Ray, 


Quote:


That’s because polygraph testing is usually left to professionals who stay within their standards of training. 

Quote:


In theory, “Generally” is correct, but not absolutely. There is no surgical manner in which to jack up a person up and how that person will react to being jacked up. 

Quote:


I now understand controls. But as an applicant, you are led to believe the only controls are the irrelevant questions. 

Under the assumption that each question is relevant, I answered each question honestly. I was told I was lying. I was telling the truth. This upset me. Therefore, I lost faith in the polygraph. Once faith in the polygraph is lost, all further testing is irrelevant. Essentially the game is up. 

It is not realistic to believe that an examiner can place surgical stimulation on certain questions that causes an applicant to become upset and not have it have an impact on other areas of the test. If you get punched in the face hard enough, it will cause more places in your body to hurt than just your face. The same is true for my situation. 

Quote:


Absolutely floored many experts, including Joseph Buckley of the Reid Institute who is a polygraph proponent. He told me everything after this statement made by Agent Savage related to the polygraph results was invalid due to over stimulation of the applicant. 

Quote:


The controls were irrelevant, again based on the experts in the pro-polygraph community my mind was mush and the controls and relevants were hopelessly intertwined. 

Quote:


They were definitely emphasizing the controls, and as you will read later on, they were emphasizing the relevants too via premature interrogation. 

Insofar as the drama, it was all too real to make up. 
 

Quote:


Improper setting of controls results in improper test results.  

Quote:


Just the facts. Would the fact an examiner who told an applicant that he was scoring too high in the controls have a negative impact on the remainder of the test? Answer: Yes. The remainder of the test would be flawed due to over stimulation. 
 
Quote:


I have no idea. I have heard theories on both yes and no. I just know what happened to me.  

Quote:
 

There were no admissions. The Freedom of Information Act confirmed that. The FOIA Act stated there were no pre-test or post admissions on any of my series of examinations with Agent Zamora and Savage. 

Although the US Secret Service will not release the tape, they released the report (except questions formats etc for National Security purposes, but are available on the LBTLD.) 

The report corroborates there were no admissions made by me before or after the examinations. My polygraphs were based solely on the polygraph results. It is in black and white (and on their stationary).

Quote:


Ray,   to your defense you were unaware of the FOIA report. Last night I only mentioned the tape as that is the best evidence. I tend to concentrate on the tape because it would be such a dramatic piece of evidence to hear the abominable actions of the two Agents. (Plus I wanted to go to bed  and relieving all the details of this is not pleasant, even after almost five years.)

The FOIA act corroborates my statement that no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and that after the first examination I passed regarding national security with Agent Savage, all examinations were determined to be inconclusive. 

After Agent Savage’s polygraph, his report was sent to Washington and my file was reviewed. As there was no issue other than my inconclusive results, I was authorized another polygraph with another examiner. 

Insofar as my second examination with Agent Zamora, again no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and I was inconclusive on the first two exams. It wasn’t until after the contorted face, knee slapping and yelling I failed the last polygraph. Then after the polygraph, no post test admissions were made. 

In my agency, whose training is consistent with acceptable interview and interrogation models, an interrogation would never be conducted until the examiner has formed an opinion. An opinion was not formed until the last polygraph with Agent Zamora (remember this was the polygraph after over five hours of horrendous behavior). 

So everyone is on the same waive length. An interview is a fact gathering process and an interrogation is a series(s) of accusatory statements often times conducted in a structured manner to obtain admissions and confessions. 

Within interview and interrogation, standardized practice is not to move into interrogation until the examiner had formed an opinion as to the person’s guilt or innocence. DODPI, where Agents Zamora and Savage were trained, adheres to this standard, that being, no interrogation until an opinion is made.  

I’m sure this standardized practice is only common sense. You cannot go into a full blown Reid Technique and then re-polygraph the person immediately afterwards. This is what Agents Savage and Zamora did. 

Some polygraphists will attempt to short cut the process and go fishing for an  admission after an inconclusive result even if no pre-test admission was made. It is their belief either based on their perceived skill or ego that they can move into interrogation and obtain some type of admission. It is their mistaken belief that the inconclusive result is a precursor of a the subject attempting to hide something and a few placed lines of, “Your failing your polygraph so you are withholding something so tell me what it is” will result in an admission.  

This is a high risk/high gain technique because once the interrogation card is played, and if it fails, you cannot go back to square one. You are done (provided you are professional and adhere to acceptable to standards in training). 

Clearly, the behavior of the Agents was very poor. 

