Just failed my polygraph for employment with the local sheriff's office.  I tried the countermeasures but I guess I didn't do it right??  ??? I'm very dissapointed and pissed off.  I'm a good worker and would have liked to have made that my career .  The sad thing is that is was only for a dispatchers job and not an officer.  What a bunch of b.s.!  I did some bad things when I was younger but am a good person now, they made me feel like there was something wrong with me.  Poop on them!  Poop on polygraphs.  >:(

I would also like to know if anyone knows the florda state public access law you have to quote to get all the info the local sheriffs office got on me.  If anyone knows it please email it to me @ Fantasia197723@hotmail.com

whtvr25 wrote on Jun 8^th, 2002 at 6:47pm:

I would also like to know if anyone knows the florda state public access law you have to quote to get all the info the local sheriffs office got on me.  If anyone knows it please email it to me @ Fantasia197723@hotmail.com

Here is a good place to start:

Florida Government in the Sunshine: A Citizen's Guide

From which I quote in part:

If you are refused access to public records you should cite Chapter 119 of Florida Law, which states: "It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and minicipal[sic] records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person." Public resords are defined as "all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received...in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency." Section 119.10 provides that: "Any person willfully and knowingly violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree..."

According to the website noted above, there are over 500 exemptions from the Florida FOI statutes, including:

Medical and birth records;
Identity of parents who leave a newborn infant at a hospital or fire station;
Information provided to authorities by people who take minor children when fleeing domestic violence;
Investigative and criminal intelligence records of law enforcement agencies that are related to active investigations;
Law enforcement records identifying sexual abuse victims or confidential informants;
Home addresses and phone numbers of Department of Children & Family Services investigators, law enforcement officers, state attorneys, judges, firefighters, and code enforcement officers;
Adoption records;
Student educational records;
Reports of diseases of "public health significance" to the state Department of Children & Family Services;
Information "necessary to security and integrity" of the Florida Lottery;
Negotiation records of purchases of real property by state and local agencies, such as appraisals, offers, and counteroffers, until a deal is final or will be considered by the governing body within 30 days,
Most tax information filed with the Department of Revenue;
Layout plans of port facilities, if it is believed that they can could compromise seaport security; and
Collective bargaining records.

dave

:)Thank you very much, that was just what I was looking for and they even have a letter you can customize and send.  I will mail my letter out on Monday morning as soon as i call the sheriffs office to see whom I should send it to.  Here is my letter if anyone is interested in seeing what I'm writing them.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to the Florida Public Records Law, Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, I request access to review and photocopy:
 
1. My application for employment with the XXX County Sheriffs Office;            .
2. Oral interview evaluation notes and ranking;
3. Polygraph charts and audio tapes;
4. All other documentation regarding my application;
5. All information that the XXX County Sheriffs Office may have entered into a database about me, regardless of whether or not that database is directly maintained by the XXX County Sheriffs Office.

My social security number is: XXX-XX-XXXX

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.  Executed on May 10, 2002.

I am willing to pay all lawful and reasonable costs associated with this request. Please notify me in advance what those costs will be.

If you intend to deny this public request in whole or part, I request that you advise me in writing of the particular statutory exemption upon which you are relying, and an explanation for doing so, as required by Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. Additionally, if the exemption you are claiming applies to only a portion of a record, please delete the exempted section and release the remainder of the record as required by law.

In light of the nature and importance of the records requested, please make them available within 30 days of the receipt of this letter.  If you have any questions about this request, please call me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Thank you in advance for processing my request.

Sincerely,



XXX
Concerned Citizen


Thanks again!  I don't feel so helpless now.  I just really want to know what I did wrong...this should get me the info I need.

Note: Your post was edited to protect your privacy. Identifying information was replaced with Xs. If you object to these changes, please send an e-mail message to info@antipolygraph.org. --AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Hello,

I have been to this site and have read TLBTLD quite a few times because I am currently in the process of trying to become a PO.  I have decided that I will use counter measures, not just because I have a shaky past, but because I have seen the horror stories that honesty has caused.  

However, after posts like whtvr25, I myself am concerned about producing a truthful chart.  According to the posts here and TLBTLD I was convinced that using counter measures and passing should be relatively easy.  

My question is, what are the common mistakes made when using counter measures?  I DON'T want to make them.  I want to  be DAMN sure when I get in that room I know what I am doing.  Any replies will be greatly appreciated.

Also, I have seen Doug Williams on TV and have visited his web site.  Does his book have any secrets that I have not learned from TLBTLD?  I don't want to spend 50 bucks if I don't have to, but I will if it means the difference between passing and failing.  

I am very appreciative for the work that you guys do.

Thanks

jimmy2times wrote on Jun 9^th, 2002 at 8:42pm:

My question is, what are the common mistakes made when using counter measures?  I DON'T want to make them.  I want to  be DAMN sure when I get in that room I know what I am doing.  Any replies will be greatly appreciated.

