Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:58 pm
Reply
The ("New") Promises of Lie Detectors - 100% After

Like this post
I consider the 5 methods (+ extra, possibly) of lie detection array 100 % certain. The lying is practically dead, in the courts and under non-corrupt police investigation by the letter of law!

I can lay down all of my name for this given I get the freedom to prove it!

"The Lie Detectors - Improved Police Work and Courts
There's this strong belief in the single or combined use of these 5 methods of lie detection:

* Polygraph testing
* Voice stress analysers
* Mimicry including capillary dilation
* fMRI and its brain signals, also where it says "lie", "false" and "deception"
* Transdermal Optical Imaging (new)

These can greatly contribute to police standards of practice, routinely used. The courts have earlier been encouraged to use both video and audio recordings for lie detection in the process of legal work at these arenas.

It's also a strong belief that the combined use of all or any 2 gives the lie itself its death. That lying dies as this is incorporated on all levels throughout the legal systems of the World. That reality gives these 4 methods 100% (or near-100%) hit level in revealing lies/lying."

Source: Blogspot, "The Lie Detectors - Improved Police Work and Courts": https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-lie-detectors-improved-police-work.html

Additional link to Lie detection on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection

Your views? The discussion...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
Here's my story on lie detectors:

I once worked for a security company. I was a "Central Station Operator". This means that I sat behind the desk where all the burglar alarms come in. I was the one who answered the phone when customers called in to give their secret passwords to when they entered a building during off-hours. I was the one who dispatched police as well as my own security officers to go to the location when alarms went off. I was also the person who scheduled service repairman to service go out and service the burglar alarms to be sure that everything was working properly.

I had also previously been both a security officer and an electronic service repairman prior to becoming the "Central Station Operator". So I had experience with the whole shebang of how everything worked.

Now having explained the above. One day I drove into work to discover that the place was filled with police and investigators. I had no clue what was going on. All I was doing was showing up for my shift.

Well, apparently a very high-class Jewelry store had been robbed in a major way. I mean this was a huge heist supposedly amounting to millions of dollars of property stolen. It was determined to be an inside job. In other words, someone clearly had disabled the alarm system to allow this robbery to occur. This caused the police to believe that someone within our security outfit was involved.

They were asking everyone to take a polygraph test along with various types of interrogation. Naturally everyone who worked there was willing to volunteer to go through these interrogations, including myself. After all, I knew that I had absolutely nothing at all to do with this heist so what could be wrong with agreeing to these tests and questions?

Well, it turns out that I FAILED the polygraph test in what they said was a "major way". In other words, the people conducting this test were convinced that I wasn't telling the truth. So I was further questioned in an even more aggressive fashion which was quite intimidating even thought I knew that I had nothing at all to do with this burglary. I mean no one could have been more innocent. I had absolutely no clue about it until I showed up for work that day.

Yet I was being treated as a major suspect of at least knowing something about it if not being an accomplish to the crime. This actually went on for quite a few days and was both an insulting experience for me. Nothing is more insulting than to have people believing that you did something criminal when you knew absolutely nothing at all about it. So I this was an emotionally draining and frustrating time for me.

Fortunately, other investigators who were apparently investigating the employees of the actual Jewelry store got some leads and where actually able to apprehend people who were involved in the heist. It did turn out to be an "inside job", but it was inside the Jewelry store and had absolutely nothing at all to do with anyone from the security company I worked for.

So what did this teach me?

This taught me that polygraph tests as well as interrogations that are supposed to be able to tell whether someone is telling the truth or not are totally undependable.

I had absolutely NO CLUE about this heist. I had nothing to do with it whatsoever, yet I was being interrogated as though I was a MAJOR SUSPECT. All because a polygraph machine indicated that my responses where not true. Rolling Eyes

Clearly the polygraph machine is totally undependable.

It might be somewhat good at detecting when someone actually is lying. But if it can't be used to determine when someone isn't lying, then this makes it virtually useless.

The polygraph machine totally failed in this situation, because I had absolutely no knowledge of this robbery whatsoever. The first time I knew about it was when I drove to work that day and they told me that it happened. That was the first time I even knew that the robbery had taken place.

So if you ask me, the best place for a polygraph machine is in a dumpster.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:55 pm
Reply
Re: The ("New") Promises of Lie Detectors - 100% A

Like this post
Aetixintro wrote:

I consider the 5 methods (+ extra, possibly) of lie detection array 100 % certain.


