Except to note that Larry Parr can be forgetful. -- Dr. Blair

One wants to assume that Louie posted this one with a smile.

Probably, but it was in reference to the point you made that you never
have posted under any name except Parrthenon and Fidelis. But
consistency would be too easy, wouldn't it?

Poor Poly

wrote in message
oups.com...
Simply put: The scientific evidence of the 90s and beyond shows
polygraphs to be unreliable.

wrote in message
oups.com...
PARR FORGETS PARR

Larry Parr can be forgetful. -- Louis Blair

Headline, "Parr Forgets Parr." I like it.

Toward the end of his life the most [probably] famous actor in England, Sir
Alec Guiness, suffered from memory problems, and while he remembred to get
on the right train on the right day to travel from London to Sussex
university to address the students there, when appearing on the platform, he
introduced himself by saying,

"Good afternoon, my name escapes me..."

That goes in my memoirs, along with a picture of a very
young Louie Blair standing next to a spouting Venetian
fountain, holding a bicycle with a flat tire.

Why was this fountain holding a bicycle, and what was the fountain saying?
And in which language?

Meanwhile I await Rynd-Dowd's latest excuse for
ducking my lie detector challenge. Such a grudge
match might even be newsworthy and make Net history.

I don't know if that's very interesting. 6 years ago I almost convinced Sam
that Botvinnik was Cornish - he wasn't really convinced, just intrigued -
and, rightly, he hasn't trusted anything I've said since.

But it makes me think: What is the biggest con ever perpetrated in these
chess newsgroups?

Cordially, Xylophilo

What is the biggest con ever perpetrated in these
chess newsgroups?

Don't know, but Larry is sounding more and more like the technocrat in
Gravity's Rainbow; shades of the IG Farben building, indeed!

Larry Parr wrote (3 Oct 2005 19:02:01 -0700):
If Louis Blair's point is merely to note that Larry Parr
appeared as Larry Parr several years ago, though I
had forgotten such, then I suppose his point is utterly
meaningless.
_
I wrote (3 Oct 2005 20:38:06 -0700):
Except to note that Larry Parr can be forgetful.

_
Larry Parr wrote (3 Oct 2005 21:38:48 -0700):

One wants to assume that Louie posted this one
with a smile.

_
Unfortunately, it is not always a matter for smiling
with Larry Parr memory trouble.
_
Recent example:
_
"Taylor Kingston assures us there is no bias
at the Censored Cafe ..." - Larry Parr (12 Sep 2005
08:39:19 -0700)
_
"No, Larry, I said that reviewers at ChessCafe.com
were left free to judge books honestly, without
interference. This was to contradict your malodorous
and completely baseless lie that ChessCafe reviews
of Keene and/or Schiller books had predestined verdicts.
Hanon Russell may well prefer not to carry their books
on the catalog. ..." - Taylor Kingston (12 Sep 2005
09:12:52 -0700)
_
After an exchange like that, one might expect one
of a number of possible outcomes:
_
(1) Larry Parr supports his claim with an actual
Taylor Kingston quote.
_
(2) Larry Parr admits that he can not support his
claim and apologizes to Taylor Kingston.
_
(3) Larry Parr falls silent on the issue.
_
What actually happens is none of the above.
_
"IIn previous threads the bias at ChessCafe was
denied by NM Taylor Kingston ..." - Larry Parr
(30 Sep 2005 06:07:05 -0700)
_
In less than ten hours, I posted a reminder of
Taylor Kingston's correction. So, what is going
to happen now? Will Larry Parr let another
eighteen days go by and make his claim again
"without a shred of evidence"?

MY NAME ESCAPES ME

"Parr Forgets Parr." I like it.

