Stevesz281,

Although I appreciate your thanks, I regret being able to do little more than attempt to shine light on the nonsense which has led to your and other’s victim status.  I was unable while in government to stop the implementation of any offending programs and likewise will most assuredly be personally unable to end them.  I, however, am quite encouraged by developments over the last couple of years.  This web site, which was put together by a couple of individuals on a shoe-string budget is considerably better than anything which comes from the polygraph community (a 75 year history, thousands of individuals involved, and a multi-million dollar industry involving numerous government agencies and a well organized lobby/trade union, etc etc).  I believe the open communication which now exists on the internet and that is leading to media, governmental and general public awareness will ultimately lead to the end of this foolishness (polygraph screening) and the toppling of the empire that perpetuates it should that community so continue.  The camaraderie and determination of you and those who share your plight also greatly encourage me.  Keep up the good work and keep the pressure on...


Drew Richardson

Mr. Richardson,

I just wanted to express my appreciation for everything that you and the moderators of this forum are doing to expose the abuses of the polygraph. I am 32yrs old, honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and have worked for two federal law enforcement agencies. I am currently with ATF. I applied for a special agent position two yrs ago with the FBI. I finally had my phase II interview last march. I was later disqualified because of a polygraph decision. I was told by the polygrapher " D.C. is gonna have a problem with this".   Two weeks later I recieved a letter stating they were rescinding their offer. I am still devastated by this. I openly admitted to marijuana usage when I was sixteen yrs old, yet I am well within the FBI's parameters. The S/A recruiter is giving me another chance at the poly but I have heard the second time around was usually the same as the first.

Once again, I appreciate everything. At least I am not alone.

Nicole,

In view of the public position I have taken, I have been forced to give considerable thought to the issue you raise.  My feelings are as follows:  The polygraph format most commonly used in this country, the control question test (CQT), results in considerable error...wrongly finding the innocent deceptive (false positive error) and also finding the guilty to be non-deceptive (false negative error).  As is the case with our judicial system as it applies to criminal defendants, I would prefer to have ten times as many of the latter error than the former, i.e., that ten guilty people be freed before and innocent individual might be falsely branded.  In order to likewise protect the innocent polygraph examinee from the inherent error in the process, others and I have determined that the only way, prior to various governmental groups ending these polygraph programs, is to provide countermeasure advice.  

Beyond this fairness consideration, with regard to the guilty, no deceptive polygraph result will be sufficient in and of itself to convict anyone, confessions can be obtained quite apart from the polygraph process, convictions are largely built upon good criminal investigative work, and because the CQT polygraph exam has very little diagnostic value, essentially any prop (photocopy machine, colander on the head, etc (both reported to have been used successfully in the past to obtain confessions) can be employed with equally satisfactory results in the hands of the skilled polygraph interrogator.  If serious diagnostic value from a polygraph exam is sought to aid in criminal investigation, information-based exams (discussed on other threads) should be employed.  Those which are central nervous system (CNS) based are much less likely to be able to be countermeasured as well.  In summary, the benefits of the CQT polygraph exam can be obtained through means other than a polygraph examination, these benefits do not justify the costs and damage associated with these tests, but if administered, the associated costs do justify the teaching and utilization of countermeasures.

Drew Richardson

Dear Ms. Chevallier,

Yes, we have indeed considered the possibility that the countermeasure information provided on AntiPolygraph.org might be useful to the guilty as well as the innocent. Bear in mind, however, that polygraph countermeasures will only help the guilty to escape the consequences of their crimes to the extent that government places any reliance on this pseudoscience.

Quote:


Since polygraphs have never been proven to be more accurate than chance (i.e., a flip of a coin), an investigator relying upon the charted results of a polygraph interrogation would be foolish indeed. It's the use of the polygraph as an interrogation prop that is usually decisive in getting recalcitrant criminals to confess, because they (along with many Americans) believe the 'lie behind the lie detector'.

Trickery, deceit, and lies have been established by law as legal tactics for police interrogators to deploy as part of their investigations into criminal suspects. Certainly polygraphy is a part of that triumvirate. It was an early pioneer of the polygraph himself, John Larson, who wrote:

I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old physical beatings were. At times I’m sorry I ever had any part in its development.

Like George said, the countermeasure information was out there prior to this website's inception for those who might one day be subjected to a polygraph.

Does the investigator who relies on a pseudo-scintific fraud to chart the course of his investigation bear any responsibility?

Quote:


Nicole,
You raise an excellent question, and for me the answer is twofold. 

The first part involves the basic principle of innocence until proof of guilt: it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent should be punished.  The Control-Question Test polygraph not only indicates guilt in innocent people far too often; it also contains a built-in bias against truthful, guilt-free people, as they will refuse to lie on the control questions (or simply don't have much to feel bad about on them).