1.      Telling an applicant he is scoring too high in the control questions thus destroying his confidence in the polygraph as outlined last night. 
2.      Full blown interrogation after an inconclusive polygraph where no-pre-test or post test admission were made. 
3.      The interrogations prior to re-polygraphing were hostile and based on a Reid Technique structure. 
4.      Making comments that I failed the polygraph during the interrogation structure when in fact the test was inconclusive, and then re-polygraphing moments later.  
5.      Repeated polygraph tests that resulted in inconclusive results, followed by intense interrogations, then re-polygraphed again, then interrogated, then re-polygraph etc. (remember, the FOIA act says no admissions). 

Ray, so often I hear accusations about law enforcement and I hope and pray the officers were right. Most of the time they are, but every so often there are accounts of bad behavior. The bad behavior cuts me like a knife through my heart. I am upset with the offending personnel for putting our standing in the community in jeopardy. 

What happens behind closed doors in law enforcement is presumed professional, and fortunately, most of the time it is. I have no doubt you are a law enforcement  member with high standards and ethic.  Unfortunately, that is not always the case. 

It is frustrating to see our peers conduct interrogations in death penalty cases (or any cases) where their conduct was unethical. I understand in the mid-west (I believe Illinois) there is proposed legislation that interrogations in death penalty cases need to be audio and video taped so as to ensure police credibility based on the number of false confessions where the subject was later exonerated by DNA. 

Although my experience was not a death penalty case, what Agent Savage and Zamora did, felt like it almost killed me. It is an example of the lack of faith the public is placing in law enforcement agencies.  

Again, at no point did I attack you or the validity of polygraph and stipulated for the purposes of this discussion that it is 100% accurate when professionally administered.  

Ray, this is just one experience the polygraph community is going to have spin as an aberration and inconsistent with the values of those that take their profession seriously. (Kind of like how the APA cut their losses before the State Legislature in Kansas when it came to my case, so that ought to tell you something. ) 
 
Well my best to you and the remainder of your career. 

Take care, 

Bill

Bill, 

One more thing.  Are you sure you didn't make any admissions??  Here's why I ask. 

Quote:


In my department, if an examinee fails a question, for example undetected crime, then gives an admission to that question which may or may not be disqualifying, we might run additional tests to clear up the issue and then let the hiring panel decide.  Here's an example: examinee fails, admits to breaking into vehicles at age 15.  I'd probably test him out on that issue.  If the examinee admitted to something more serious (murder, rape, robbery) or admitted to nothing I would not test any further knowing he would be disqualified.

If the agent told you that you failed and interrogated you I would have to believe you gave some sort of borderline admission regarding a relevant issue, otherwise why would he re-test you??  It sounds like that was what happened.   

Let's recap: You pass series I.  You then fail the next series and make an admission that falls in a "gray area". He then attempted to clear you so the hiring board could make a decision.  The test was deemed inconclusive but he felt you needed a fresh start with a fresh examiner due to the interrogation.  It looks like he did you a favor.  According to George, he could have done what most examiners do; twisted your admission to make it sound disqualifying.  But he didn't do that because he wanted to give you a fair shake.  What a jerk.   

Perhaps your admissions were what shook you up more than the exam itself?  You sure you want those tapes released?

Bill,

I guess I'm skeptical because I have never heard anyone complain that the control questions were overemphasized.  That generally would cause a false negative - not a false positive.  You said there are many ways to emphasize control questions and you're correct.  Why did the examiner's comment that "your scores were too high" on the control questions send you over the edge?  If that's not an acceptable statement by the examiner what is?  Did he tell you that you were failing the test?  I doubt it.  Those comments do not sound inflamatory to me.  If anything, your concerns about the controls would be a good thing.  

Is it safe to assume that you went into the second series of testing feeling as though you weren't passing the controls?  You probably had between 3-5 controls on the first series so I'm not buying the "I was 100% honest..." statement.  Bottom line is that you were concerned about the controls going into the next series.  That's a good thing.  I see nothing wrong with that test.

It appears to me that in both tests the examiners were trying hard to emphasize the controls.  You accuse the next examiner of slapping his knee and pointing at you.  What was he talking to you about?  The controls I'm sure.  I'll say this as well, I don't believe his actions were as violent and traumatic as you make them seem.  Remember, we're only getting your emotional version.  

Again, the majority of your complaint centers on the controls.  If these examiners were so biased against you why would they spend the time trying so hard to hammer home the controls? Think about that for a second.  These guys were giving you every opportunity to pass the test.  If you were saying that the examiner never talked about control issues and only hit relevant issues then you might have a complaint.  