Toward the end of his life the most [probably] famous actor in England, Sir Alec Guiness, suffered from memory problems, and while he remembred to get
on the right train on the right day to travel from London to Sussex
university to address the students there, when appearing on the
platform, he introduced himself by saying, "Good afternoon, my name
escapes me..." -- Xylophilo (Phil Innes)

That goes in my memoirs, along with a picture of a very young Louie Blair standing next to a spouting Venetian fountain, holding a bicycle with a flat tire. Larry Parr

Why was this fountain holding a bicycle, and what was the fountain saying? And in which language? -- Phil Innes (Xylophilo)

Before his brains got addled, Louie Blair had
had a double amputation, which was reversed
several years later when he finally sat down in an
armchair. He rode his bicycle as others ride
unicycles. One tries to be disarmingly charming on
occasion, pawning off indifferent intellectual sherry
from the armoire.

AS EXPECTED, NO BET

We all understood from the beginning that Rynd-Dowd wouldfind a pretext
to duck out of a Polygraph Grudge Match between us. He will continue
to charge this writer with appearing under false monickers, and he will
just as resolutely refuse to put his money where the yap is.

That is a given.

That is also his right. A weasel's right, but a right nonetheless.

It is also the right of an NM Kingston, who slowly slouches back to
rgcp.

Needless to say, Rynd-Dowd stood to win even if the result was
inconclusive because I then would have to eat all my travel costs to a
city of his choice

I have included below material on polygraph
testing from the American Polygraph Association.
Suffice it to say, Rynd-Dowd quoted the lowball figure
for accuracy as claimed by those who are experts in
the field. There is a listing of those groups that
administer lie detector tests and which evidently
regard them as reliable.

THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTING

The American Polygraph Association believes that
scientific evidence supports the high validity of
polygraph examinations. Thus, such examinations have
great probative value and utility for various uses in
the criminal justice system. However, a valid
examination requires a combination of a properly
trained examiner, a polygraph instrument that records
as a minimum cardiovascular, respiratory, and
electrodermal activity, and the proper administration
of an accepted testing procedure and scoring system.
The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of
research studies available on the validity and
reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research
projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380
polygraph examinations or sets of charts from
examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the
validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field
examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%.
Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the
reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of
charts from field examinations confirmed by
independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of
92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the
accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph
examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%.
Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the
reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of
charts from laboratory simulations producing an
average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and
years of the research projects, which are identified
fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel
methods of testing are also mentioned.

Spiral-bound copies of this article may be purchased
for $25.00 postpaid from the American Polygraph
Association National Office, 951 Eastgate Loop, Suite
800, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37411-5608. (423)892-3992
or 1-800-272-8037.

POLYGRAPH ISSUES AND ANSWERS

The American Polygraph Association welcomes the
opportunity to present in this brief document a few
essential facts about polygraph testing. We hope you
will find the information to be of interest and will
be pleased to supply you with additional materials and
information you may need.
What is a Polygraph?

The term "polygraph" literally means "many writings."
The name refers to the manner in which selected
physiological activities are simultaneously recorded.
Polygraph examiners may use conventional instruments,
sometimes referred to as analog instruments, or
computerized polygraph instruments.

It is important to understand what a polygraph
examination entails. A polygraph instrument will
collect physiological data from at least three systems
in the human body. Convoluted rubber tubes that are
placed over the examinee's chest and abdominal area
will record respiratory activity. Two small metal
plates, attached to the fingers, will record sweat
gland activity, and a blood pressure cuff, or similar
device will record cardiovascular activity.

A typical polygraph examination will include a period
referred to as a pre-test, a chart collection phase
and a test data analysis phase. In the pre-test, the
polygraph examiner will complete required paperwork
and talk with the examinee about the test. During this
period, the examiner will discuss the questions to be
asked and familiarize the examinee with the testing
procedure. During the chart collection phase, the
examiner will administer and collect a number of
polygraph charts. Following this, the examiner will
analyze the charts and render an opinion as to the
truthfulness of the person taking the test. The
examiner, when appropriate, will offer the examinee an
opportunity to explain physiological responses in
relation to one or more questions asked during the
test. It is important to note that a polygraph does
not include the analysis of physiology associated with
the voice. Instruments that claim to record voice
stress are not polygraphs and have not been shown to
have scientific support.

Who uses Polygraph Examinations?

