Hunter wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:25pm:


Not sure why you brought Matte into the equation.
I do know that after reading Matte's book and trying for many years to make sense of his Quadritrack (?) garble - I can only think that he must have been a close friend of Dr Leary.

To address your denials - (no, no, no etc) If you state that you have never doubted a scored result, then you must be the first, the one and only examiner to have reached that exalted plateau.

Take a deep breath Hunter and think again.

Hunter wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:25pm:


Hunter: polygraph doctrine dictates that you're almost certainly lying, or at least having qualms about your denials.  You have fabricated evidence.  You have abused your "LEO" authority.  You have violated the rights of the citizens that you are ostensibly hired to protect.  You, Hunter, are a bad human being.  You do not deserve to be a police officer.

But, on the off chance that you're not lying, you can't be a police officer.  You won't react sufficiently on the control questions and so it'll be concluded that you're lying and so you won't get the job or will shortly be fired.  If you are a decent human being, I hope your resume is in order, you're going to need it soon.

Hunter wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:25pm:


Hey HUNTER,
What if after all these assumed truthfull answers your were deemed to be a LIER!!
You resent the implication???  Welcome to the false positive club! Now you know how we feel.

BTW I think MOST officers would at least have considered some of the above even if they would never act on it, causing most likely to "react" on a Poly.

Did you ever deliberately falsify a DI result ?
Did you ever deliberately DI an 'Inc' examinee ?
Did you ever strongly suspect that polygraph results are inaccurate ?

#1.  No
#2.  No
#3.  No


For Matte:

    * Do you remember ever making any king of false report about any incident?
    * Do you remember ever abusing your authority as a police officer?
    * Do you remember ever violating a suspect's rights in effecting an arrest?
    * Do you remember ever tampering with evidence? [!]
    * Do you remember ever fabricating evidence? [!]
    * Do you remember ever destroying evidence? [!]


#1  No
#2  No
#3  No
#4  No
#5  No
#6  No

I am an examiner and a LEO, I resent your implication, however I do realize your are disenchanted with the system.  Have a good day.

notguilty1 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2008 at 10:36pm:


Some, if not most, federal agencies already make this a requirement.  Some, polygraph schools also require the student submit to a polygraph prior to attendance.  There is nothing like sitting for a "life style" examination.

OR!!! Since examiners are to assess thuthfullness they should be subject to   extenive polygraph to become a polygrapher.
I do wonder how many would submit or untimatly pass!!

Actually, "did you ever fail a subject after he or she produced NDI results" would probably be a control question, not a relevant question.  And not just because it starts "did you ever..." (questions that are unlimited in time are usually, but not always, CQs)

Fake Dr. James Allan Matte in Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph lists a large number of possible control questions grouped by the type of case they could be applied to (narcotics, homicide, paternity, sexual assault, robbery, etc).  For polygraphs concerning internal police matters he lists the following control questions:

• Do you remember ever making any king of false report about any incident?
• Do you remember ever abusing your authority as a police officer?
• Do you remember ever violating a suspect's rights in effecting an arrest?
• Do you remember ever tampering with evidence? [!]
• Do you remember ever fabricating evidence? [!]
• Do you remember ever destroying evidence? [!]

These are found on page 479-80 of the book.

What point am I making?  Not that police officers are all bad people.  But it is assumed that almost no police officer could deny those questions without any anxiety.  And those are pretty clear cut matters: destroying and fabricating evidence?  Everyone knows those things are wrong and if you've done them you know it.  If it is assumed that few, if any, police officers could deny making up evidence against people then I doubt that many, if any, polygraphers could deny having tampered with polygraph results or the like without some anxiety.  I think the analogy is very close.

Polygraphers, am I going wrong here?  And, of course, if so, where?

polytechnic wrote on Jun 6^th, 2008 at 3:51pm:


Don't know the answer, and can't even postulate, but I bet a whole bunch of them would be using countermeasures!!!

If a random sampling of pro-examiners that post here, had to undergo
polygraph examination using the CQT, to ascertain whether any had ever deliberately 'Failed' an examinee despite  'NDI' polygraph results, I wonder how many would pass ? And just for good measure, include a question to test their belief in the system.

Possible RQ's:

Did you ever deliberately falsify a DI result ?
Did you ever deliberately DI an 'Inc' examinee ?
Did you ever strongly suspect that polygraph results are inaccurate ?