Saidme wrote on Jul 19^th, 2003 at 3:58am:


Dear Saidme,

I only have experience with the pre-screening process.  My appeal involved no lawyers.  A recording (and pictures in a video) would save both examiners and examinees alot of grief.  I have stated many postings ago that only unethical examiners ( or poorly executed polygraph procedures) and unethical examinees would protest recordings and it would solve alot of you said, I said, and Saidme said (couldn't resist that one!).

Regards.

CC

If you think I'm going to create some type of database to evaluate all the bullshit on this website, think again!  I approach every examination with an open mind and as neutral as possible (no one is truly unbiased, not even NAS).  The pendulum swings both ways.  I've exonerated folks who law enforcement were certain to have committed the crime (confirmed later with other evidence and confessions) and obtained confessions which surprised case agents because they were certain that particular person was not involved.  I'm disturbed at how casual you and others on this website want to eliminate a valuable investigative tool based primarily on a few pre-employment polygraphs that didn't go their way.  Or are there other underlying issues we don't know about?  It's obvious many of the anti poly folks are former clients who now sit in a jail cell or on probation/parole for their crimes.  Of course they would like to see it go away, for polygraph was probably what put them away.  As to the young folks we discussed earlier in this thread, I do believe they all had extensive criminal histories (surprise, surprise).

Saidme,

You really are diluted and biased aren't you.  Your last post put the nail in the coffin regarding how you view every civillian that crosses your path.  Check their records, they must all have a shady past of some sort.

have you ever sat back and scientifically inventoried and digested some of the points posted on this site.  The polygraph is not the be all and end all.  Just because it shows someone as being DI doesn't mean they must be a scum bag in some other aspect of their life.

It disturbes me that you sit in a position of authority and that your biased judgement of people is actually listened to and acknowledged by others.  Are all cops so judgemental of others or just the polygraphers?  I truely hope you fall off your pedestal one day, hit your head and wake up to approach your job with an unbiased open mind like all cops should.  Not everyone is a criminal.

oops...my bad

wombat,
I thought 1young11's questions were answered within the first 3 days after his post, which by the way was 2 months ago. I imagine he has had his exam by now

bla bla bla bla bla.....geez....all 1young11 wanted was an answer and you guys just go on and on and on....
1young11, if you want to know how to pass the test send me a private message and ill help you.

Orolan

I would be interested to see the background (police records) of those upstanding young people.  You might not be far off track.

Fair Chance

I concur with video taping polygraph examinations.  That way we (examiner's) wouldn't have to testify as much in court regarding confessions.  Although I still think the lawyers would whine about something.

Dear Marty,

One thing I have consistantly suggested is that all polygraphs be recorded (audio at a minimum) and tapes be readily available to the person being tested.  I could have shown anyone my polygraph procedings and they could make their own opinion about the conduct being professional and "scientific".

I have still not read any convincing posting on why this cannot occur.  Money and logistics have been mentioned. Anyone familiar with law enforcement knows that money is wasted on many other items deemed "mandatory" and file cabinets are filled with redundant information which is kept for a lifetime concerning trivial events.

Regards.

Marty,
Good article. I suppose certain polygraphers recently frequenting this site will tell you that all of them had raped a jogger, just not caught

Quote:


Interesting review of A&E's program on the Central Park Jogger false confessions.  Never underestimate the power of the psychological aspects of interrogation. Much of that clearly applies to to polygraphs as well, for both the the examiner and examinee - in spite of the best of intentions by LE.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085811/

-Marty

Batman,

No, I won't refute everything you say. For example, I think we both agree that polygraphy can be useful in convincing people to be more candid than they would absent the polygraph, and this can be helpful both in background investigations and in criminal and administrative investigations.

As for my "one and only one goal" of "do[ing] away with polygraph at all levels under all situations," I should clarify that my main concern is that polygraphy should be completely removed from the American workplace, and I support passage of a Comprehensive Polygraph Protection Act that would accomplish this goal.