The three segments of society that use the polygraph
include law enforcement agencies, the legal community,
and the private sector. They are further described as
follows:

Law Enforcement Agencies - Federal Law Enforcement
Agencies, State Law Enforcement Agencies, and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies such as Police and Sheriff's
Departments.
Legal Community - U.S. Attorney Offices, District
Attorney Offices, Public Defender Offices, Defense
Attorneys, Parole &Probation Departments.

Private Sector - Companies and Corporations under the
restrictions and limitations of the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA).

Private citizens in matters not involving the legal or
criminal justice system.

Attorneys in civil litigation.

Why Critics Figures Vary -
One of the problems in discussing accuracy figures and
the differences between the statistics quoted by
proponents and opponents of the polygraph technique is
the way that the figures are calculated. At the risk
of over simplification, critics, who often don't
understand polygraph testing, classify inconclusive
test results as errors. In the real life setting an
inconclusive result simply means that the examiner is
unable to render a definite diagnosis. In such cases a
second examination is usually conducted at a later
date. To illustrate how the inclusion of inconclusive
test results can distort accuracy figures, consider
the following example: If 10 polygraph examinations
are administered and the examiner is correct in 7
decisions, wrong in 1 and has 2 inconclusive test
results, we calculate the accuracy rate as 87.5% (8
definitive results, 7 of which were correct.) Critics
of the polygraph technique would calculate the
accuracy rate in this example as 70%, (10 examinations
with 7 correct decisions.) Since those who use
polygraph testing do not consider inconclusive test
results as negative, and do not hold them against the
examinee, to consider them as errors is clearly
misleading and certainly skews the figures.

Preemployment Test Accuracy -

To date, there has been only a limited number of
research projects on the accuracy of polygraph testing
in the pre-employment context, primarily because of
the difficulty in establishing ground truth. However,
since the same physiological measures are recorded and
the same basic psychological principles may apply in
both the specific issue and pre-employment
examinations, there in no reason to believe that there
is a substantial decrease in the accuracy rate for the
preemployment circumstance. The few studies that have
been conducted on pre-employment testing support this
contention.

While the polygraph technique is not infallible,
research clearly indicates that when administered by a
competent examiner, the polygraph test is one of the
most accurate means available to determine truth and
deception.

For an excellent review of the research involving
validity and reliability, including preemployment
screening, see: The Accuracy and Utility; of Polygraph
Testing. (1984) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Defense, 1984. Complete reprints may be purchased from
the APA National Office.

Polygraph Screening in Police Agencies -

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
prohibits most private employers from using polygraph
testing to screen applicants for employment. It does
not affect public employers such as police agencies or
other governmental institutions. In the testimony
regarding EPPA it became clear that there were no
current and reliable data on a variety of important
issues about police applicant screening, although
polygraph testing had reportedly been used for that
purpose since at least the early 1950's. In
recognition of this gap, the APA Research Center at
Michigan State University embarked on a survey of
police executives in the U.S. to determine the extent
of, and conditions in which, polygraph testing is
being used for pre-employment screening The survey
population included 699 of the largest police agencies
in the United States, excluding federal agencies, and
produced usable returns from 626 agencies, a response
rate of 90%. The major results of the survey showed
the following:

Among the respondents, 62% had an active polygraph
screening program, 31% did not and 7% had discontinued
polygraph screening, usually because of prohibitive
legislation. These results make it clear that a great
majority of our largest police agencies do have a
polygraph screening program in effect. These agencies
employ, on average, 447 officers and service a
population averaging 522,000 citizens. They primarily
use the polygraph to screen applicants for sworn
positions, although 54% also screen persons interested
in non-sworn positions. Approximately 25% of the
persons tested are disqualified from police employment
based on the information developed during polygraph
testing which, by the way, is used both to verify
information provided in an application form and to
develop information that cannot be gotten by other
means. Only a very small proportion (2%) of agencies
use polygraph testing as a substitute for a background
investigation. A rank ordered listing of topics
covered during polygraph testing revealed that
investigation of illegal drug usage, employment
related dishonesty, and involvement in felonies are
the most important.