I have taken two polygraphs in my life. On the first, I was burned and deemed deceptive by my state-sponsored tormentor even though I was completely forthright and honest in my responses. I successfully employed behavioral, physiological, and mental countermeasures the second time and passed easily. You know the old clichè, "Fail to prepare, prepare to fail"? It applies perfectly when discussing a polygraph interrogation. When you actually go through the interrogation, each time you spot a trick, tactic, whatever that your 'opponent' is using, you gain confidence and security in the knowledge that it's all a huge crock.

Knowing and understanding the lie behind the lie detector is only the first part. *Practice* your countermeasures until you can maintain a consistent baseline breathing pattern for at least 10 minutes and preferably longer. I went so far as to record on cassette a typical polygraph interrogation exam, leaving about 30 seconds between questions so that I might get a better feel for the timing.

I also spent a good deal of time preparing for typical interrogation techniques and tactics that my polygrapher would employ during the pre test interview and the (possible) post-test interrogation. I practiced body language as well, reading carefully The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Interview and Interrogation Handbook and going through various scenarios with a trusted friend. Knowing beforehand how to parry and deflect the possible false accusations will help you immeasurably.


Quote:

Also, I have seen Doug Williams on TV and have visited his web site.  Does his book have any secrets that I have not learned from TLBTLD?  I don't want to spend 50 bucks if I don't have to, but I will if it means the difference between passing and failing.

Having thoroughly read both, I can tell you that everything you read in the free Lie Behind The Lie Detector is simply repeated in Doug's book, albeit slightly differently the message and the physical countermeasures remain the same.


Quote:

I am very appreciative for the work that you guys do.

I am too. George and Gino are good men.

Jimmy I know exactly how you feel.  I am in the exact same position.  Would someone please post a shortened version of their polygraph interrogation including when they used countermeasures and when they didnt?  I know there are examples in TLBTLD but I'd appreciate a first hand account.

jimmy2times wrote on Jun 9^th, 2002 at 8:42pm:

... My question is, what are the common mistakes made when using counter measures?  I DON'T want to make them.  I want to  be DAMN sure when I get in that room I know what I am doing.  Any replies will be greatly appreciated. ...

I don't know how common it is, but one of the worst mistakes one could make is to confuse a relevant question with a "control" question and then augment one's physiological responses to it. This could well result in a failed "test."

Canuck asked, "Would someone please post a shortened version of their polygraph interrogation including when they used countermeasures and when they didn't?"

Canuck, I took a preemployment LE poly two months ago. (Evidentially, I passed.  I'm being sworn in two weeks.)   I'll share the procedure and questions I experienced. As for countermeasures I will let one of the more senior users of this site make suggestions.  I did not find this site until after the test and was unaware of countermeasures at the time of my test.

A week before the test I was provided with a very lengthy pre-poly questionnaire.  (Probably over 200 questions.)  It covered everything from health questions, to petty theft, tax evasion, subversive groups and terrorist plots, all the way to lewd sex and drug activities - You name it.  Upon arriving, (early), for my test the polygrapher showed me the test room and machine, then took me back to his office to review the pretest questionnaire.  We spent about an hour and a half reviewing every single question and clarifying any of the minor transgressions to which I admitted.

He then had me listen to a short tape that explained how the machine works and that it is fool proof. Afterwards, he explained that during the in-test phase I would be asked about 12 question.  He further explained that he would now review these questions with me, in advance, and that I must feel comfortable answering the questions truthfully, as the test will record even minor deception.  He assured me that I would not be asked any questions other than what we were about to review.  We reviewed the questions, made clarifications to a couple of what I felt were vague/subjective questions, (probably control questions which did leave some minor nagging doubt), and then he told me to take a bathroom break and sit in the hall while he set up the machine.  

Ten minutes later he took me back to the testing room and seated me with my back to him and the machine. He hooked me up, made sure I was as comfortable as one can be under the  circumstances and then instructed me to be very still while he made adjustments.  He asked me if I was athletic and commented that my breathing was very slow, regular and shallow.  I commented back that I like to run and work out.  He then announced that the test was about to begin, that I should be very still and answer only yes or no. He would pause 20 to 30 seconds between questions.  To the best of my memory the test was as follows:

Polygrapher Announces - "The test has now begun."

1.  Is your name, (my name)?  Yes
2.  Are you currently in the city of, (my town)? Yes
3.  Do you intend to lie to me today?  No
4.  Have you ever done anything lewd?  No
5.  Have you ever engaged sex for money?  No
6.  Have you minimized any of the answers on your application
    for the purpose of employment?   No.
7.  Is today Wednesday? (today's day)  Yes
8.  Do you now or have you ever belonged to any subversive
    groups, (such as KKK, Skinheads, neo-nazi, etc.)?   No
9.  Have you been truthful about your use of drugs and
    alcohol?   Yes
10. Have you ever done anything for which you could get
    in trouble?   No
11. Have you ever forced anyone to have sex against
    their will?  No
12. Have you ever had sex with a child?  No

The Polygrapher announces, "The test is now over. Remain still until the machine is disconnected."