As for the use of polygraphy in criminal investigations, my concerns are somewhat different. I have no per se objection to the use of ruses in criminal interrogations. But I am very concerned that many law enforcement officials attach to polygraphy a validity that it does not possess. I'm also concerned about the polygraph being used, as William Scott Stewart put it, as "an adjunct to the third degree" -- a ruse for conducting a hostile interrogation of a suspect in the absence of counsel, as occured in FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton's interrogation of Abdallah Higazy or NCIS polygrapher Robert Hyter's infamous interrogation of Navy petty officer Daniel M. King. Such cases speak to the need for routined recording polygraph interrogations.

I don't see a need for legislation banning the use of polygraphs in criminal investigations. The polygraph will continue to have some utility as an interrogational aid so long as some members of the public continue to believe in it.

But public belief in the polygraph cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of any proof that it is a valid diagnostic technique. Indeed, an inherent weakness of CQT polygraphy is that it depends on the ignorance and fear of the person being interrogated. Once a person understands the trickery behind the "test," the polygraph's utility as a confession-inducing machine evaporates.

Thank you for explaining how your experience of the use of polygraphy differs from that which Dr. Lykken describes in A Tremor in the Blood. I am glad that investigators in your agency don't place such great reliance on polygraph outcomes as Lykken has observed.

Thank you also for explaining what you meant by capabilities of the polygraph of which you believe some of us are ignorant. Perhaps "benefits" would have been a better word than "capabilities." I don't see any need for you to cite from your personal experience examples of cases that have been solved, or innocent people who have been exonerated, thanks to admissions/confessions obtained with the polygraph. This is part of the utility of polygraphy that I readily acknowledge. But this utility is not to be confused with validity (or any inherent "capability").

With regard to the robustness of polygraphy against countermeasures, the National Academy of Sciences concluded (at p. 8-2 of its report), "...the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." Why should we believe you instead of the NAS?

You wrote:

Quote:


It is because of the waste, fraud, and abuse associated with employment-related polygraph screening that I (and others) see a compelling need for public dissemination of countermeasure information. I think the need for the truthful to protect themselves against polygraph abuse outweighs the polygraph community's need for public ignorance of polygraph procedure and countermeasures.

If there were a practical way to provide countermeasure information only to the well-intentioned, I would be inclined to adopt it. But there is no such way, is there? In order to reach those who legitimately need it, countermeasure information must be made available to all. Those in the polygraph community need to understand that "the genie is out of the bottle" when it comes to countermeasures, and it's not going back.

Batman,

Eddie James Lowery.  10 years in jail.  False conviction.   Is his example another "supposed bad experience..?"

19 years.  I wonder how many people you accused falsely?  Let me guess, you never even thought about it.

George,

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  It is apparent that no matter what I say you are going to refute it, sentence by sentence, even when I readily admit the inherent weaknesses of polygraph.  It is also apparent you have one and only one goal, and that is to do away with polygraph at all levels under all situations.   

As for Mr. Lykken and his 'Tremor in the Blood', I do not agree with some of the points he puts forth in the passage you quoted.  First, "If a suspect passes the polygraph test, he will not be interrogated because the examiner firmly believes he has been truthful."  In my experience, this is not at all accurate.  Granted many times, if a suspect passes he may not be initially interrogated, however experienced examiners know full well that there are variables that could allow for a "guilty" person to 'pass', for example poorly worded relevant questions.  On multiple suspect investigations, I make it a rule to advise the investigator NOT to rule someone out as a possible suspect simply because they 'pass' the polygraph examination.  Lykken makes a very definitive statement that a suspect who passes a polygraph WILL NOT be interrogated as if that is how it is in all situations.

Second, Lykken states, "Note that the examiner's client or employer also hears about these same confessions and is also protected from learning about most of the polygrapher's mistakes."  Again, not at all accurate.  In a report of investigation the results of all polygraph examinations administered in support of that investigation are reported, therefore if someone is considered to have 'passed' and later is determined to be the primary suspect, or confesses, it is known to all who read the report or who are involved in the investigation. 

Third, Mr. Lykken states, "If the suspect who was tested first is diagnosed as deceptive, then the alternative suspect--who might be the guilty one--is seldom tested at all because the examiner believes that the case was solved by that first failed test."  If this is done then it is a poor and incomplete use of the polygraph technique.  In a multiple suspect investigation, if one individual is polygraphed and opined to be deceptive but does not confess, then all the other suspects should be offered the opportunity to undergo a polygraph, and one should be administered if they agree.  Granted, if a confession is obtained, most likely the other suspects will not be polygraphed unless there is reason to believe they had some level of involvement in the crime under investigation.