When asked to indicate what their reasons were for
using polygraph screening, the great majority of the
agencies indicated that it reveals information that
cannot be obtained by other selection methods. Closely
following this item in order, was that polygraph
testing makes it easier to establish background
information, that it deters undesirable applicants,
and that it is faster than other methods of selection.
The three leading benefits of polygraph screening were
that applications were more honestly completed; that
higher quality employees were hired; and that there
were fewer undesirable employees. Over 90% of these
agencies expressed either moderate or high confidence
in their polygraph screening program and 80% of them
reported that in their experience the accuracy of the
testing ranged between 86%-100%. The only procedure
that was considered to be as useful as polygraph
screening was a background investigation; all others,
including written psychological tests, psychological
or psychiatric interviews, personal interviews, and
interviews by a selection board were judged to be less
useful. Finally, this survey also showed that
polygraph screening revealed applicant's involvement
in serious, undetected criminality. For example, 9% of
the agencies said that polygraph screening detected
involvement by some applicants in unsolved homicides;
34% indicated some applicant involvement in forcible
rape; and 38% showed some applicant participation in
armed robberies. Other serious, unsolved crimes, such
as burglary, arson and drug offenses were also
revealed by polygraph screening.

Errors in Polygraph Examinations

False positive, False negative -

While the polygraph technique is highly accurate, it
is not infallible and errors do occur. Polygraph
errors may be caused by the examiner's failure to
properly prepare the examinee for the examination, or
by a misreading of the physiological data on the
polygraph charts. Errors are usually referred to as
either false positives or false negatives. A false
positive occurs when a truthful examinee is reported
as being deceptive; a false negative when a deceptive
examinee is reported as truthful. Some research
indicates that false negatives occur more frequently
than false positives, other research studies show the
opposite conclusion. Since it is recognized that any
error is damaging, examiners utilize a variety of
procedures to identify the presence of factors which
may cause false responses, and to insure an unbiased
review of the polygraph records; these include:

Protective Procedures

*an assessment of the examinee's emotional state

*medical information about the examinee's physical
condition

*specialized tests to identify the overly responsive
examinee and to calm the overly nervous

control questions to evaluate the examinee's response
capabilities

factual analysis of the case information

*a pre-test interview and detailed review of the
questions

*quality control reviews

Examinee's Remedies -

If a polygraph examinee believes that an error has
been made, there are several actions that may be taken
including the following:

*request a second examination

*retain an independent examiner for a second opinion

*file a complaint with a state licensing board

*file a complaint with the Department of Labor under
EPPA

*file a request for the assistance of the American
Polygraph Association

Scope of Test Questions and Dissemination of Test
Results

Prohibitive Inquiries -

Personal and intrusive questions have no place In a
properly conducted polygraph examination. Many state
licensing laws, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act,
as well as the American Polygraph Association, has so
stated in language similar to the following:

NO EXAMINER SHOULD INQUIRE INTO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
AREAS DURING PRE-EMPLOYMENT OR PERIODIC EMPLOYMENT
EXAMINATIONS:

religious beliefs or affiliations
beliefs or opinions regarding racial matters
political beliefs or affiliations
beliefs, affiliations or lawful activities regarding
unions or labor organizations
sexual preferences or activities

In a law enforcement preemployment polygraph
examination, the questions focus on such
job related inquiries as the theft of money or
merchandise from previous employers,
falsification of information on the job applications,
the use of illegal drugs during
working hours and criminal activities. The test
questions are limited in the time span they
cover, and all are reviewed and discussed with the
examinee during a pre-test interview
before any polygraph testing is done. There are no
surprise or trick questions.

In a specific issue polygraph examination the relevant
questions focus on the particular act
under investigation.

Who Gets Results -

According to the various state licensing laws and the
American Polygraph Association's Standards and
Principles of Practice, polygraph results can be
released only to authorized persons. Generally those
individuals who can receive test results are the
examinee, and anyone specifically designated in
writing by the examinee, the person, firm, corporation
or governmental agency which requested the
examination, and others as may be required by due
process of law.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) -


What is EPPA?
On December 27, 1988, the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act (EPPA) became law. This federal law
established guidelines for polygraph testing and
imposed restriction on most private employers. The
following is a brief summary of the essential elements
of the law.