He then disconnected everything, let me stretch, then repeated the test two more times with the questions in a different sequence.  The whole process took about 30 minutes.

At the conclusion of my test he asked me if anything about the test was bothering me.  I answered No.  He then explained the charts would be read by himself, then read independently by another polygrapher that had not met me.  The results would be submitted with my background investigation and I should hear something within two weeks. He shook my hand and said good bye. I had no post test interview.  Several weeks later personnel followed up with my drug screen and physical.  I was never told I passed but two other applicants, I was training with, were immediately informed that they had be disqualified during a post test interview.

I was truthful and had nothing to hide.  I'm about as crooked as Beaver Cleaver, (hence the name). I guess the machine worked in this case, or at least the polygrapher believed me. (I feel strongly opinion plays a part in this subjective test.)  However, I did have a very negative experience with a polygraph test many years ago in college.

I was working a part-time college job in a large chain store back in the mid 80's.  Evidentially the department in which I worked had a repeating shortage in one of the cash drawers.  This cash register was shared by numerous employees including me.  Everyone in the department was asked to take a polygraph.  I knew I had not taken even one dime and cheerfully agreed to the test in order to prove my innocence.  Imagine my shock when the polygrapher gets in my face, after the test, and tells me that he knows I took money, (note - not that I failed the test), and that I must immediately resign my job and sign a typed confession or the store may call the police and prosecute me!! Being only 19 and very naive, I was so stunned and terrified by the idea of involving the police, (not to mention my parents and school), that I would have signed a confession to murder if it got me out there. Three of my coworkers met with the same fate that day. Ironically, the person truly responsible was later caught red handed, with his hand in drawer, and was also found to have a prior record for possession of a controlled substance - Hummm???

During my recent pre-poly interview my polygrapher asked if I had ever taken a poly before.  I told him this story and he was actually sympathetic and explained the laws were changed in the later 80's to prevent such abuse of power.  Needless to say I have little faith in the machine as an objective truth finder.  I see it as a subjective tool used as a means to support the interrogator's pre-form opinion.  I'm a very good judge of character. I honesty feel my preemployment LE polygrapher had a good feeling about me and I passed in his mind before I was every hooked up. Lucky me this time.

My best advise is get a conservative hair cut, dress professionally, arrive early, appear relaxed, show respect, (yes sir-no sir), make good eye contact and let them see you are an honest and  worthy candidate.  If you use counter measures I hope you'll report back what you did and the outcome.

Good Luck!
The Beav

I don't buy into the whole "look good" thing.  I dressed very nicely and have a very professional (and cute) look.  I don't think it helped very much....if my honest baby face couldn't make my polygrapher trust me....I just don't know.  Sure it couldn't hurt.....

I PASSED!!!!

Thanks for the post Beav.  I did my poly just recently and it went very well.  I'll give you the run down.  First of all I'd like to say that i didn't lie on my test at all.  I don't know any of you so I have no reason to lie.  The first thing we did was the pre poly interview in which we went over 75 questions ranging from beastiality to drug use.  From those questions the polygrapher used fifteen questions on the test.  The polygrapher then hooked me up to the machine and said they wanted to "callibrate the equipment" ::).  As soon as the pneumographs went on I payed attention to my breathing.  I made each breath 3 seconds in and 3 seconds out.  I was told to pick a card and not show it.  The polygrapher then started counting out numbers and told me to lie when they hit the number I picked.  The polygrapher told me my readings were off the charts ;D!!  I really felt like asking to see all the cards but decided against that (hehe).  The polygrapher then instructed me to close my eyes and focus on the questions.  It turned out the test format was Relevant/Irrelevant.  during the questions I just focused on something relaxing.  After the questions the polygrapher said that some of the questions were bothering me and asked if there was something I wanted to talk about.  I said no and she promptly informed me that I passed and the test was over.

All in all it was pretty painless.  I think most police departments these days are coming to the realization that they wont be able to hire just angels who have never done anything wrong and for the most part will forgive a lot of your mistakes depending on how long ago you made them.  They really just want to make sure you are telling the truth on your application.  I'm not in any way condoning the use of the polygraph but I think that if you are considering a job with a police department, get a feel for what is acceptable and what isn't then tell them the bad shit you've done.  I told then stuff I thought for sure would get me DQ'ed but they just shrugged and said that it happened a long time ago and everyone makes mistakes.

             Just my opinion.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions and for helping me get informed before my test.

Canuck,

Congratulations!  You should be proud to have made it this far in the process and I believe you will be an outstanding public servant.  I applaud you.