You asked that I enlighten you as to the capabilities of polygraph that you are ignorant to.  This is a tough one.  I am somewhat handcuffed (no pun intended) by my current employment in that I can not discuss specifics of investigations in a forum such as this.  I know some will say that I am "hiding behind my job", however that is the reality for anyone involved in law enforcement who post on this site.  However, I can say, whether you chose to believe me or not, that I have administered polygraph examinations that have been crucial in restoring the careers and reputations of numerous individuals falsely accused, or wrongly suspected of a variety of crimes.  I have also administered polygraph examinations that have greatly assisted in the resolution of a multitude of investigations.  In other polygraph-related positions that I have held I have either witnessed or been indirectly involved in same.  These are the capabilities I speak of, however maybe 'capabilities' is not the correct word, but it's the one I happened to use.

As for countermeasures, I believe that polygraph is "robust" against their use.  I know you will ask that I show proof of this, however you know full well that I will not, for reasons that should be obvious, or at least will be to any polygraph examiners who post on this site.  But, whether or not polygraph is robust aginst the use of countermeasures is not the point I raise when I reference your willingness to provide countermeasure information to anyone who asks.  You can not possibly have any idea as to who you are helping, or  what circumstances bring them to this site.  However, it is rather obvious, you do not care.  That is my point on this particular issue.

As for my lack of patience, have you been talking to my wife?  I must ask you though, how can one have patience with the likes of Beech Trees, or Anonymous?  They too do not seem willing to engage in any logical debate; why not chastise them on occasion?

Lastly, regarding my "tactics of taunts, insults, and vulgarity", guilty as charged, but if I'm ever asked to take a polygraph pertaining to this, I'll be sure to bone up on my CM's.

Batman

Poly-Killer,

The argument against CQT polygraphy is not that it's less than 100% accurate, but rather that it has no validity whatsoever.

One of the main problems I see with its use by law enforcement in criminal and administrative investigations is that too many investigators attach to it a validity that it simply does not have. The undue significance attached to polygraph chart readings is explained in part by Lykken's Law, regarding which see pp. 74-75 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood. The following passage sums it up:

Quote:


A misplaced faith in polygraphy can easily result in serious investigatory misdirection. You'll find documented examples in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

In addition, criminals who understand the simplistic assumptions behind the "test" can exploit official faith in the polygraph. By using countermeasures and "passing," they can deflect suspicion away from themselves.

A second problem is that polygraph "testing" is often used as little more than a trick to lure a suspect into a hostile interrogation in the absence of counsel. This tactic may be useful in getting confessions, but it has also resulted in false confessions. As a safeguard, I think it's very important that polygraph interrogations be video or audio recorded.

A third problem with CQT polygraphy is that its usefulness depends on widespread public ignorance of how it "works." Once a suspect understands that the "test" is a fraud, the polygraph is unlikely to have any utility for getting admissions.

The main application for which I think the polygraph shows some promise is the "Concealed Information Test" (also known as the "Guilty Knowledge Test"). However, this technique is little used in the United States. For more on it, see the discussion thread Guilty Knowledge Test.

Hmmm, Batguy makes some interesting points, some of which I do agree with. The initial reason for me stumbling onto this site was the inaccuracy and unreliability of the polygraph, as a screening tool. I do, however, believe Batty may have a valid point in believing it has a place, when combined with good investigative techniques, in the LE sector. 

Yes, I DO BELIEVE it should be eliminated as a screening tool, it is not nearly reliable enough (I beat it 3 times, with different agencies). I also believe that there should be more accountability on the part of the polygrapher and the agency that chooses to employ the poly in such capacities as employment screening, to help curtail abuse. At this point, however, I don't believe I fall in the same catagory as some on this site who feel the whole thing should be scrapped. 

