Polygraph Testing

[nugnug]

I think it might have gotten out if the police had shot Sheila.

i never said they did.

[bob]

He had an enormous amount to lose.  You're clearly making an assumption that a negative test result would not have become knowledge.  With regards to how may tests he took, I don't know.  His one test might have been split.  If you are attempting to assert that Terry Mullins or another tester would go along with burying a negative result until a positive one came around, I think that's insulting to people like Mullins.  The original point I was making (which you replied to) was aimed at people like Bews & co.

So it's ok to insult large numbers of police officers for suggesting that they might be willing to participate in a cover up, but to insult Mullins in a similar fashion is unacceptable?

[nugnug]

well why would he bury the result hes got gain ether way from a pass or a fail.

he still gets paid whatever the result.

[nugnug]

So it's ok to insult large numbers of police officers for suggesting that they might be willing to participate in a cover up, but to insult Mullins in a similar fashion is unacceptable?

perfectly ok considering the past history of the police force.

[Roch]

So it's ok to insult large numbers of police officers for suggesting that they might be willing to participate in a cover up, but to insult Mullins in a similar fashion is unacceptable?

Yes.  That's correct.  This case has massively damaged the rep of EP if not now then in years past.  That's the same for whether you believe in a cover up or not.  If you don't believe in a cover up then the level of mistakes, gaffes and blunders is astounding. 

What wrong has Mullins ever done?

[Bridget]

Yes.  That's correct.  This case has massively damaged the rep of EP if not now then in years past.  That's the same for whether you believe in a cover up or not.  If you don't believe in a cover up then the level of mistakes, gaffes and blunders is astounding. 

What wrong has Mullins ever done?

There's a huge difference between failing to investigate properly for whatever reason, and the sort of dishonesty you are implying.

How would anyone kinow what Mullins has ever done? He's answerable to no one.

[nugnug]

why would mullins lie about it he has not reason to.

it wouldent matter to him weather jeremy passed or failed.

[Roch]

There's a huge difference between failing to investigate properly for whatever reason, and the sort of dishonesty you are implying.

How would anyone kinow what Mullins has ever done? He's answerable to no one.

Well if people want to label Mullins as some kind of dishonest charlatan with a vested interest in aiding multiple murderers... then I cant stop them.   However, if these tests are as duff as some are making out, I'm not sure they should be in use by any authority.  Yet they are currently being used on sex offenders, as per the recent Guardian article. 

[Bridget]

Well if people want to label Mullins as some kind of dishonest charlatan with a vested interest in aiding multiple murderers... then I cant stop them.   However, if these tests are as duff as some are making out, I'm not sure they should be in use by any authority.  Yet they are currently being used on sex offenders, as per the recent Guardian article.

I don't think anyone is questioning Mullin's honesty.

[Roch]

I don't think anyone is questioning Mullin's honesty.

My impression was that bob hinted at Mullins potential collusion in burying a deception indicated result.  If I've got that wrong then I apologise.

[Bridget]

My impression was that bob hinted at Mullins potential collusion in burying a deception indicated result.  If I've got that wrong then I apologise.

No, I think what he was saying is that the test was commissioned by the defence, and so it would have been up to them whether or not they disclosed the results. I agree that had he have failed the test he would have had rely on Mullins keeping his trap shut, but I assume there would be some sort of confidentiality agreement attached.

[nugnug]

well if mullins had been there to test him more than once there would be records  of it and they cant force the prison staff to keep quite.

[Roch]

No, I think what he was saying is that the test was commissioned by the defence, and so it would have been up to them whether or not they disclosed the results. I agree that had he have failed the test he would have had rely on Mullins keeping his trap shut, but I assume there would be some sort of confidentiality agreement attached.

I take the view that anybody who scoffs at polygraphs should check with them self whether or not they them self would take such a test, regarding an untruth in their own life.  Now I could be wrong but I suspect that if a person did not want to expose them self to the risk of that untruth becoming known via potential deception indicated result, they will back out of the idea of taking a test in the first place. 

What is being suggested here is two things. Firstly Bamber could bury a result that wasn't in his favour.  Fact is, his supporters would leave him in droves upon there being any sign of concealment, regarding a result not in his favour.  Secondly, he is mentally abnormal and therefore either wrongly believes in his own innocence or is able to switch off his reactions, thereby duping the tester and / or equipment.  On the second one, I'm not sure.  My personal opinion is it's unlikely.  Obviously others will disagree.

[Bridget]

I take the view that anybody who scoffs at polygraphs should check with them self whether or not they them self would take such a test, regarding an untruth in their own life.  Now I could be wrong but I suspect that if a person did not want to expose them self to the risk of that untruth becoming known via potential deception indicated result, they will back out of the idea of taking a test in the first place. 

What is being suggested here is two things. Firstly Bamber could bury a result that wasn't in his favour.  Fact is, his supporters would leave him in droves upon there being any sign of concealment, regarding a result not in his favour.  Secondly, he is mentally abnormal and therefore either wrongly believes in his own innocence or is able to switch off his reactions, thereby duping the tester and / or equipment.  On the second one, I'm not sure.  My personal opinion is it's unlikely.  Obviously others will disagree.

Did his supporters know he was going to take the test before he did so? Who arranged it, was it GDS?

[Roch]

Did his supporters know he was going to take the test before he did so? Who arranged it, was it GDS?

All I know is that the defence claim he has been applying to take one since 1991 but was refused until I think 2007.  This may or may not have been due to procedure / precedent? If it occurred during GDS tenure then perhaps he arranged it.  Mullins seems to be well established.  Interestingly enough, the other forum contacted GDS via twitter recently and questioned him about the Bamber case.