Now if only the rest of the honest applicants take your advice: "  
canuck wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 6:18pm:

"i didn't lie on my test at all." "I have no reason to lie." "All in all it was pretty painless.  I think most police departments these days are coming to the realization that they wont be able to hire just angels who have never done anything wrong and for the most part will forgive a lot of your mistakes depending on how long ago you made them.  They really just want to make sure you are telling the truth on your application." "I think that if you are considering a job with a police department, get a feel for what is acceptable and what isn't then tell them the bad shit you've done.  I told then stuff I thought for sure would get me DQ'ed but they just shrugged and said that it happened a long time ago and everyone makes mistakes."

Now there are people on this site who will point to all the other stuff you wrote about controlling your breathing and thinking relaxing thoughts, etc as "evidence" of what got you through the test.  But as someone who has tested hundreds of applicants just like you, I can assure you that you passed because you told the truth...period...

Congratulations Again!

Polycop

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 7:35pm:

Now there are people on this site who will point to all the other stuff you wrote about controlling your breathing and thinking relaxing thoughts, etc as "evidence" of what got you through the test.  But as someone who has tested hundreds of applicants just like you, I can assure you that you passed because you told the truth...period...

I'm sorry, Polycop, but according to your other posts countermeasures such as employed by 'Canuck' should have immediately caused a disqualification and an accusation of the use of countermeasures, right? Was it:

1. Just a bad hair day for the polygrapher.

2. The polygrapher was too stupid to discern countermeasures (regardless of whether or not the examinee was lying, he *was* controlling his breathing, right?)

3. Possible that countermeasures such as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are indistinguishable from 'genuine' (non-augmented) responses?

I'm of the mind that it's number three.

Beechtrees,

Nice to hear from you again.  Allow me to answer your questions:


wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 7:50pm:

I'm sorry, Polycop, but according to your other posts countermeasures such as employed by 'Canuck' should have immediately caused a disqualification and an accusation of the use of countermeasures, right? Was it: 1. Just a bad hair day for the polygrapher. 2. The polygrapher was too stupid to discern countermeasures (regardless of whether or not the examinee was lying, he *was* controlling his breathing, right?) 3. Possible that countermeasures such as described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are indistinguishable from 'genuine' (non-augmented) responses? I'm of the mind that it's number three.

1.  If you read all my posts, you would have seen that evaluatable respiratory responses can be identified even through attempts at "controlled breathing"

2.  If you think about it, "countermeasures" were around long before the advent of this website.  In many cases, people, both truthful and untruthful controlled their breathing and otherwise attempted to "relax" themselves during the test.  We are used to this, expect it, and truly try to work with these people.  The applicants who are getting disqualified for "countermeasures" are the ones who come swaggering into the polygraph lab with a copy of some internet countermeasure "book", like the one hawked on this site, physically or figuratively under their arm.

Hit me with your best shot... ;D

Polycop...


  examinees      attinnon an effort to work with an applicant  

Polycop,

You wrote:


Quote:

1.  If you read all my posts, you would have seen that evaluatable respiratory responses can be identified even through attempts at "controlled breathing"

Could you explain what you mean by this? DoDPI recognizes 12 scorable pneumograph reactions, which are now illustrated in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. A subject who decides to use countermeasures can readily avoid producing any of these while answering the relevant questions.

You also wrote:


Quote:

2.  If you think about it, "countermeasures" were around long before the advent of this website.  In many cases, people, both truthful and untruthful controlled their breathing and otherwise attempted to "relax" themselves during the test.  We are used to this, expect it, and truly try to work with these people.  The applicants who are getting disqualified for "countermeasures" are the ones who come swaggering into the polygraph lab with a copy of some internet countermeasure "book", like the one hawked on this site, physically or figuratively under their arm.

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not "hawked" on this website: it is given away for free. If readers who choose to employ countermeasures have paid attention when reading the section on behvioral countermeasures (in Ch. 4), they won't come "swaggering" into your polygraph chamber--they'll be courteous and appear to be fully cooperative, behaving just as the polygraph community has come to expect truthful subjects to behave.

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 9:40pm:

The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is not "hawked" on this website: it is given away for free. If readers who choose to employ countermeasures have paid attention when reading the section on behvioral countermeasures (in Ch. 4), they won't come "swaggering" into your polygraph chamber--they'll be courteous and appear to be fully cooperative, behaving just as the polygraph community has come to expect truthful subjects to behave.

George, you are right.  I apologize.  You do give your book away.  In fact, I have enjoyed reading your book very much.  It is much better written than Mr. Williams' (who charges almost $50.00 for far less quality content).  I will even stipulate that many of your followers have appeared quite cooperative.  Nevertheless, I have caught LOTS of them and have subsequently engaged in many conversations ending with "at least you didn't have to pay fifty bucks for Mr. Maschke's book... :D

But, like I just posted on another string, I am willing to admit that maybe I have not caught everybody who has tried to beat me.  So, if an examinee feels that he has truly mastered the art of the countermeasure....