You said this was a very emotional and traumatic experience for you.  Do you think that you were able to give an accurate, unbaised version of the events of your polygraph when you testified?  Did you explain that the examiner was attempting to set the controls in order to give you a fair chance to pass the test?  You claim many pro-polygraph people say your test was an outrage.  Did they listen to the test or did they get your emotional version?    

Bill, do you think these examiners were out to get you?  If you were such a qualified applicant why were they, along with the government, so biased against you?  I guess it's a big conspiracy.

Response to Ray regarding Bill Roche: 

(Sorry, I forgot how to do quotes so I had to do it the old fashion way, I will update later) 

“I find it very hard to believe what Roche is saying here.”

Ray, it’s coming on five years, and to this day I still shake my head at what happened to me. I never could have guessed that I would have been treated so poorly and unethically by the agency I wanted to work for. I can respect the fact we all want to believe in the Secret Service and that their professionalism provides a uniformed front in all aspects of the agency, but as you know every agency has their bad apples. 

“He obviously passed the first series of relevant questions so it's safe to assume the control questions were effective.”   

Ray, I have no faith in the polygraph.  This is my opinion and I will respect your opinion. However, I truly don’t want to get into a discussion regarding the validity. 

Unlike many other victims, my situation does not center on the validity of the polygraph, but rather, the unethical application of the polygraph. 

Insofar as the polygraph, lets assume the polygraph is 100% accurate. 

Under this assumption, I will say the control questions as administered by Agent Savage were 100% effective. This is evident that Agent Savage, a Special Agent with the US Secret Service, determined through the polygraph that I passed the national security portion of the examination. 

At this point all should be well. Agent Savage has a subject where the control questions are effective. 

I am perplexed as to why he needed to spice it up if I had just passed a test. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that based on his training and experience it was necessary. I have no idea why Agent Savage would try to spice the controls up by saying that I was scoring too high in the control questions.  There are many different ways to emphasize control questions. The list is endless. Clearly, this comment was irresponsible. 

Ray, this comment was reckless and interpreted by me (an others) that I was failing the polygraph. I truly answered each control question as honestly as possible. When I answered no to the questions there was nothing in my mind that caused me any concern. To any extent the broad nature of the control question produced unknown anxiety causing the controls to produce an acceptable response, so be it.  I will stipulate the controls worked.

When Agent Savage said this to me I was devastated. I interpreted this as I was failing. I couldn’t understand why since I had nothing that was bothering me. 

I knew at that very minute I was going to fail the polygraph because I told the truth and the polygraph said I was scoring too high. Essentially, I knew the polygraph machine was not effective because I was telling the truth. How can I lower my scores if I am telling the truth. In the scope of seconds, I went from a firm believer in the polygraph (having passed three prior polygraphs) to having no faith in the machine. 

Had Agent Savage stayed within his standards in training and used proper control question emphasize techniques, the outcome on my polygraph would have been different. 

I have listed on my statement the names of pro-polygraph people that I spoke with regarding Agent Savage’s statement and they clearly state that the comment was so devastating that any polygraph result after that statement is useless and inaccurate. 

As I stated from the American Association of Police Polygraphists web site: 

V.       INVESTIGATOR RESPONSIBILITES: 

A.      During an investigation in which the polygraph might be utilized, the investigator should not resort to any misleading statements. If the person who determines that he/she was deceived later takes a polygraph examination, he/she may be overly suspicious of both the procedure and polygraphist. Such a mental attitude may cause the person's reactions to be so erratic that no conclusive chart interpretation could be made. 

This is further corroborated in the book Criminal Interrogations and Confessions (3rd edition), written by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley. 

Chapter five of this book talks about bait questions, and what occurs if they are improperly administered. Namely, "...once an interrogator is caught in a lie, further effectiveness is lost. (page 69.) (Note: This book has been quoted by the US Supreme Court and is considered a textbook for proper interview and interrogation.) 

A professional polygraphist clearly has the ability to increase anxiety without making such a devastating and crippling comment. 

Ray, the pro-polygraph experts have determined my polygraph results were flawed from here on out so I will save the step-by-step experience I endured and cut to the highlights. 

After the next polygraph exam, Agent Savage said I failed it. Intensely interrogated me about lying, and then conducted another polygraph examination. Then interrogated me again and I was sent home.