Who is affected by EPPA?

This legislation only affects commercial businesses.
Local, State and Federal governmental agencies (such
as police departments) are not affected by the law,
nor are public agencies, such as a school system or
correctional institution. In addition, there are
exemptions in EPPA for some commercial businesses.
These a

1. Businesses under contract with the Federal
Government involving specified activities (e.g.,
counterintelligence work). 2. Businesses whose primary
purpose consists of providing armored car personnel,
personnel involved in the design, or security
personnel in facilities which have a significant
impact on the health or safety of any state. Examples
of these facilities would be a nuclear or electric
power plant, public water works, or toxic waste
disposal. 3. Companies which manufacturer, distribute
or dispense controlled substances.

How does EPPA affect businesses which are not exempt?

In general, businesses cannot request, suggest or
require any job applicant to take a pre-employment
polygraph examination. Secondly, businesses can
request a current employee to take a polygraph
examination or suggest to such a person that a
polygraph examination be taken, only when specific
conditions have been satisfied. However, the employer
cannot require current employees to take and
examination, and if an employee refuses a request or
suggestion, the employer cannot discipline or
discharge the employee based on the refusal to submit
to the examination.

What are the conditions that an employer must meet in
order to ask a current employee to take a polygraph?
The American Polygraph Association is furnishing the
following information, which it believes is in good
faith, and conforms with the Department of Labor's
Regulations relating to polygraph tests for employees.
This information is considered only as a guideline to
assist in complying with the Act and Regulations, and
the American Polygraph Association is disclaiming any
liability in connection therewith. Employers should
develop their own forms, using their own company name,
and should also review their final forms through their
own legal counsel.

I. Checklist for the Employer

1. The incident must be an ongoing, specific
investigation. 2. It must be an identifiable economic
loss to the employer. 3. Obtain a copy of the Employer
Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. 4. Provide the
employee with a written statement that includes: a.
identification of the company and location of employee
b. description of the loss or activity under
investigation c. location of the loss d. specific
amount of the loss e. type of economic loss f. how the
employee had access to the loss Note: access alone is
not sufficient grounds for polygraph testing g. what
kind of reasonable suspicion there is to suspect the
employee of being involved in the loss 5. The
Statement provided to employee MUST be signed by
someone other than the polygraph examiner, who is
authorized to legally bind the employee, and MUST be
retained by the employer for at least 3 years. 6. Read
the Notice to Examinee to the employee, which should
be signed, timed, dated and witnessed. 7. Provide the
employee with 48 hours advanced notice (not counting
weekends or holidays) to the date and time of the
scheduled polygraph test. 8. Provide employee with
written notice of the date, time and location of the
polygraph test, including written directions if the
test is to be conducted at a location other than at
the place of employment. 9. Maintain a statement of
adverse actions taken against the employee following a
polygraph test. 10. Conduct an additional interview of
employee prior to any adverse action following a
polygraph test. 11. Maintain records of ALL of the
above for a minimum of 3 years. 12. Employees may not
waive their rights. 13. Police and investigators are
not exempt and must comply if they are conducting an
employment related polygraph test, i.e., when
conducting a polygraph test on an internal theft for a
missing deposit. Information about a polygraph
provided to the employer by a police officer or
investigator is prohibited under the Act, since
employers are not allowed to use, accept or inquire
about the results. 14. There is a $10,000 penalty for
EACH violation of the law. 15. Check out the
credentials of the polygraph examiner that you use and
verify that the examiner meets EPPA requirements.
Never hesitate to ask for written proof of licensing,
liability insurance, etc. 16. Use your company
letterhead on all forms you provide to the employee.
Have your corporate attorney review your actions to
assure your compliance of EPPA.