The second reason is an extension of the first: based both upon empirical research and upon the expert opinion of scientists who study relevant fields, the polygraph (as it is commonly used in the Control-Question Test) is a notoriously poor way to determine innocence or guilt.  So much so, that the results are not even allowed in the Court.  Thus, reliance upon it in the first place is IMHO a bad idea, and may serve to mislead investigators (or worse, serve as a substitute when actual investigative work would have solved the case).

In other words, I would not want the guilty to go free as a result of being able to fool a polygraph (as George indicated, knowledge of how to do this has been around long before this web site).  But I also think it shouldn't even be an option.

Skeptic

I have a question.  You mention that the purpose of this site is to help truthful people pass the test, but you also concede you may be assisting guilty people to do the same.  Let's suppose there is someone out there reading your recommendations, and he is guilty of murder or a violent crime.  He reads your recommendations and avoids being caught because of the countermeasures you are teaching him.  Do you give this any consideration at all?

Batman,

I'm largely in agreement with Drew's comments, but would add a few additional observations. Among other things, you wrote:

Quote:


How many polygraph examinations must one undergo or observe to establish the solid foundation of which you speak? One might also ask how many palm readings, tarot card readings, or astrological chart readings must one undergo or observe before one can establish a solid foundation for the conclusion that palmistry, tarot card  readings, and astrology are pseudoscientific frauds?

I had asked you earlier if you had gotten around to reading The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. You haven't responded to my question, but I suspect that perhaps you haven't read it yet. If you had, you'd know that our suggestions regarding countermeasures are based on extensive research into polygraph theory, techniques, policy, and practice, and that we've documented the many sources upon which we've drawn. We spent well over a year diligently researching polygraphy, devoting many more hours to our research than are involved in any polygraph school's course of instruction. We also submitted draft versions of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to several distinguished psychophysiologists who provided valuable criticism and commentary. I think it's fair to say that we know that of which we speak.

If you disagree with our conclusions, it would be more productive if you were to point out anything we've written that you believe to be untrue, and to support your position with a rational argument, rather than to simply question our qualifications (an argument ad hominem).

You also wrote:

Quote:


I suspect that you are correct, and that many people who are in fact guilty of crimes visit this site seeking information on how to beat the polygraph. Our purpose in establishing AntiPolygraph.org was not to help the guilty avoid the consequences of their crimes, but to help protect the innocent from polygraph abuse. Unfortunately, there is simply no way for us to make the information we provide available only to the innocent. It must be made available to everyone. Note that the countermeasure information we provide here on AntiPolygraph.org was for the most part publicly available years before we went on-line on 18 September 2000. We've just made that information easier to find and free.

Those in the law enforcement community who rely on "Control" Question "Test" polygraphy need to be aware, as you seem to be, that the "test" has no scientific basis. One consequence is that either passing or failing a CQT polygraph examination is no evidence of guilt or innocence. As the public becomes increasingly aware that CQT polygraphy has no scientific basis, and is little more than an interrogator's ploy, the value of this technique for obtaining admissions/confessions will inevitably wane.

For those in the polygraph and law enforcement communities, I think Drew's suggestions above make eminently good sense, and I'd summarize as follows:

1) Scrap polygraph screening altogether (as the Philadelphia Police Department has recently done);

2) Abandon the pseudoscientific "Control" Question "Test";

3) If you are to make any use of polygraphs at all, move to information-based techniques like the Guilty Knowledge Test (bearing in mind that such techniques, too, are vulnerable to countermeasures).

Batman wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 2:20am:


Batman,
You might be surprised how much I agree with most of what you've written, though my conclusions might be different than yours.  And despite some of the exchanges here, I want you to know that I have a deep and abiding respect for your experience and profession.

I agree also with Dr. Richardson: the primary difficulties I have with polygraph "testing" have to do with how it is most commonly used: for screening.  In this task, I think it has a deservedly poor reputation.  It amounts to an undeserved interrogation that, as often as not, results in qualified and motivated people being wrongly refused positions, applicants deciding to seek other employment, or espionage going undetected. All of these have the potential to do incalculable damage, and I would submit they already have.  Government has enough trouble attracting badly-needed talent from the private sector, and enough difficulty catching spies, without throwing pseudo-scientific polygraph screening into the mix.  It's time we got serious about both thorough background checks and ongoing monitoring of people in sensitive positions, and stopped placing our faith in latter-day Tarot readings.

As for countermeasures and criminal investigations, I think Dr. Richardson has already made several excellent points.  I would imagine no one here has any intention of making it easier for criminals to escape detection.

Perhaps some real common ground is being found, here.

Skeptic

Drew,

For some here, it may be of a surprise that I am short for words after your last post.  In part, because almost your exact words have passed my lips many a time within the past few months.  Well said.