Clearly, the standards in interrogation are such that an interrogation (accusatory statement) is not conducted until after the examiner has formed an opinion. Agent Savage formed an opinion based on an inconclusive result. Interesting? 

The experts say my mind is mush related to being polygraphed again, least of all by the Secret Service. But back I go, this time to Agent Zamora.  Yelling, contorted face, knee slapping, and then hooking me to a polygraph to measure my heart rate and breathing. This is not appropriate or trained behavior. 

Ray, clearly this is not the Secret Service’s finest hour. 
 
“Just my opinion.  My point is that Bill's claim was not verified, in fact according to his own account, it was deemed unfounded by the testing agency.” 

Yes, By all means the Secret Service denied wrongdoing. However, such is to be expected. The Catholic Church said their priests didn’t molest children and they allowed it to go on. 

Fortunately the examinations are tape recorded so there is no dispute as to the truth. Unfortunately, the Secret Service will not release the tapes. 

Interesting though, when I testified about my experience in front of the Kansas State Legislature, the American Polygraph Association representative told the legislature that what happened to me was “criminal.” Sorry I don’t know his name. But I’m sure the record can be retrieved (March 6, 2000) and/or call the APA to see who they sent up to testify. (He was some ex-military guy if that helps.)

As outlined in my statement, the APA allegedly researched my complaint and received some sort of testimony from Savage and Zamora. Although they skirted the issue in the investigation by making comments about the Agents behavior like their behavior was  “not necessarily the best way to handle things, not necessarily the most professional way to handle things…”

When the Agents behavior is exposed to a legislative committee, they back tracked quickly, called it an aberration, and  moved to the accuracy of polygraph when professionally administered. 

“It would be interesting to find out if Bill gave any admissions.” 

No secrets here. Everything was based on polygraph results. 

“Bill's an arrogant cop, I picked that up from reading his glowing intro of himself. He claims HE LED Secret Service agents in a joint investigation.”   

Ray I am sure you can appreciate the fact that a baseline has to be established in ones credibility. Insofar as mine, I have copies of search warrants, police reports, Agents Names etc.  This is a very clear record.   


I respect that you do not have to believe what happened to me happened. Especially since the Secret Service will not release the tape. However, I have testified before the Kansas Legislature, had a polygraph bill introduced in California, given interviews on national TV, while maintaining a very prosperous police career. If I lied, my credibility as an Officer would be destroyed and my career and livelihood would be taken away. Each statement I have made can be corroborated. 

That may mean something to you, this may not. I respect whatever decision or feeling you have about it. 

All that I ask, is that you think for one second what I am saying is true. I can assure you it is one second of pure pain and frustration. 

As far as the tone of the rest of your response, I interpret it as dialog that is consistent with views represented in different postings from people who represent all sides so I do not take it personalJ.   

Anyways, I appreciate your dialog here. I try to follow discussions but work and the kid’s just keeps me pretty busy. I actually got a heads up to this thread. 

Anyways, my best to you and all those who take part in this board no matter what side of the fence we sit.    

Take care, 

Bill 

Ray,

Given the known weaknesses of CQT polygraphy, it is a much more plausible assumption that not all who passed your agency's pre-employment polygraph examination were truthful with regard to the relevant questions than is the assumption that because all passed the polygraph, none have done the kinds of things to which your nine subjects admitted.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Bill Roche's account is correct. Would you agree that the behavior he attributed to SA Zamora was inappropriate?

My statement ?that "on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test" is a logical inference based on known facts:

• that polygraph screening is completely invalid;
• that the number of polygraph screening examinations annually administered nationwide is at least in the tens of thousands;
• that the polygraph failure rate in many agencies is quite high, for example, on the order of 50% at LAPD and FBI.

Regarding elements of background investigations such as credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, you write:

Quote:


The polygraph only reveals concealed issues to the extent that the subject is willing to disclose them. I do not deny that the polygraph has some utility for eliciting admissions from subjects who do not understand that the "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud. But as the National Academy of Sciences has recently confirmed, polygraph screening is completely invalid.

I note that you did not respond to any of the questions I asked you in my previous post. These were not merely rhetorical quesions, and I would be interested in your answers.

George,

Sorry it took me a bit to respond.  Here we go....

Quote:


You're making a very big assumption there.  You still have not offered a better suggestion for discovering "concealed issues" like those of the 9 disqualified applicants.  These are important issues, right?  Background checks would not reveal what the polygraph did in these cases.   