II. Checklist for the Polygraph Examiner:

1. Provide the employer with a copy of EPPA
guidelines. Do not just try to explain what has to be
done during a phone conversation with the employer. 2.
The examiner should not get involved in assisting the
employer to determine who should or should not be
tested, or who does or does not have access or
reasonable suspicion. 3. Obtain a copy of the signed
statement of advance notice provided to the employee,
along with a copy of the explanation of their rights
and written directions/appointment PRIOR to the
Interview. Obtain a photo I.D. of the employee. RULE
OF THUMB: No form, no test! No identification, no
test! 4. Provide the employee with a written
explanation of the polygraph test and procedures. Have
it signed by the employee and be sure to include the
date and time it was provided. 5. Read and explain the
rights to the employee. Have it signed, dated and
timed. 6. Advised the employee of any taping and/or
one-way mirrors. 7. Carry a minimum of $50,000 or
equivalent professional liability coverage. 8. Conduct
no more than 5 polygraph tests during one calendar
day, even if only 1 test is under EPPA. This includes
ALL tests for all employers and/or lawyers you
conducted during the day! 9. Administer no test that
is less than 90 minutes in duration. 10. Provide the
employee with the polygraph test questions in writing.
Have the employee write out their answers and sign the
question sheet for verification of review. 11. Have an
appropriate license, if so required, in the state
where the test is to be conducted. 12. Keep a log of
company name, employee name, date and times for all
polygraph tests during the course of a day when 1 test
is given under EPPA. 13. Inform the employee of the
results of the test and allow him/her an opportunity
to explain any reactions. 14. Provide any opinion of
deception or non-deception in writing. 15. Results
must only be based on the polygraph test results, and
should NOT be based on behavior. 16. Do not include
any information not relevant to the original purpose
of the test to the employer. 17. Keep a copy of ALL
reports, notes and records for a minimum of 3 years.
18. Provide a copy of charts, questions and reports to
the employee upon request. 19. Provide a copy of
charts, questions and reports to the employer when
results are deceptive. 20. Provide the Department of
Labor with copies of the same, within 72 hours, upon
request of the Secretary of DOL, or other authorized
person of DOL.

III. Preemployment Testing under EPPA

For preemployment testing under EPPA, refer to the Act
for exemptions. Even though an employer may be exempt
and able to use preemployment polygraph testing, the
guidelines under EPPA still apply. Follow the
Checklist for both the employer and examiner use,
omitting the step for preparation of the employer's
statement with respect to an ongoing investigation,
which would apply for specific testing only. ALL OTHER
GUIDELINES WILL APPLY.

Legislation
Licensing - Currently there are 29 states and 3
counties which have laws requiring licensure or
certification for polygraph examiners. Most laws
require formal instruction, an internship training
period and successful completion of a licensing
examination. For example, the following are basic
requirements for licensure in one state:

A person is qualified to receive a license as an
examiner:

(a) who establishes that he or she is a person of good
moral character; and,
(b) who has passed an examination conducted by the
Licensing Committee, or under its supervision. to
determine his or her competency to obtain a license to
practice as an examiner and
(c) who has conferred upon him or her an academic
degree, at the baccalaureate level, from an accredited
collect or university; and,
(d) who has satisfactorily completed 6 months of study
in the detection of deception, as prescribed by
rule....
Prohibitive Legislation - In addition to the Employee
Polygraph Protection Act, to date there are 20 states
and the District of Columbia which have enacted
legislation designed to regulate an employer's use of
the polygraph. No state prohibits polygraph testing in
all settings. A typical statute states:
No employer may require a prospective or current
employee to take a polygraph examination as a
condition of employment or continued employment.

Most of these states make exceptions for testing of
certain occupational groups. Commonly exempted are law
enforcement agencies and companies that manufacture,
distribute or dispense drugs and controlled
substances.