I understand that the polygraph, regardless of how it is employed, is not 100% accurate or even close to it. It appears that even the ProPoly people, for the most part, acknowledge this as well. Most also agree that it can be beaten, although not all agree how easily. My question is, should it be COMPLETELY scrapped because it is not 100% accurate? I am not totally convinced that it should. After all, if we started just scrapping everything that was not 100% reliable, what would we have left? I carry a firearm, radio, OC spray, a flashlight and various other tools, I drive a car, I have co-workers, NONE of which are 100% reliable 100% of the time. Does this mean they should all be scrapped? I understand the answer is obviously not.

George,
Do you, or any of your associates, feel there is any arena where the polygraph is well-suited? IF so, in what capacity? I know that your research in this area is far more extensive than mine and I would appreciate your input. I only ask out of curiosity, so please don't lump me in with the pro-poly crowd.  I'm still one of the "good guys"   . Maybe some of my opinions here are simply based on ignorance, I concede that much. I guess maybe I am just looking for more "food for thought".

I am still in hopes that the day will come that the polygraph gives way to something more reliable and less susceptible to human error or to unethical examiners.

PK

Batman,

You write:

Quote:


CQT polygraphy may well be "viable" in the sense that it can have utility as an interrogational prop with individuals who don't understand that the "test" is a fraud. But it has not been "proven accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused." As the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its recent polygraph report, there is essentially no evidence on the additive validity of polygraphy, that is, its ability to add diagnostic value to that which can be achieved without it (e.g., interrogating a suspect without the use of a polygraph, or with a mock-up device that the subject is led to believe is a polygraph).

Quote:


The same could be said of tea leaf, tarot card, astrological chart, and palm readings, all of which, like polygraphy, have no scientific basis whatsoever.

You mention your experience of seeing more polygraph successes than failures. David T. Lykken provides relevant commentary in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector  (2nd ed., pp. 70-71):

Quote:


You also write:

Quote:


Why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness? Enlighten us. What are these capabilities of polygraphy of which you believe some of us are ignorant?

Quote:


If polygraphy were a valid diagnostic test of truth versus deception, and if it were robust against countermeasures, then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

Quote:


This last objection of yours is groundless. No one here is arguing that polygraphy has no utility. It's just that it has no validity.

Quote:


You have shown little patience for logical debate, quickly resorting to the less intellectually demanding tactics of taunts, insults, and vulgarity instead.

Suethem,

You are a feisty little bugger aren't you?

First, only a fool would argue that polygraph is a perfect tool, and that it can't be beat.  The same would have to be said for anyone who argues that countermeasures can be detected 100% of the time.  I have stated on numerous occasions that polygraph is not perfect, and that it's use as a pre-employment screening tool is questionable; however in the law enforcement arena, on specific issue testing, it is a viable tool which has been proven to be accurate in identifying subjects and exonerating those who are wrongly accused.

I have also stated that it is my belief that the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis, as it is not something that is administered within a 'controlled' enviornment, and the primary variable, the examinee, is always different.

My opinions and beliefs on this subject are based on 19 plus years of continuous experience as a polygraph examiner within the law enforcement community, and 25 years of total experience within that same community.  During this period of time I have witnessed, and been a direct part of, some tremendous success stories involving the use of polygraph.  I have also witnessed some, but far fewer, failures.  The great majority of the time, those failures were brought about by human error on the part of the polygraph examiner or investigators.  The success stories were a combined effort of good, solid investigative work coupled with the proper utilization and employment of the polygraph technique as an investigative tool.

I have no objection with anyone who posts anti-polygraph sentiments on this, or any other site.  What I object to is the willingness of some to first, want to dispose of the use of polygraph in any capacity, based simply on their ignorance of it's full capabilities, and their vendetta due to a supposed bad experience.  Second, the blatant willingness to provide anyone, regardless of their situation, information as to how to "beat" the polygraph, and then hiding behind some blanket ideology that even though this may render assistance to some full blown criminals, that is a small price to pay in the war against polygraph. And third, the fact that most of the anti-polygraph posters on this site are zealots, who refuse to acknowledge in any way what-so-ever, that polygraph does in fact have utility.  Attempting to enter into any type of logical debate with them is equal to beating my head against a brick wall.   

