The 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by The Polygraph Place, includes an article by polygrapher Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":

Quote:


I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?

FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.

That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."

Gino,

Note also that this polygrapher who gave a presentation on how to ensure a "deception indicated" outcome showed little confidence in

1) the validity of CQT polygraphy, and

2) the ability of polygraphers to detect countermeasures.

George,

If that which you have reported is confirmed to be true, i.e., the comments were made as reported and as part of an APA sanctioned talk and not immediately condemned by said group, then this finding is very significant and quite disturbing.  Even one such as I, who regularly condemns CQT testing because of long held beliefs regarding the random and unacceptable error inherent in the technique, would not believe that there was a widespread market within the polygraph community for the sort of outright fraud described in this thread.  It is hard to believe that audience participants would not have felt and expressed immediate revulsion for any notion that involved discussing ways examiners might manipulate an exam to produce DI results.   

Suethem,
Quote:



And the "best" of them offers up these words of wisdom:
Quote:



What a joke. Just when you think they have their head in the sand far enough, they go and shove it even further down.

Gino

You can count on me having a beer with you.

On this topic I'd have to agree with Drew's assessment.  I find it hard to believe that such information would be officially presented at an APA seminar.  If it was ,I hope such content was not known by the association leadership prior to the presentation.   

Clearly, anyone who legitimately utilizes polygraph would not advocate such misuse/abuse of an accepted technique.  Nor would they allow such discredit to be brought upon polygraph by making public comments of this type.

Let me make it clear, that such "rigging" of an exam for "DI Charts" would be considered an ethical violation for examiners in any reputable government agency.  If a government examiner were to "rig" an exam to get the result they wanted, they would be disciplined, likely dismissed, for ethical violations.   I've seen worse for smaller infractions than what this passage suggests.

George, 

I was unable to pull up the newsletter from your link.  The home page for Polygraph Place only offered sign-up's for emailings of future newsletters (as far as I saw in my brief look there).   

Also, have you checked for any records of this presentation?  I'd like to see in full context what this presentation was all about, before we pass judgement.

Public Servant,

I have e-mailed you the 16 August 2003 issue of The Polygraph Chronicles. As you've noted, The Polygraph Place does not include an on-line archive current or past issues. If anyone else would like to receive a copy, contact me by e-mail or send a private message via this message board, and I'll forward it.

As you will note, the portion I cited is all that Nate Gordon wrote about the presentation in question. As you will also note, I have sent an inquiry to the APA officer who organized the seminar, and hope that we will receive clarification regarding this matter soon.

Nate_Gordon wrote on Aug 19^th, 2003 at 8:12pm:


I did, and I probably will again, but this time, it will be much easier "passing" the polygraph.