The American Polygraph Association has consistently
supported licensing efforts throughout the country.
The APA encourages efforts to establish proper
qualifications for polygraph examiners and criteria
for testing procedures.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988
prohibits much, but not all pre-employment polygraph
testing. Testing of employees is permitted to solve an
employer's "economic loss." There are exemptions for
guards, armored car personnel and those who handle
drugs and narcotics. EPPA does not affect testing for
attorneys or local, state or federal agencies. See: PL
199 437. Final Rules in the Federal Register, 56 (42).
Monday, March 4 1991,29 CRF Part 801.

Admissibility - Polygraph results (or
psychophysiological detection of deception
examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits
and some states. More often, such evidence is
admissible where the parties have agreed to their
admissibility before the examination is given, under
terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have
absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as
evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph
examination is involved is sufficient to cause a
retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to
rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in
federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court
has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations
raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection,
[Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The
Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning
before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow
admissibility of a confession that follows an
examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394
(1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the
restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on
scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements
were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow
Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not
involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye
did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of
polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the
defendants under the principles embodied in the
Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see
[United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.]
Some circuits already have specific rules for
admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which
specifies what must be done for polygraph results to
be admitted over objection, or under stipulation,
[United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir.
1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the
discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states
and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated
admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez,
371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when
polygraph results are admitted over objection of
opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539
P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of
Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases
have had, polygraph examination admissibility is
changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the
exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under
review by appellate courts.

I once saw a TV report about a machine that
supposedly could detect lies just by listening
to voices. The reporter asked that the machine
be left on while he interviewed a representative
of the company selling the machine. There
followed an exchange that went something
like this:

Reporter: You claim that this machine is 98%
accurate. Is that true?

Representative: Certainly.

Machine: Lie!

I would surmise that the American Chiropractic Association, and the
Hypnotherapists can provide similar numbers. Of course the group whose
very existence depends on the test are going to find a way to play with
the statistics.

But the independent studies do not lie. Even the polygraphers state,
"independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations
producing an average accuracy of 81%."

Was that sensitivity or specificity they tested, Larry? Who were the
subjects? You can regurgitate nearly an entire web site well, but you
have no idea what the numbers mean. An average accuracy for any test of
81% is pretty bad. And as I said before, even if we accept their 81%,
it would not prove a thing.

Case closed. Bloviate all you wish now, I am done.

CASE CLOSED

Case closed. Bloviate all you wish now, I am done. -- Rynd-Dowd

Rynd-Down writes, "Case closed," to which he might have appended
usefully, "but mouth open."

For, to be sure, his fly-gathering oral cavity will continue agape. He
will carry on accusing this writer of appearing here under false names,
and he will equally refuse to put his money where his maw is.

Such I predicted. Such is the case.

Case closed, bazoo boohooing.

Such is Rynd-Dowd's right, though it be the right
of a weasel, mandibles flapping away incontinently.

His excuse for why we cannot have a Polygraph Grudge Match --
with the two of us agreeing upon a master, each placing $10,000
in escrow, hiring a polygraph testing service, etc. -- is that
these testsare so notoriously fallible.

Studies show accuracy rates ranging from over 80%
percent to nearly 100%. Please take note of the array
of clients who use these tests (presented in my previous
post). PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT UNAMBIGUOUS RESULTS
OCCUR IN THESE POLYGRAPH TESTS.

For a matter as exquisitely simple as whether, say, this writer
ever appeared here cynic or whether NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Gatling gun, used the monicker Xylothist
to defend himself when the heat in this kitchen got horrid and torrid
-- well, for a matter so simple, it is highly likely that conclusive
results would be obtained. If not, then I am out the cost of travel to
a city of Rynd-Dowd's choice. What has he got to lose -- except his
integrity, which he already forfeited when he started this quarrel --
not to mention 10K?

.. Rynd-Dowd's response is that the American Polygraphic Association is
an interested party. So what? You can read the claims for yourself and
decide whether the studies and the array of clients are as stated by
the APA.

But we are not to have a Polygraph Grudge Match -- as we all knew we
would not after he claimed that 25 years of teaching left no doubt in
his mind that cynic and I are the same person based on our style of
writing.

However, the Rynd-Dowd chops will continue champing.

And so it goes.