You'll note that I said my head, not your head.  If we were to use your head, then we could most likely crumble that wall with one single blow!

George, 

I never cease to be amazed at how you always blow off each and every 'pro-polygraph' comment with some quote by Mr. Richardson, or others.  What Mr. Richardson states, before the Senate, is his opinion.  Some of it I actually agree with, however it still remains his opinion as an individual.  His statements before the Senate do nothing to diminish the fact that polygraph is a viable investigative tool, utilized by almost every local, state, and federal agency with an investigative charter, many of which have individual employees of extremely high intelligence, and adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct.  To be asked by someone (I can't recall which goofball it was) to provide the names of these individuals is more ridiculous than my "suggestion that the fact that various federal agencies rely on polygraphy somehow rebuts the findings of the National Academy of Sciences".

Batman

1young11,

You have to understand that polygraphers have a cult mentality.  They are the oracle of what is true and just- only they can say who is good/bad.

Like any two cent tyrant, the power goes to their head and clouds their judgement- so don't take it personally. 

Batman probably picked up on the frequency of your posting  and judged it as a deceptive one.  (They can read the frequencies of your mind you know.)

Your firefighting/emt work is something that has real value to the community.  You help save people!!  Use what you read here to help you pass the 'test' and never look back.

If you ever get a rescue call to a cave, take your time. You can always say that traffic was a public safety issue, and you had to drive slowly.

Just for the record, not that it matters, I am a volunteer firefighter who has worked his ass of this past year to get my EMT license, and firefighterII certification.  I have made it in the top 4 places on the hiring list of the department that I have wanted to get on for 4 years.  I am not going to allow a false + from a polygraph to keep me from realizing my dreams of being a career firefighter.  And I want to thank George for having this site, and for providing DOCUMENTED information about polygraphs.  As opposed to some of the posters in this forum who instead of bringing intelligent info, only seem capable of leveling accusations, and insults.  Why don't these cowardly people grow a pair, and bring real info to have an intelligent debate about this topic, or they can continue to look like asses and bring no intelligent thought out arguement, and just keep up with their childish insults.

Batman,

I have no idea for what purpose 1young11 is interested in polygraph countermeasures, just as I have no idea for what purpose any particular person who downloads The Lie Behind the Lie Detector does so. But I see no reason to assume bad intent. The question 1young11 raised is of general interest, and I see no problem in candidly discussing it.

With regard to your ridiculous suggestion that the fact that various federal agencies rely on polygraphy somehow rebuts the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, one should recall the following words from Dr. Richardson's 1997 Senate testimony (explaining why the FBI and other agencies continue to rely on this quackery):

Quote:

Beech Trees
Thanks on Williams behalf for the endorsement.  I have read his material and even corresponded with him.  Heres my view.
His material is badly dated and in some cases just flat wrong
He is a fraud that has nothing like the experience he claims, and is in fact seeking revenge and financial opportunity
He also is in my view very violatile and unstable. 

The fact that you would use him to reinforce your position (you do know he has contempt for the players here) says alot about your ability to jump to conclusions and put forth half baked proposition as factual knowledge. He is a fraud, find another source.

Ill tell you what, as an self acknowledged master of sophisticated countermeasures, take some of the time you would normally devote to irritating people on this site and apply for a LE job from a respectable agency close to you.  Pick one that polygraphs before a background so you can maintain the appearance of dignity.  Employ your tradecraft after notifying the readers here of the target, the name of the polygrapher, and the agency.  Post your results and preferably the charts.  Do that and ill be impressed.
Or better yet, since you have already done it several times, provide details that can be checked.
If you are serious about your cause, then take it serious.  Hell, even Martin Sheen gets symbolically arrested on a yearly basis in August.
Not willing to put your own examples on the line? talk some weak willed person into it for you and document same.  Nothing in this would violate any law that I know of.
Its just hard for those of us that can think for ourselves that you are here out of indignation, having toyed with your examiners, now just want to make things right in the world.  Since you wont talk about your job, I will just put you in the BS file with your friends.

George,

You have stated in the past that the purpose of this site is not to aid individuals involved in criminal activity by giving them information on how to beat the polygraph; not an exact quote, but a fairly accurate depiction.