Quote:


Another one-sided account that's so typical of this site.  I find it very hard to believe what Roche is saying here.  Let's look at his test.  It appears as though his test consisted of 2 different series.  He obviously passed the first series of relevant questions so it's safe to assume the control questions were effective.  He claims they weren't and that he was too honest.  My BS detector just went off.  Bill told his examiner about every lie he ever told.  Come on Bill, I'm not buying it.  So the examiner comes to the 2nd series and emphasizes the controls...very normal. Bill then goes inconclusive and is interrogated.  Cry me a river Bill.  It sounds like these examiners singled Bill out.  It would be interesting to find out if Bill gave any admissions....Here's what I think happened.  Bill's an arrogant cop, I picked that up from reading his glowing intro of himself.  He claims HE LED Secret Service agents in a joint investigation. He's used to being in charge in the room and doesn't like losing control of the room.  When stud Det. Bill fails the test he cries bloody murder and slams the examiner thereby saving his own face.  Just my opinion.  My point is that Bill's claim was not verified, in fact according to his own account, it was deemed unfounded by the testing agency.  It looks like the government is out to get Bill.      

Quote:


Is that your opinion or do you have the stats to back that up?  Please clarify that for me. 

Quote:
   

Those things are important aspects of the application process but they do not reveal CONCEALED issues like the polygraph does.  At least admit in my example that the polygraph was effective. 

Dmitrios,

Quote:


As for your example, it's pretty extreme buddy but I'll go with it.  So your agency, without polygraph, hires 19 serial killers, 9 drug users/serious crime/kiddy porn and 2 unknowns, right?   

Using polygraph, my agency eliminates the 9 drug users/serious crime/kiddy porn applicants.  It's not perfect but I'll take that.  My agency wins.  Thanks for playing.

Give the damn countermeasures thing a rest.  They're not as effective as you think but keep trying I guess.  I can always use more samples.   
 
Your failure to admit that the polygraph was useful in my EXAMPLE (where did I claim statistical significance?) leads me to believe this discussion is not worth pursuing.   

Saidme,
Get your head out of your own ass Then post a constructive and informative critique of my assertions.
Oh, silly me. You don't know HOW to do that, do you ??? I forgot, you're just a polygrapher.

Orolan

Get your head out of Dmitrios ass.

Dmitrios,
A good response, and one I was contemplating posting myself. 

What I see as the biggest flaw is that Ray does not tell us how many positions were being filled from this applicant pool. If there was only one opening, was the whole polygraph process worth it? There would be a slightly less than 30% chance that the 3% who got a job would have a questionable background. I see that as statistically insignificant. What about it, Ray? How many positions were being filled?

You also touched on the possibility that some people slipped by the polygraph. Ray's confirmed accuracy rate of 82% (9 /11) on the DI's when applied to the NDI's would indicate that there could be 3 - 4 applicants who got passed him in spite of having something to hide.

Quote: 
No one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams. 11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime). Without poly these 9 probably get the job. Is that what you want? Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive? Give me a better solution than polygraph. Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.      


Ray,

There are two problems here. The first is the sample of cases that you're talking about. It's basically anecdotal, but you seem to imply that it has statistical significance. Do you mean to say that out of 30 cases there are usually around 11 DI, and 9 out of those give admissions, that this is the average situation? Perhaps that is in fact the case, but you'd need a much bigger sample (and a reliable source) for this argument to be taken seriously or for these numbers to mean anything at all.

The second and more serious problem is with your basic argument, even if we take your assumptions as given. Ok, let's say 9 out of 11 DI's made admissions to serious offenses that might otherwise go undetected. Fine. But why do you assume the ones who passed are innocent? Given all the information that is publically available about the polygraph, people can easily learn the tricks involved. While 9 are dismissed for admitting to drug use or kiddy porn, perhaps one of the NDI's is in fact is a murderer (or even a serial murderer) who has learned countermeasures. Or maybe all 19 NDI's are serial murderers! Plus the two DI's who didn't make admissions. Who knows? 

The point is that relying on flawed technology like the polygraph makes us think that we're more secure, while in fact the opposite may be true. As long as people believed that it works, polygraphy had utility as an interrogation tool. But that utility is rapidly and severely diminishing, to the extent that the complacency that results from relying on polygraphy means that, as has been said here before, the polygraph is not just useless, it is worse than useless. The problem of false positives is only one side of the polygraph dilemma. 

Dimitrios

Ray wrote on Jul 26^th, 2003 at 3:31am:


Ray, I'll be happy to address the points you've raised in greater detail. I must disagree with Suethem's suggestion that it would be futile to respond to you. Whether or not we ultimately convince each other of the merits of our respective arguments on polygraph policy, I think that this discussion, and its associated sharing of viewpoints, is well worthwhile.