Batman,

You write:

Quote:
 


John Furedy, noted polygraph critic and esteemed colleague writes:

Quote:
 


It is astounding  to see the similarity between the positions of  Batman and John Furedy.  The latter will be flabbergasted to know.  You are quite correct; as you point out every examinee is different, and as John Furedy has correctly and additionally  pointed out (and perhaps of more significance to this discussion)--every exam is different--that is why that which you do is art and not science.  I happen to believe and others from this site will swear to you based on their personal experience that this is not pretty art either...

With regard to solving missing children cases, I would agree that the polygraph community could make a greater contribution to these and other criminal investigations--not by focusing on the problems that it has brought on itself (the countermeasure problem) through the victimization of large numbers of educated and now internet-connected individuals but by ending the nonsense and waste of resources surrounding and devoted to polygraph screening and by becoming serious about criminal specific testing.  This will  require that the current "Maytag Repairman" approach to polygraphy (waiting for a case agent/investigator to invite you to ask a suspect "Did you do it?" with a control question test) be abandoned and serious effort put into investigating criminal matters, collecting and protecting privileged information, and utilizing information-based polygraph exams.  

These exams can be scientifically/statistically defended,  do not invade the purview of judge and juror, have a basis for large scale introduction into the courtroom (will never happen with the CQT via Daubert hearings) and could actually provide a legitimate basis for polygraphy to be considered a forensic discipline.  This admittedly will require more effort than is currently put into a polygraph examination, and although that which is currently done in using a Peak of Tension (POT) as a secondary test will not suffice, nothing about that which I believe should be done will prevent an aggressive post-test interrogation from being conducted when appropriate.

Drew Richardson

Skeptic,

I have, for various reasons, had the opportunity to familarize myself with a variety of studies regarding various investigative techiques used in the field of law enforcement, to included polygraph.  I am aware of a number of studies that indicate polygraph is no better than 50% accurate, as well as numerous studies that imply it has an accuracy rate of 80-90%.   

Personally I have a difficult time putting a lot of faith in studies about this particular technique.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  First, most studies I am familiar with are done in a very controlled atmosphere, invovling mock crimes.  Unfortunately, try as they might, these type studies can and will never replicate real world situations and intensity in the law enforcement arena.  Second, I personally believe the accuracy of polygraph can only be determined on a case by case basis.  What I mean by this is simply each polygraph is totally unique and can not be replicated because each examinee is so totally different.  Each examinee brings his or her own set of "baggage" to the table so to speak, so how can any study accurately depict this?   

This may sound very simplistic, however my experiences do factor into my beliefs regarding this.  That is why I ask what experience many of the posters on this site actually have with polygraph.  Quoting from studies, or speaking from the limited exposure of having undergone one or two polygraph examinations does not seem to be a very solid foundation for promoting something like the use of countermeasures.  There are many people who visit sites like this one who are in fact guilty of the crimes they are being tested for, yet they are being coached on how to beat the polygraph by folks on this site.  It only takes one investigation regarding a missing child  wherein a confession or obtaining information is critical, and a polygraph may assist in same yet countermeasures are attempted. to make one somewhat hard over regarding some of the postings on this site. 

Batman

Eastwood wrote on Jun 29^th, 2002 at 8:20pm:


So in addition to a chronic inability to post anything of substance, it would seem Mr. Eastwood is unable to read.

This has been resolved already, guy.  Now how about posting something meaningful of your own?

Skeptic

Okay, a question has been posed to BT - let's see who answers for him.

Batman wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 8:23pm:


Fair enough.  In my defense, a non-polygrapher critic of this site and/or its backers is, by all indications, in the small minority.  Nonetheless, I apologize for my assumption as well.

I am curious, though: are you actually familiar with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence regarding the polygraph's validity/reliability?  I ask this because of your dismissive assertion implying that this evidence can be twisted to promote any position one wants to promote.  Have you actually read the studies?

Skeptic

Apology accepted.

Later,

Batman

It was not my intention to accuse or imply that any posters here have obtained confessions through illegal means. If anyone took that as my meaning when I used the word 'coerce' (as opposed to 'criminal coercion'), I apologize.

And now, on with the countdown......

Dave

As the meaning of the word "coercion" has been at issue, the following definition from Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) may be of interest:

Coercion... Compulsion; constraint; compelling by force of arms or threat. General Motors v. Blevins, D.C.Colo., 144 F.Supp. 381, 384. It may be actual, direct, or positive, as where physical force is used to compel act against one's will, or implied, legal or constructive, as where one party is constrained by subjugation to other to do what his free will would refuse. As used in testamentary law, any pressure by which testator's action is restrained against his free will in the execution of his testament. "Coercion" that vitiates confession can be mental as well as physical, and question is whether accused was deprived of his free choice to admit, deny, or refuse to answer. Garrity v. State of N.J., U.S.N.J., 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 618, 17 L.Ed.2d 562.
  A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another's freedom of action to his detriment, he threatens to: (a) commit any criminal offense; or (b) accuse anyone of criminal offense; or (c) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (d) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action. Model Penal Code, § 212.5.

