Just in case I was not clear before, I am not an attorney, but I am a very well connected professional. I have friends and contacts at a number of major firms. Your story sounds like a federal case. I assume this encounter was with the US federal parks program?

If so, and there is actually tape of the encounter, I have no doubt that I could put you in touch with a firm willing to take this case either speculatively or, more likely, even pro bono.

Obviously those lawyers could give your friend a better assessment of her position, but from my legal, but non-legally endorsed, collective impression, this one is a done-deal.

Tell your friend to sue for sexual harassment. Seriously. Find a lawyer and tell them that story.

She would win, and besides the money she is now absolutely guaranteed, it would be a public service to further undermine the credibility of bullshit polygraphy requirements.

I'm really serious -- that is, at a minimum, a slam-dunk million dollars plus for both her and her lawyers.

Quote:


We don't need polygraph to know that's a lie do we?

Stealing somebody else's work, presenting it as your own and then lying about it - you're full of credibility.

Barry_C wrote on Nov 20^th, 2007 at 1:39am:



It was reproduced specially for you.
Glad you're keeping up.
As you were told before, you aint bright Noddy.

Quote:


Plagiarism

Haven't you been accused of plagiarism before?  You'd think you'd have learned your lesson.

For those who aren't aware, this is copyrighted material (page 94 of "The Polygraph and Lie Detection") presented as his own.  It has little to do with this post.

MRC,

If what you report is accurate, the "set up" and question are problematic, yes.  Have you seen the video, or is this what has been reported to you?

She is in the process of fighting the DQ now. The session was taped but is kept with the examiner. She will try to get a copy of the tape to add to her supporting documentation.
I am trying to find out if the park ranger agency wrote the poly questions or if the contracted examiners have a standard L E agency bank of  pre interview questions. 

Thankfully the particular park that offered her the prelim. job called her, and is willing to wait for a period of time (before offering to another candidate)to find out the results of her impending fight!

It was quite possible that the Park Rangers didn't want her, or at least had a favorite candidate they wanted to hire, so set her up to "fail" the poly.  Easily done, from what I have read.  

Is there a video tape of the session?  If so, she could sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The waiver of liability she signed may not cover intentional torts, and I would suspect if what you say is true, then a jury would see the intentional emotional abuse she suffered.

She can stay a victim, or fight back.  Her choice.

Your friend was tested by a chart-rolling hack.
The line of questioning is mind boggling and indicative of a moron.
For my money, the examiners line borders on sexual harassment.

But then on another tack, the bulk of polygraph research, including almost all the research conducted by federal agencies that use the polygraph, can be accurately characterized as speculative. 

Studies report on efforts to improve accuracy by changing methods of test administration, physiological measurement, data transformation, and the like, but they rarely address the underlying psychological and physiological processes and mechanisms that determine how much accuracy might be achieved. 
Thus, for example, the field includes little or no research on the emotional correlates of deception; the psychological determinants of the physiological measures used in the polygraph; the robustness of these measures to demographic differences, individual differences, intra-individual variability, question selection, attempted countermeasures, or social interaction variables in the interview context nor the best ways of measuring and scoring each physiological response for tapping the underlying emotional states to be measured. 

Because empirical evidence of accuracy does not exist for polygraph testing on important target populations, particularly for security screening, the absence of answers to such theoretical questions leaves important questions open about the likely accuracy of polygraph testing with target populations of interest.

This is a what happened to my fried who was taking a polygraph to become a park ranger.
The polygraph examiner spent about an 1.5 hours with her conducting a pre-interview before the actual polygraph. There seemed to be a congnitive priming process that happened which place doubt and uncertainty in her mind causing her to fail the exam.Here is a play by play...
Sorry this may be hard to read due to the layout, I just can't explain it any other way.
Examiner: Have you ever used the computer for a sexual purpose?
EE: Yes
EXaminer:  What?
EE: I have seen pornography on the internet before.
Examiner: What have you looked at?
EE: Your standered stuff Men and Women...
Examiner: Have you looked at child pornoghraphy?
EE: No
Examiner: How do you know?
EE: The people on the site were adults and there is a disclaimer on the site that states that everyone on the site is 18 yo or over.
Examiner: Those things don't mean anything!
EE: Oh they don't!
Examiner: No 
Examiner: Did you know a child is anyone under the age of 17?
EE: No
Examiner: Can you tell the difference between a 17 yo and an 18 yo?
EE: Uhm no probably not.
Examiner: So its possible that you have looked at child pornograph?
EE: Uh I guess so.
EXaminer: Can you tell the difference between a 13yo girl and an 18 yo girl?
EE: Yes!
Examiner: How?
......It goes on, she then describes the body physique of a 13 yo vs. an 18yo. When her finally gets around to "hooking" her up. He ask the question " Have you ever done anything sexually as an adult that you could be arrested for? She is so overcome with fear, guilt, shame, embarssment that she cannot get past that question and fails.

She is devastated, her career goal has vanished. She never wants to be in that power structure position again.