Quote:


What I am saying is that it is not acceptable to obtain disqualifying admissions/confessions from applicants through the use of polygraph screening at the cost of falsely accusing and disqualifying truthful applicants. The risk of false positive outcomes is not just "possible": it is the entirely forseeable and expected result of relying on a purported diagnostic test (CQT polygraphy) that has no theoretical foundation and is without validity.

Quote:


You no doubt do have people working side by side with you who have done the kinds of things that your nine subjects admitted to. It would be naive to think that they have all been screened out by the polygraph. The fact remains that we have no reliable methodology for the detection of deception. As "Wombat," who started this message thread, has illustrated, less-than-honest persons can make it through.

One possible solution to balancing the benefit of admissions obtained against the cost of falsely accusing the truthful would be to eliminate from the hiring process only those subjects who make disqualifying admissions during their polygraph examinations, and to let everyone else proceed, regardless of their polygraph chart readings. What do you think of this solution?

Quote:


No, and I did not mean to suggest that we should.

Quote:


Certainly not, and a probing background interview is certainly in order. Many agencies could no doubt ask more far-reaching questions than they typically do. For example, if you look at the Alaska State Trooper Background Questionnaire, you'll see that it goes into much more detail than is typically done with those applying for top secret security clearances.

I do think, however, that questioning should be done in a civil manner. For example, there is absolutely no justification for the kind of abuse that Detective Bill Roche experienced from Secret Service polygrapher Ignacio Zamora, Jr.

Quote:


No. I was not subjected to aggressive questioning following my FBI pre-employment polygraph.

Quote:


No.

Quote:


That's easy for you to say, Ray. You and your colleagues in the polygraph community do not bear the costs of the false accusations you inevitably make. As William Shakespeare wrote, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."

The costs of failing a polygraph examination are quite high for many, especially those who fail FBI pre-employment polygraph examinations. (It is for this reason that I've recently concluded that the FBI pre-employment polygraph examination is a risk not worth taking.)

Quote:


I looked at the big picture before I began commenting publicly on polygraph policy. The picture I saw, and continue to see, is that on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test. I think this is a part of the picture that you tend to minimize.

Quote:


Why do you believe the results of the 30 examinations of which you speak are the norm in applicant screening? I am skeptical that you would have the statistical data on hand to make such a sweeping characterization.

With the polygraph, you eliminate those bad apples who admit to being bad apples. You also eliminate straight arrows whose polygraph squiggles zig when they should have zagged.

Your assertion that without the polygraph "NONE" of the bad apples would be eliminated is simply absurd. No doubt some applicants make admissions to disqualifying conduct during their polygraph examinations that would not otherwise have come to light. But bad apples can also be eliminated through thorough background investigations including credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, etc.

Polygraph screening has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth versus deception. Its utility comes from its use as a psychological prop for getting admissions. As more and more persons facing polygraphic interrogation learn that the "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud (as thousands are doing on a monthly basis), that utility can only wane.

Quote:


The examples cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector of the kind of harm that reliance on polygraphy is causing to individuals and to national security are ones where thorough investigations failed to corroborate the polygraph results. There is no credible evidence that Mark Mallah, David Tenenbaum, and Adam Ciralsky were Israeli spies. There is no credible evidence that CTR1 Daniel King or the Marine Embassy guards in Moscow were Russian spies. There is no credible evidence that Wen Ho Lee was a Chinese spy.

What would it take for a person to verify that a polygrapher's conclusion that he/she was deceptive when denying having ever committed an act of espionage, sabotage, or terrorism against the United States was a false positive result? One cannot prove a negative. Yet this seems to be what you are demanding.

Ray,

Your a true believer so responding to you is like talking to the faithful about a different religion.   

The Attorney General John Ashcroft admitted that there is at least 15% false postitve rate.  Is he lying too?   

I wonder how many people you have falsely accused in pre-employment polygraphers over the years.  I am guess you don't even care. 

They are just casualties of justice!



 

George,
Thanks for at least attempting to respond to my post.  There are several antipoly people who have chosen not to respond (Suethem, etc.).  Although your post was well written, you failed to respond to the meat of my post.  