Do you know anything at all about '1young11'?  Is he just some innocent job applicant afraid of taking a polygraph, or is he someone who is involved in serious criminal activity who is trying to avoid prosecution?  Do you have any idea at all?

This isn't the first time you've given fairly specific "countermeasures advice" to a 'poster'.  Do you have any idea as to what circumstances they are facing that require them to undergo a polygraph?

I know you have also stated, again not an exact quote, that for the greater good, it is acceptable that a few bad apples get away.  I suppose some could live with that, but are you now giveing specific aid to those bad apples?  Do you care if you are?

Batman

Quote:


1young11,

The reason we provide no suggestions on whether to use the same amount of effort, or to use the same technique(s), in augmenting responses  to "control" questions is that we don't have documentation or theoretical grounds for making any such suggestions.

It seems that some polygraphers may expect to see "habituation" and a gradual lessening of the magnitude of physiological responses over the course of a polygraph examination. This was suggested in the article by London & Krapohl cited in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Thus, one might suppose that it might to be beneficial to countermeasure more strongly early in the examination and less strongly later.

However, a polygrapher's expectation of such habituation during the time frame of a polygraph examination seems to be simply more conjecture from the polygraph community. If one countermeasures with less effort later in the course of a polygraph examination, there is an associated risk that reactions to the corresponding relevant questions might be stronger than those to the "control" questions, leading to a "deception indicated" outcome.

Note also that the pneumo channel is the only one for which the relative intensity of reactions can be directly controlled. By contrast, mental countermeasures (or tongue biting or anal sphincter contraction) applied with roughly equal effort might produce reactions of differing magnitudes.

Hence, we make no suggestion with regard to whether to vary the intensity of effort in augmenting reactions to "control" questions.

BS Detector,

Precisely what have I said or written regarding polygraph countermeasures that you believe to be "BS?"

In the message thread Countermeasures you characterized my remarks on countermeasures as "a pile of bullshit." When I asked you to tell me precisely what I have said or written that you consider to be "a pile of bullshit," you did not reply.

You seem to be just another irate polygrapher, miffed that the tricks of your trade are being openly aired...and that you are powerless to stop it.

Batman,

I am aware that many LE agencies use the polygraph to get confessions from applicants- That is not what I am disputing.

What I am questioning is the scientific validity of polygraph examinations and testing.  You still did not answer my question about the National Academy of Sciences!   

Are they Wrong Yes or No?

If countermeasures don't exist then why do polygraphers threaten applicants by saying that they can detect them?

Haven't there been spies who have beaten the FBI poly?
   
Didn't some folks from Cuba snow the Defense Dept. poly program? 

On the main page here there is a former CIA polygrapher who calls polygrapher a SWAG (scientific Wild Ass Guess).  A past CIA director also states that the belief in the polygraph is insane!

Doesn't the US military train some of it personnel to beat polygraphs in case they are captured?- train them to use countermeasures?

I believe that the DEA no longer makes "passing the poly" a condition of employment (or so they say because they got sued!).

I believe in countermeasures- I have friends that have used them to beat the poly- Now they work in some of the agencies you listed.   

If they really didn't work it would be in your best interest not to say anything at all.  That way all the liars, and people that use countermeasures to ensure good results, would fail, and nothing but the best, most truthfull would remain.

Here is the polygraph standard:

Lie when we want you to (control Question) and your a good citizen!!! 

You guys like confessions- Ashcroft admitted that there is at least a 15% false postive rate on the polygraph- I bet that makes him feel better. 

Why don't you admit that its just a prop-  I'll bet you'll feel better than you have in years.  You might even take your tights off and get out of the cave!!

Suethem,

FBI, CIA, NCIS, USA/CID, USA/MI, USMC, AFOSI, DIA, NSA, NRO, DEA, US Customs, Secret Service, DSS, Treasury Dept, the US Government, almost all state police departments, and almost every major municipal police department, to name a few, all believe the polygraph works and endorse it's utilization.

Now they may all be wrong, and they may all be involved in some sort of conspiracy to violate the rights of the individual polygraph examinee, but just as impressive a list, with as many highly intelligent and fair-minded individuals as you mentioned. 

Batman