Go ahead, Jump...

Polycop...

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 9:07pm:

1.  If you read all my posts, you would have seen that evaluatable respiratory responses can be identified even through attempts at "controlled breathing"

What are the evaluatable respiratory responses one can see on a polygraph chart of a person who is controlling their breathing?


Quote:

2.  If you think about it, "countermeasures" were around long before the advent of this website.  In many cases, people, both truthful and untruthful controlled their breathing and otherwise attempted to "relax" themselves during the test.  We are used to this, expect it, and truly try to work with these people.

What does that mean? The polygrapher noted above didn't 'work with' Canuck, he simply wasn't aware that Canuck was controlling his breathing from start to finish. He wasn't aware that the tables were turned on the 'stim test', and that Canuck augmented his response when the supposed number card came up. Care to comment?



Quote:

The applicants who are getting disqualified for "countermeasures" are the ones who come swaggering into the polygraph lab with a copy of some internet countermeasure "book", like the one hawked on this site, physically or figuratively under their arm.

1. We're still waiting for an example of someone whom you disqualified (absent an admission) for using the kinds of countermeasures described in George and Gino's free book.

2. Polygraph 'lab'? Are you in a white smock surrounded by beakers of fomenting chemicals? Your bald-faced attempts at legitimizing such places as the Philly Hotbox (RIP) are transparent.

Polycop,

You claim you've caught "lots" of people who employed the countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. But why should we believe you?

The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its 30 year history has yet to publish a single article explaining how to reliably detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Nor does it appear that any methodology for detecting such countermeasures has been published anywhere. How did you acquire your claimed ability to detect such countermeasures?

As I noted in the message thread, There's an Old Saying, your technique for "catching" people using countermeasures (described in Reply #13) is essentially to use bluffery, a tactic we warn readers about in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 10:07pm:

What are the evaluatable respiratory responses one can see on a polygraph chart of a person who is controlling their breathing? What does that mean? The polygrapher noted above didn't 'work with' Canuck, he simply wasn't aware that Canuck was controlling his breathing from start to finish. He wasn't aware that the tables were turned on the 'stim test', and that Canuck augmented his response when the supposed number card came up. Care to comment?

1.  If you were here, I would SHOW you criteria in incidents of "controlled breathing".  Every examiner knows that you can still see scoring criteria in controlled breathing in most cases...Or was that a little secret I was not supposed to let out?  Gee, I thought you guys knew it all?

;D

2.  Who cares whether or not he "did" anything during the stim test?  What effect did that have on the outcome of the test?  Remember, HE TOLD THE TRUTH to his examiner.

:)

To quote an earlier post by PDD-Fed, please tell me where this subject perpetrated point countermeasures on an R&I test, that enabled him to pass the test.  The most important thing to rmember here is that he told you guys that he TOLD THE TRUTH.  Has it occurred to you at all THAT is why he passed

3.  By the way, not to beat a dead horse, but after you folks were unable to come up with any plausable way to beat an R&I test, you simply changed tactics and started attacking the use of the format itself.

4.  Bottom line, this person passed because he TOLD THE TRUTH.  You will never admit that but I have learned to accept your close mindedness...

Polycop...

Polycop,

You wrote in part:


Quote:

4.  Bottom line, this person passed because he TOLD THE TRUTH.  You will never admit that but I have learned to accept your close mindedness...

Why do you suppose that there is a causal relationship between Canuck's having told the truth and his "passing" that which is wrongly called a "test?" The R/I technique is thoroughly discredited and has absolutely no grounding in the scientific method. (See the message thread, Peer-review and the Relevant/Irrelevant Technique?) I think that Canuck might better ascribe his passing to good luck.

Then again, any behavioral countermeasures he employed, and his augmented reaction during the "stim" test, may well have helped to increase his odds of passing.

As for countermeasures to the R/I technique, we stand by what we wrote in the 2nd edition The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 10:34pm:

1.  If you were here, I would SHOW you criteria in incidents of "controlled breathing".  Every examiner knows that you can still see scoring criteria in controlled breathing in most cases...Or was that a little secret I was not supposed to let out?  Gee, I thought you guys knew it all?

WOW.  Talk about a lame response.  Wanna try again, Polycop?

You know, I've read many of the exchanges on this message board with great interest.  Not a few include claims by polygraphers that they can spot countermeasures.  Many before you, Polycop, have claimed to have outed all sorts of CM users (or at least claimed the ability to see right through them).  Yet, strangely, the evidence never quite makes it into the board -- though one exceptionally honest polygrapher did post scanned charts with characteristics he hypothesized, without evidence, were displaying indications of CM's.

I've spent enough time online (newsgroups, etc.) to know bad bluffs when I see them.  And ironically (or perhaps not) almost all of the bald falsehoods told on this board have been posted by claimed polygraphers, who have done far more to convince me of George et. al's truthfulness, integrity and knowledge than anything else.