Batman,

I think beech trees has responded substantively to your questions. I'd agree with you that when I first hear that a confession was "coerced," I might suppose the confession to have been obtained by illegal means. But as beech trees explained, "coercion" need not involve threat of physical force, but may be psychological in nature. Psychologically coercive interrogation tactics (like those included in the DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook) have been sanctioned by the courts, as beech trees also mentioned.

Your demand that beech trees "establish his bona fides" is an argument ad hominem that need not seriously be entertained. He hasn't argued from any claimed authority, but has instead supported his arguments by reason and example. In any event, because both you and beech trees are participating in this forum anonymously (and I respect your desire to remain anonymous), any claims to authority would not be verifiable.

Beech Trees,

You clearly accused PolyCop of obtaining a coerced confession.  Coerced confessions are, plain and simple, illegally obtained.  Now you're attempting to confuse that fact with perfectly legal interview/interrogation techniques.

It is plainly obvious you do not want to answer some simple questions put to you in an attempt to determine your qualifications for handing out advise and/or criticism regarding the law enforcement community. 

All I asked was for you to provide some data about your credentials/experience in this arena, and for some factual data regarding your accusation pertaining to illegally obtained confessions.  Are you willing or able to do this?  If not simply say so and we can then press on.

Batman

Batman wrote on Jun 27^th, 2002 at 8:23pm:


Even though the above paragraph was directed towards 'Skeptic', since you used it as an opportunity to make snide comments towards me, I'll respond. Are you actually trying to assert here that coercion is not a metier of a police interrogator, or any interrogator for that matter?

What possible business is it of yours what my credentials are? If you don't like the message, defend your position and I will always consider changing my opinion. Labeling me an 'amature' is a blindingly transparent tactic from your side of the polygraph argument. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of your arguments. Logic is not your metier. Blind religious faith in a pseudo-scientific fraud is, however.

Quote:
 

Excuse me? When did I ever mention 'illegally obtained confessions'?

Quote:


I have repeatedly stated my polygraph experiences on this board. As an aside, how many times would I have to be electrocuted for me to be an expert with the knowledge that it's painful?

Quote:


You really seem to take issue with my writing style. I'm sorry that you perceive me as a hostile authority figure, or that your own feelings of authority over others seems threatened by what I have to say.

Quote:


To my knowledge my only castigations of the law enforcement community on this board are related to the uses and abuses of polygraphy. If I have made other negative remarks I wish you would point them out becuase I don't recall them.

Quote:


Coercion is the threat of or the actual use of force. See my cut and paste of the definition above. Police routinely threaten harsher charges and more strident prosecution when facing a recalcitrant suspect. THAT is the threat of force.

The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. ``Coactus volui'' (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion.

I am not talking about beating suspects.

First to Skeptic:

I have been in the law enforcement field since 1978, and in that time have had a tremendous amount of exposure to interviews, interrogations, and polygraph.  Why assume that I am a polygraph examiner?  Maybe I simply take offense to amatures making ignorant comments and assumptions regarding how a confession is obtained.  If Beech Trees is capable of presenting his credentials then let him do so.  Until then he should base his comments on fact not speculation and or assumptions. 

Now to Beech Trees:

Simply answer the question if you can.  What is your first hand experience with polygraph and interviews/interrogations? Are you basing your comments about illegally obtained confessions on actual experience or are you simply speculating?  What exposure have you actually had with the utilization of the polygraph technique?  Again, you speak with such authority when you are advising people on matters that may impact their lives, I think it is a fair question as to what experience or exposure you have in either the field of law or law enforcement.

To answer your question, you are getting to me only in that you seem so willing and eager to attack a whole profession (law enforcement) but you base these attacks on what?  A bad experience with a particular investigative technique that you happened to be subjected to?  On what do you base your comments about illegally obtained confessions?  Please do not split hairs as to your exact terminology.  You used the word coerced.  A coerced confession is an illegally obtained confession.  You made the comment to PolyCop that he coerced a confession from someone.  Again, what do you base this on?

Please provide the data, or as Skeptic says "the peer reviewed scientific findings" regarding coerced confessions.

Batman

Congratulations!  Another Maschke follower who loses in the end.

What an idiot..

Batman wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 11:50pm:


Since what I have to say is so inaccurate, my credentials seem to be a moot point. Perhaps if you could simply back up your gratuitous assertion that those responses I give to subjects on which I speak with authority also lack accuracy, then I will entertain a response. Until then, go back and try again.

Quote:


I'm getting to you, aren't I batman? 

Kisses,

Dave