If I'm reading you right, you're saying it's better to allow nine applicants with serious flaws in their background on the job than to risk a possible false positive ( If I'm wrong, correct me).  Without polygraph, that is what my agency quite possibly may have had...connoissuers of kiddy porn, people who lie about their drug past and criminals working side by side with me. I have no idea how this could be acceptable to you but, that is esentially what you are saying.  You say you don't want unqualified applicants to work in law enforcement...it's not a matter of qualifications it's a matter of public safety!  I have still yet to hear someone suggest a better method of discovering serious, undetected issues in applicant's pasts!  

Quote:
 

No one said getting a job in LE was easy.  Should we treat all applicants with kid gloves?  Shall we refrain from aggressively questioning applicants who apply for such sensitive positions?  It sounds to me that your beef is with the aggressive questioning that took place following your polygraph.  If the polygraph is abolished will your next effort be to ban all "tough" questioning of applicants?  It's unfortunate but not all applicants are as honest and forthcoming as you are. 

So the FBI examiner accused you of lying...big deal.  That test did not disqualify you from all other LE positions.  Move on....

I'm not intending to minimize your feelings.  I think you probably got a raw deal which is unfortunate.  If I was in your position I would feel the same way you do.  But look at the big picture George.  My results are the norm in applicant screening.  With it we eliminate the majority of the bad apples.  Without we eliminate NONE of the bad apples.  Give me a more effective solution.  I'm willing to bet you can't.    

I'm going off the topic here but I have a quick question.  In TLBTLD, are there any personal statements that are verified false positives or are they all just examinee claims?  If they are just claims, in order to be fair to the reader you may want to note that in the next version.  Thanks in advance.  
 

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see this post earlier.  George, you make my day when you put this crap up.  First lets address law enforcement applicants.  I believe it's better to error on the side of caution then to hire unqualified applicants.  These people are given a great deal of responsibility and should be scrutinized closesly.  They're not bagging groceries (no offense to grocery people, did it as a kid).  Ray asked you to address his own facts and circumstances yet you failed to do that.  You hide behind words like validity and false positives, blah blah blah blah.  With regards to impugning someones credibility.  When it comes to DI charts that what we get paid to do.  And more often then not it produces credible information the examinee was involved in some wrong doing (relevant issue).  Fortunately there are people like polygraph examiners to step up and call a spade a spade.   

Ray,

You write:

Quote:


I certainly don't want unqualified applicants to be hired by law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, I don't want qualified applicants to be wrongly branded as liars. I think that the risk of a false positive outcome is greater than you suppose, and is to be expected from a diagnostic truth test such as CQT polygraphy that has no theoretical foundation, no meaningful control, and no validity.

A key difference between the polygraph and other aspects of the law enforcement or intelligence hiring process that must be borne in mind is that failing other steps does not impugn one's character. For example, if an applicant doesn't pass a board interview, or the math portion of a written test, or a physical agility test, it does not derogate from the candidate's assumed honesty and integrity. But when a polygrapher accuses an applicant of deception, he (and through him, the government) impugn the applicant's honesty and integrity in a way that should never be done on the basis of such an invalid test.

The polygraph is not necessary. The industrialized democracies of the European Union get along just fine without it. The notion that we Americans need to rely on such pseudoscience as the polygraph is a dangerous delusion.

Quote:


Public Servant,

You are starting to establish yourself as somewhat of a whiner. I mean all these "at least I..." and "since I..." things pointing out MEANINGLESS trivial details (like the picture I chose from the gallery) are doing little to establish you as anything else.   

I don't have to PROVE I am a tough guy...it's been confirmed time and time again...on the street. I work with lots of "tough guys" for that matter. People that are tough when they need to be tough. These also happen to be some of the most caring people I know, when you see them in other settings. Maybe the problem you have with me is my confidence, maybe my confidence bothers you, maybe you lack self-confidence and are threatened by anyone who displays it. Whatever it is, you are the one who has made baseless accusations toward me (never substantiating them).

Anyway, your crybaby antics are beginning to bore me, they aren't exactly my cup of tea. When YOU are ready to debate something worthwhile...drop a line...I'll try to keep up, K?

"Perhaps we should buy you a dictionary and a mirror."

Perhaps maybe we should buy you a pacifier and a baby rattle.

"Anyway, take care and stay safe out there, my friend."

I DO take care and try to stay safe...but I am not your friend, I dont know you...and probably wouldn't like you anyway.

Best, 

PK (a.k.a. TOUGH GUY)...