It's time to put up or shut up, Polycop.


Quote:

2.  Who cares whether or not he "did" anything during the stim test?  What effect did that have on the outcome of the test?  Remember, HE TOLD THE TRUTH to his examiner.

I would imagine the effect on the test was to prevent a false positive indication of deception.

Skeptic

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 10:34pm:

1.  If you were here, I would SHOW you criteria in incidents of "controlled breathing".  Every examiner knows that you can still see scoring criteria in controlled breathing in most cases...

I see. So it's something you can't articulate, nor does it have a lexicon or nomenclature in plain English within polygraph chart scoring? If you can only truly 'show' us, I would presume your high-tech 'polygraph lab' into which the naive swagger might be equipped with a scanner with which you could scan a few examples and email to George, whom I'm sure would be happy to post here for all to see.


Quote:

2.  Who cares whether or not he "did" anything during the stim test?  What effect did that have on the outcome of the test?  Remember, HE TOLD THE TRUTH to his examiner.

He lied to the examiner during the stim test, Polycop! He artificially controlled his breathing and artificially augmented his reaction when the alleged 'number card' was announced. Are you telling me the polygrapher saw that and just let it past unmentioned?

He artificially controlled his breathing during the in-test phase. Are you telling me the polygrapher saw that and chose to disregard Canuck's attempts at countermeasures?


Quote:

3.  By the way, not to beat a dead horse, but after you folks were unable to come up with any plausable way to beat an R&I test, you simply changed tactics and started attacking the use of the format itself.

That sound you hear is not us laughing at your testing method, polycop-- it's your fellow polygraphers! We merely reiterated what your peer group has been saying for decades! Got a problem with that? Take it up with them, not us!

wrote on Jun 25^th, 2002 at 2:40am:

I see. So it's something you can't articulate, nor does it have a lexicon or nomenclature in plain English within polygraph chart scoring? If you can only truly 'show' us, I would presume your high-tech 'polygraph lab' into which the naive swagger might be equipped with a scanner with which you could scan a few examples and email to George, whom I'm sure would be happy to post here for all to see.

That's where the Tarot cards come in to the picture, Beech Trees...

Seriously, don't you think it's kind of odd that Mr. Polycop would be that familiar with TLBTLD, even to the point that he "jokes" with people he catches using countermeasures about their not having to pay for it, when not one post earlier he indicated he didn't know the book was available for free?

Deception Indicated, if you asked me  :o

Skeptic

wrote on Jun 24^th, 2002 at 9:07pm:

Nice to hear from you again.  Allow me to answer your questions:

I'm allowing you, and I'm still waiting for a response to this question I posted to you earlier:

If a professional polygrapher said that [during the course of a CQT polygraph interrogation] the physiological response to the question, "Is today <blank>" is compared to responses to Relevant Questions, would that person be a liar?

As you have libeled me with gusto in other posts, you may feel free to dispense with the unctuous pleasantries.

Dave

You know what???  I'm not sure what got me through the poly whether my efforts or the truth.  It doesn't really matter.
What does matter is that by using the combination of both I will be able to pursue a career that i think I'm suited for and I'll excell at.  While I appreciate the congrats Polycop, I think the R/I test is severely flawed.  I know that my "off the charts" response to the stim question helped.  It had to.  It was the only known lie on the test in which to compare my answers (although I know in theory that isn't how the test works).  The fact that all of my relevant questions had the same reaction added to that.

I'd like to emphasize again for the cheap seats that I manipulated my chart for the sole purpose of ensuring a positive outcome even though I was truthfull.  I used anal pucker and, cause my eyes where closed, pictured myself about to jump out of an airplane.

And one more thing George...... you should start a seperate forum just for proponents and opponents to argue over the validity of polygraphy instead of each thread being turned into a virtual boxing ring.

Beechtrees,

You asked:


wrote on Jun 25^th, 2002 at 4:37am:

I'm allowing you, and I'm still waiting for a response to this question I posted to you earlier: If a professional polygrapher said that [during the course of a CQT polygraph interrogation] the physiological response to the question, "Is today <blank>" is compared to responses to Relevant Questions, would that person be a liar? As you have libeled me with gusto in other posts, you may feel free to dispense with the unctuous pleasantries. Dave

Sorry about not getting back with you sooner.  I was working late last night taking a post-poly confession from a drug dealer who read this site and actually attempted one or two particularly ridiculous "countermeasures".  Anyway, in answer to your question, in a CQT test, the relevant questions are NEVER compared to the irrelevant (norm) questions, such as, "Are the lights on in this room."  Therefore your question (as I understand it) has no merit.  Could you rephrase it?

Polycop...

 

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 3:12pm:

Sorry about not getting back with you sooner.  I was working late last night taking a post-poly confession from a drug dealer who read this site and actually attempted one or two particularly ridiculous "countermeasures".