I recall a rude lie detector that worked perfectly. These cops put a sheet of paper that said, "He's lying!" into a photo copier. Then they brought in their suspect and told him the photocopier was a lie detector.

They ran wires from the suspect to the machine, and began to question him. Occasionally, they would push the button on the machine, and out would pop a piece of paper that said, "He's lying."

Faced with that incontrovertible proof, the defendant gave up on lying and confessed to the crime.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:06 am
Reply

Like this post
Long ago, decades, I read that the polygraph was reliable if used as a "guilty knowledge" tester.

Instead of asking, "Did you kill him?" you instead say, "He was killed with a knife to the ribs. He was killed with a knife to the throat. He was killed with a gun to the gut. He was killed by strangulation," and so on. If the suspect responds (as detected by the polygraph) to the true information, that's suspicious.

Then you say, "The killer entered the bedroom by the door. The killer entered the bedroom by the window. The Killer entered from the fire escape," and so on.

You keep doing that, and if the machine determines that the suspect has guilty knowledge of many aspects of the crime, then you can be confident that he is the perp, or knows who the perp is, or whatever.

It was supposed to be reliable, but I never heard of it again, which suggests that it actually wasn't.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:37 am
Reply

Like this post
wiploc wrote:

Instead of asking, "Did you kill him?" you instead say, "He was killed with a knife to the ribs. He was killed with a knife to the throat. He was killed with a gun to the gut. He was killed by strangulation," and so on. If the suspect responds (as detected by the polygraph) to the true information, that's suspicious.


The episode I described in my previous post happened way back in the early 70's. So my memory of it is not going to be perfect by far. None the less, when I read what you described above that did bring back memories.

I vaguely recall that there were asking me many different kinds of questions. Some questions seemed to be to be obviously unrelated to the whole thing. I do recall even thinking to myself why would they be asking something like that? And those questions seemed to go by without a hitch.

But then they would ask me questions that were directly related to issues that would obviously connect our security company to the crime. It was when I answered those questions (even though truthfully) that they would get a big response from the machine and then all look at me like I wasn't telling the truth.

I'm thinking that it just might be a natural reaction for someone to react emotionally to questions that are obviously going to implicate them versus questions that are obviously unrelated to them.

wiploc wrote:

It was supposed to be reliable, but I never heard of it again, which suggests that it actually wasn't.


Maybe they eventually realized that it may not work precisely for the reasons I've outlined above.

~~~~~

I think there is also something else to consider here.

If they already have a "Suspect" that they have very good reasons to believe was involved with a crime, and they are already fairly confident that this person had committed the crime, then of course, pushing them with questions directly related to the crime (like exactly how a person was murdered, etc.) can easily break that already guilty person down into an actual confession.

In that sense this type of interrogation may indeed be useful to pressure someone they are already convinced is guilty to feel backed into a corner and ultimately confess.

But that's a far cry from using a lie detector to determine whether a person is innocent or guilty.

And like I said before, while it may work to "expose" liars, its use is still questionable if it also "exposes" innocent people as being liars. In other words, it can't be a dependable system if it results in suggesting that people who are actually telling the truth are lying when they aren't.


A dependable "lie detector" must also be a dependable "truth detector" if it is to be given any credibility.

After all, if it shows that someone is lying when they are actually telling the truth, then how can it be used with any credibility?

So a "lie detector" that is not also a very dependable "truth detector", is basically useless.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:28 pm
Reply
Re: The ("New") Promises of Lie Detectors - 100% A

Like this post
wiploc wrote:

Aetixintro wrote:

I consider the 5 methods (+ extra, possibly) of lie detection array 100 % certain.


I recall a rude lie detector that worked perfectly. These cops put a sheet of paper that said, "He's lying!" into a photo copier. Then they brought in their suspect and told him the photocopier was a lie detector.

They ran wires from the suspect to the machine, and began to question him. Occasionally, they would push the button on the machine, and out would pop a piece of paper that said, "He's lying."

Faced with that incontrovertible proof, the defendant gave up on lying and confessed to the crime.


There was a scene like this from HBO's "The Wire". A great series and a great scene.

If you are familiar with the show, it was Bunk who ran the copier which always returned the "He's lying" result.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version