Suethem,
Quote:


What good is a witness going to do?  If you claim you've never done drugs then fail a polygraph how can a witness "set the record straight"?  Claims of false positives are just that - claims.  I'm not saying it never happens, just a lot less than this site leads people to believe.  If a guilty person takes and fails a polygraph then gives no admissions of course they're going to say the "machine is wrong".  What the hell else would they say?  Even the examples given in TLBTLD (Mallah, Tenebaum) and on this site were not confirmed as "false positives".  Just he said she said situations.  The reader is led to believe that these were all confirmed.      

No one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams.  11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime).  Without poly these 9 probably get the job.  Is that what you want?  Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive?  Give me a better solution than polygraph.  Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.

The Doug Williams sting did little to validate or invalidate the polygraph. Since each examiner fingered the specific examinee they had been told was guilty (different for each examiner), what it did prove is blatant examiner bias against the accused. Scientific? Maybe not. Damning evidence that something is wrong? Yes.

Ray, 

I said nothing about the scientific realiability of the Doug Williams test.  I only said that the polygraphers were 100% wrong in who they accused.

You offered up your real life situtation, I offered up the Doug Williams sting.

How could anyone prove a 'false positive'?  Isn't that like proving your innocence? Are polygraphers going to allow people to bring in witness and set the record straight- no.   

DI/SR - no job!!!  There is no investigative follow up to make sure the DI/SR was right.  The machine decides!

Suethem,

You said:
Quote:


My point here is that you said you were inconclusive to this question.  I'm betting it was a general crime question.  If that was the case, the examiner has many issues to explore.  DV is a common inquiry in an Inconclusive test like yours.  It doesn't mean the examiner was convinced you had a DV situation in your past...it may just have seemed that way to you.    

Quote:


No, No, No...the great majority of the time.  Without a doubt.   

Quote:


Not sure if Doug's "lab experiment" holds up to the "scientific standards" relied on so heavily by supporters of this site.   Would the NAS give it their stamp of approval?  You can't have it both ways.

Quote:


Problem is, it's real tough to determine if a DI/SR test is really a "false positive"...nearly impossible in a screening exam.  Of all the testimonials on this site (applicant screenings) have any truly been proven as false positives?   

Suethem, George, etc.

In an earlier post I presented the following statement:

Quote:


I was hoping for a response from an antipoly poster on this issue.

Let's look at those stats again.  Of 30 applicant exams, there were 11 SR/DI results, 9 of those gave admissions to the relevant issue.  So, AT WORST, of the 30 applicant exams there may have been 2 false positives.  The 9 applicants who gave relevant admissions were rightfully disqualified.  More than likely, these disqualifying issues would not have been discovered in a BI.  My argument would be that without polygraph, 9 undeserving applicants would have moved forward in the process.   

In my opinion, these results are fairly consistent throughout the law enforcement screening community. 

Looking forward to your response.

Yeah Killer, you're right.  I am insecure since I do not have pictures of guns on my posts; since I don't use generalized insults as a substitute for debate; and since I don't feel the need to establish that I am a tough guy.  Yes killer, those things suggest I'm insecure.

Perhaps we should buy you a dictionary and a mirror.

Anyway, take care and stay safe out there, my friend.

Quote:



I believe there IS a little insecurity lurking around in there. I don't think I have "postured" at all, perhaps it's your skewed perception. 

Best,
PK

Public Servant

I know Doug Williams and you're no Doug Williams (aren't you glad).

Suethem,

Doug Williams claims to have run thousands of polygraphs when he was a police officer.  Now he says it is the scourge of society (paraphrase not quote).  

If he really spent years, running thousands of tests, why did he suddenly come to the conclusion that it was wrong.  Was he a little slow on the uptake, and it took thousands of tests,and years,to come up with a conclusion about whether his chosen professio was good or evil?  Or was he morally flawed all that time he was an officer, and it took him years to finally see the light?

My thoughts are that he got tired of working his butt off for a police officer's pay and thought he could make more through entrepeneurship on the other side.  There wasn't much competition in the market at the time.   He charges $40 or $50 for his book (I believe, haven't been to his site lately) while George and Gino provide similar info for free.  

But regardless of his motives, anyone on either side of the issue would have to question Doug's character.  Either he was willingly doing something he believed wrong, in high volume over a significant period of his life; or he turned on a system he believed in for the all-mighty buck.  Whether he is a sell-out or a reformed sinner depends on your perspective of the issue of polygraph.   

I've seen some posts here alleged to have been Doug Williams (I assume they weren't the football star, nor the guy who shot up his co-workers in AL -- when I first saw the name on the news, I thought it might be the stinger himself).  So if you're reading this Doug, feel free to defend yourself, or correct anything where you feel I am in error.