Yes, of course you were.


Quote:

Anyway, in answer to your question, in a CQT test, the relevant questions are NEVER compared to the irrelevant (norm) questions, such as, "Are the lights on in this room."  Therefore your question (as I understand it) has no merit.  Could you rephrase it?

It's not the question that has no merit, Polycop, it's the assertion. In essence, you are in agreement then that past American Polygraph Association President Frank Horvath was making a meritless assertion when he told reporter Joe Bauman,

The tests record physiological responses to questions. The queries usually cover both a crime under investigation and matters that are irrelevant or simply technical such as: Is today Friday? Responses to these comparison questions are checked against responses to relevant questions.

Thank you for confirming what we knew all along.

What is the name of the drug dealer from whom you coerced a confession? I'd like to read the police report and any associated press articles on his arrest and arraignment, which is all of course a matter of public record.

Dave

1.  Unfortunately I cannot reveal the identity of my examinee, because I am the only examiner on a small PD (Sorry).

2.  Like most people who think they are experts on the law, just because a man confesses who initially had no intentions too when he walked in the door, does not necessarily mean the confession was "coerced."  Additionally, if you are going to argue that any confession that comes after a polygraph MUST be coerced, you might be interested in knowing that even in jurisdictions that do not allow polygraph as evidence in court, most still allow the confession that comes as a result of the exam.  These rules were made by people who obviously have a much greater feel for the constitution than you do...

3.  Although I am not doubting that Dr. Horvath made the statement you quoted.  I just wonder why he said that?  

Polycop...

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 4:13pm:

1.  Unfortunately I cannot reveal the identity of my examinee, because I am the only examiner on a small PD (Sorry).

What's the problem? You would prefer to remain anonymous because you are frightened of the repercussions if your posts were attributed to you? Or, there never was a drug dealer from whom you coerced a confession?


Quote:

2.  Like most people who think they are experts on the law, just because a man confesses who initially had no intentions too when he walked in the door, does not necessarily mean the confession was "coerced."  Additionally, if you are going to argue that any confession that comes after a polygraph MUST be coerced, you might be interested in knowing that even in jurisdictions that do not allow polygraph as evidence in court, most still allow the confession that comes as a result of the exam.  These rules were made by people who obviously have a much greater feel for the constitution than you do...

First, it's the Constitution, not the constitution. As to who has the greatest 'feel' for the Constitution, I wouldn't know. I do know that in a Constitutionally limited form of government your occupation would be toast. You most assuredly do NOT wish to engage me on a debate concerning the US Constitution, polycop.

Are you trying to imply that this alleged drug dealer was fully intending to confess to his crimes the moment he walked through the door? Why the need to polygraph him then? Why did he feel the need to attempt countermeasures? Why the need to boast about an alleged confession and then scurry back to anonymity when called upon to prove your clearly worthless assertion that he 'attempted one or two particularly ridiculous "countermeasures"'?

Yes, I'm fully aware that trickery and deceit (your forté) are sanctioned by the courts as valid and legal techniques for coercing confessions. I have no problem with that.

co·erce
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

I see no problem with my use of the word 'coerce' in this post. Or are you trying to tell us that the police do not use threats and intimidation when interrogating criminal suspects?


Quote:

3.  Although I am not doubting that Dr. Horvath made the statement you quoted.  I just wonder why he said that?

Oh, I think you know perfectly well why he said it polycop.

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 4:51pm:

Are you trying to imply that this alleged drug dealer was fully intending to confess to his crimes the moment he walked through the door? Oh, I think you know perfectly well why he said it polycop.

Oh no Dave, I am not saying he intended to confess when he walked in the door.  He just needed to be shown the futility of his efforts to "beat" the system.

Ok, since you have corrected my spelling and are cleary much more intelligent than I, let's just assume I really don't know why Dr. Horvath said what he did.  Please enlighten me...

Polycop..

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 5:00pm:

Ok, since you have corrected my spelling and are cleary much more intelligent than I, let's just assume I really don't know why Dr. Horvath said what he did.  Please enlighten me...

Polycop,

Although your question is directed to beech trees (Dave), I'll address it. The obvious reason for Dr. Horvath not to have provided Deseret News reporter Ed Bauman with an honest explanation of comparison/"control" questions is that to do so would expose polygraph "testing" for the pseudoscientific charlatanry that it is. It is not surprising that Dr. Horvath has not responded to my public challenge to him.

The very survival of your profession depends on the public not knowing what a probable-lie "control" question is. Which is why when polygraph "professionals" talk to reporters, they routinely feed them the same false and misleading information about the nature of the procedure that they provide their subjects. If they told the truth, the polygraph house of cards would collapse.

AntiPolygraph.org is putting an end to the polygraph community's ability to deceive jouralists (in the way that Dr. Horvath apparently did) and get away with it.

