do this to me after squeezing out a win on a technicality, what will they do or what have they done to an easier target.

The people of Texas deserve to know what they are getting into.  Because someday, it may be them or someone they love in that polygraph chair.

How you ask?

It's not just the sex offenders. Some counties are using PCSOT like testing with DWI as well and they are looking into expanding into other areas.  Now while the vast majority of America doesn't want to diddle a kid, those same people do get into a car after throwing a few back and it is literally a throw of the dice if they get caught. 

Boom. Then they are at the mercy of Mr. 45%.  All it will take is to screw over one important politician's niece or nephew, and polygraph will be looking at another EPPA.  I am not the only one who sees this.  I am not the only examiner who sees this coming if we don't clean it up from within.

Fact is, the Texas Polygraph Industry would rather play damage control to their integrity over have integrity by coming clean about their behavior, taking responsibility and accountability for it's actions, and fixing the integrity of the foundation to build a stronger and more trustworthy structure.

If you want a more honest and trustworthy profession, that is where it starts, with integrity from within.  Something that is seriously lacking.

[Dan Mangan]

But Drew, the APA's own meta-analysis clearly states that polygraph's average accuracy is 89% for single-issue exams and 85% for multiple-issue exams.

The APA has the facts and figures to support those claims to a .95 confidence level. It's all there at www.polygraph.org.

Are you suggesting the APA's convincing meta-analysis is merely a by-product of its very own statistical alchemy?

[Joe McCarthy]

Maria Hubbard insists accuracy up to 94%.  SO who do I believe, the APA or Maria? 

It's an honest question

[Drew Richardson]

Dan,

Your assessment of the APA's statistical competence is more politic than mine, so I'll live with yours...LOL

A point of clarification though--a multiple issue criminal exam, e.g., the MGQT, is quite different than a screening/fishing expedition such as the PCSOT...the latter is the lowest of the low in a world not in danger of fear of heights....

No, and I repeat, NO meta analysis of any number of MGQT studies indicates anything about the validity of the PCSOT. Apples and oranges...

[Dan Mangan]

Drew, so PCSOT tests are just a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess)?

[Drew Richardson]

They would be JUST that if not for the serious consequences of both false positive and false negative errors to both individuals (victims, victim families, convicted (rightly and wrongly) felons, etc.) and society...but because of the seriousness of a SWAG with issues of import they are both an abomination and, perhaps less importantly, an offense to the intellect...