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 5:00pm:

Oh no Dave, I am not saying he intended to confess when he walked in the door.  He just needed to be shown the futility of his efforts to "beat" the system.

Strike two, polycop.  First, your B.S. artistry is fairly obvious.  Your attempts at deception aren't bad, but your stories are inconsistent and too convenient (not to mention you've presented nothing to back them up).  Second, even were you telling the truth, the guy you supposedly polygraphed would NOT have been following the advice of this web site; if he had, he wouldn't have taken a polygraph with you under any circumstances.

Keep trying, though -- makes for good reading

Skeptic

wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 5:00pm:

Oh no Dave, I am not saying he intended to confess when he walked in the door.  He just needed to be shown the futility of his efforts to "beat" the system.

And how was he caught? What 'ridiculous' countermeasures did he attempt, and how did you catch them? Lastly, will you or will you not answer my questions as to why you will not identify this alleged drug dealer so that your boasts can be independently verified? Is it because:

1. You would prefer to remain anonymous because you are frightened of the repercussions if your posts were attributed to you? Or,

2. There never was a drug dealer from whom you coerced a confession?


Quote:

Ok, since you have corrected my spelling and are cleary much more intelligent than I, let's just assume I really don't know why Dr. Horvath said what he did.  Please enlighten me...

I'm surprised you weren't aware of Mr. Horvath's comments as you posted repeatedly to the thread discussing his transgressions. Are you telling me you didn't even read the subject matter before you started posting? Regardless, George answered fully.

Beech Trees:

I was wondering, where did you get your law degree, how many law enforcement interview/interrogations have you ever witnessed (other than on TV) or participated in, and how many polygraph examinations have you ever been involved with either as an examinee, a witness, or an examiner.

You speak so authoritavely on these subjects, but with so little accuracy.  I suspect you have little if any background in true law enforcement; the only polygraphs you have been involved with are the few that you have had to undergo for various reasons; and other than possibly being on the receiving end of an interrogation you most likely have no experience in that field either.

Since you seem so bent on providing advise and critisism regarding these topics, I would think it fair for one to question your bonafides.

Please respond.

Batman

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

Beech Trees: I was wondering, where did you get your law degree, how many law enforcement interview/interrogations have you ever witnessed (other than on TV) or participated in, and how many polygraph examinations have you ever been involved with either as an examinee, a witness, or an examiner. You speak so authoritavely on these subjects, but with so little accuracy.  I suspect you have little if any background in true law enforcement; the only polygraphs you have been involved with are the few that you have had to undergo for various reasons; and other than possibly being on the receiving end of an interrogation you most likely have no experience in that field either. Since you seem so bent on providing advise and critisism regarding these topics, I would think it fair for one to question your bonafides.

Holy glass houses, Batman!

While I'm sure that Beech Trees is capable of presenting his own credentials, I find it ironic that a polygrapher (who engage both in dispensing medical/physiological "information" and in playing psychologist on the strength of less than half a year of education) would be throwing this particular stone.  

At least Beech Trees information has the backing of peer-reviewed scientific findings.

Skeptic

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

Beech Trees: I was wondering, where did you get your law degree, how many law enforcement interview/interrogations have you ever witnessed (other than on TV) or participated in, and how many polygraph examinations have you ever been involved with either as an examinee, a witness, or an examiner. You speak so authoritavely on these subjects, but with so little accuracy.  I suspect you have little if any background in true law enforcement; the only polygraphs you have been involved with are the few that you have had to undergo for various reasons; and other than possibly being on the receiving end of an interrogation you most likely have no experience in that field either.

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:

Since you seem so bent on providing advise and critisism regarding these topics, I would think it fair for one to question your bonafides.

I'm getting to you, aren't I batman?

Kisses,

Dave

What an idiot..

Congratulations!  Another Maschke follower who loses in the end. ;D

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    

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

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.

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:

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?

 

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


Quote:

What exposure have you actually had with the utilization of the polygraph technique?

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:

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.

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 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?

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:

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?

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

Apology accepted.

Later,

Batman

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batman,

You write:


Quote:

...each polygraph is totally unique and cannot be replicated because each examinee is so totally different...

 


John Furedy, noted polygraph critic and esteemed colleague writes:


Quote:

…The fact that the procedure is not a test, but an unstandardizable interrogatory interview, means that its accuracy is not empirically, but only rhetorically, or anecdotally, evaluatable.  That is, one can state accuracy figures only for a given examiner interacting with a given examinee, because the CQT is a dynamic interview situation rather than a standardizable and specifiable test,  Even the weak assertion that a certain examiner is highly accurate cannot be supported, as different examinees alter the dynamic examiner-examinee relationship that grossly influences each unique and unspecifiable CQT episode….

 


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

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

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

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

Batman,

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


Quote:

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.

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:

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.

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).

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?

wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 7:46pm:

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?

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

wrote on Jun 30^th, 2002 at 7:46pm:

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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