Thank goodness I found this site - it's too bad I haven't found it before my polygraph exam.  

I took the poly 1 week ago with the FBI.  Beforehand, the polygrapher went through the standard questions on my security form, and I answered all of them truthfully.  When he got to the drug usage part, I again responded truthfully and told him that I grew up religious (Mormon), and that I have never used any drugs in my life - as this is contrary to my religious beliefs.  The polygrapher nicely then told me that it is very  rare the people who come in here like myself who have never taken any drugs.  
When I finished with the exam, the polygrapher left me waiting in the room for a good 1/2 hour, then he finally came back.  He told me that I was being deceitful in my polygraph about the drug usage!!  I was not only stunned, but offended as this goes very contrary to my religious beliefs.  For crying out loud, I don't even do alchohol!   He kept on drilling me if there is anything that I would like to add to my application and that if I ommitted something.  I told him no- and that I was being extremely truthful.  However, no matter how many times I told him that his accusations are horrendous to even listen to, he did not seem to budge.  Finally, he told me that he would just "include a copy of your statement along with the polygraph" but that at this moment "it don't look too good".
I am not only stunned and outraged, but I feel like I now need psychological counseling because  a government agency is accusing me of something that goes very against my beliefs and something that I have NEVER done.   When I got back home, I got very sickened to my stomach, cried, and even threw up.  I have yet to hear of any results, although based on the "it don't look to good" comment, I know that they are going to fail me.

Johnn,
Wait until you actually hear that they have disqualified you before you give up.  The post-test interview you described may have been the examiner’s attempt to get you to “confess” to drug use.  

Just because the examiner said you showed a significant reaction on the questions about drug use doesn’t mean that you did.  A very common tactic is to claim you showed a reaction to see if you will confess, now that you have ostensibly been “caught” by the machine.  That's the whole reason behind the trick at the beginning of the test where you are directed to lie - so that you will believe the machine can "catch" you if you don't tell the truth.

Since you didn’t confess anything the examiner may report that you passed.  Try to be patient and don't give up.

Johnn

If he fails you, it could possibly be because of your Morman religion. Some people carry a strong religious bias. If this is the case (which is hard to prove) you need to "sock it to'em".

When I was in college, I was not hired as a LEO because I wasn't the same religion as the Mayer. He hired a local that was of the same religion who, BTW, had been fired from the State Police for running moonshine just 6 months prior. This kind of crap happens more than people want to believe.

Johnn wrote on Aug 30^th, 2005 at 7:03pm:

Thank goodness I found this site - it's too bad I haven't found it before my polygraph exam.   I took the poly 1 week ago with the FBI.  Beforehand, the polygrapher went through the standard questions on my security form, and I answered all of them truthfully.  When he got to the drug usage part, I again responded truthfully and told him that I grew up religious (Mormon), and that I have never used any drugs in my life - as this is contrary to my religious beliefs.  The polygrapher nicely then told me that it is very  rare the people who come in here like myself who have never taken any drugs.   When I finished with the exam, the polygrapher left me waiting in the room for a good 1/2 hour, then he finally came back.  He told me that I was being deceitful in my polygraph about the drug usage!!  I was not only stunned, but offended as this goes very contrary to my religious beliefs.  For crying out loud, I don't even do alchohol!   He kept on drilling me if there is anything that I would like to add to my application and that if I ommitted something.  I told him no- and that I was being extremely truthful.  However, no matter how many times I told him that his accusations are horrendous to even listen to, he did not seem to budge.  Finally, he told me that he would just "include a copy of your statement along with the polygraph" but that at this moment "it don't look too good". I am not only stunned and outraged, but I feel like I now need psychological counseling because  a government agency is accusing me of something that goes very against my beliefs and something that I have NEVER done.   When I got back home, I got very sickened to my stomach, cried, and even threw up.  I have yet to hear of any results, although based on the "it don't look to good" comment, I know that they are going to fail me.

Johnn:

I am truly very sorry to hear about your experience with the FBI's polygraph process and that the agency continues to treat job applicants as if they were disposable. I am also sorry to say that from personal experience, if your examiner treated you in a very aggressive manner during your post test interrogation, it really doesn't look good for you, I'm afraid. A little fishing is one thing, but the drilling is indicative that your examiner will recommend that you fail your test and that headquarters  will most likley echo those same sentiments. You should prepare yourself to receive a letter in the mail from the agency in the next couple of weeks withdrawing your conditional job offer. You can appeal for a second test by writing to the person who sends you the "not within acceptable parameters" letter and asking for a retest. However, please do not be fooled like I was into thinking that the agency will let you pass and clear your name. Trust me, it has no intention of doing so. Knowing this upfront now will better help you deal with the situation. Don't give the FBI the satisfaction of leading you on, thereby prolonging the mental anguish the agency has caused you. Virtually no one passes an FBI retest--it's a total front to give the impression of a fair appeals process--don't fall for it and set yourself up for an emotional tug of war as you wait for your appeal interview and retest. That doesn't mean you shouldn't appeal your test--you should do so and write letters stating that you told the truth so that information can be included in your file.

I can honestly say I know exactly what it feels like to have your integrity called into question and berated by an FBI polygraph examiner after you've placed all your cards on the table, so to speak. It's absolutely devastating and very hard for others who have not experienced it to understand it's emotional impact. The best thing for you to do is to appeal the decision and move on with your job search as soon as possible. Ask yourself this--would you really want to work for an agency that treats job applicants the way you were treated last week? Just imagine how screwed up it is on the inside of an agency with such a jaded view of the world that it can't fathom that there are some people such as yourself who have never tried drugs.

I will say that as horrible as you feel now, it will get better over time. For a long time after my experience with the FBI application process, I believed the polygraph ruined everything. Now, I am convinced it saved me from working for one seriously screwed up government agency.

Good luck to you, Johnn and don't let the examiner get the best of you--he most definitely doesn't deserve it.  

Twoblock wrote on Aug 30^th, 2005 at 9:54pm:

Johnn If he fails you, it could possibly be because of your Morman religion. Some people carry a strong religious bias. If this is the case (which is hard to prove) you need to "sock it to'em". When I was in college, I was not hired as a LEO because I wasn't the same religion as the Mayer. He hired a local that was of the same religion who, BTW, had been fired from the State Police for running moonshine just 6 months prior. This kind of crap happens more than people want to believe.

Unfortunatetly, I didn't tell him what the denomination of my religion is - not that it would have been better for me.  But as far as they are concerned, I could be Catholic or Jewish.
In any case, I am very hurt and distraught.

I also asked directly if I failed, and he just rolled his eyes and said, "well it doesn't look too good, but I will put in your statement along with the polygraph results".

polyfool wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 3:31am:

You can appeal for a second test by writing to the person who sends you the "not within acceptable parameters" letter and asking for a retest. However, please do not be fooled like I was into thinking that the agency will let you pass and clear your name.

Polyfool,
I thank you for your sentiments, but I will not request for a retest.     If I fail, they will definitely get an earful (via letter) from me.  If I pass, I am renouncing the position.  I no longer want to be a part of an organization which treats innocent people like garbage.

I just don't think it's worth it.  Imagine being a special agent for 2 or 3 years, then having to take a poly again and being accused of espionage?  It's just not worth the stress and emotional trauma.  Once is enough for me.

It's funny how the polygrapher asked me if I looked into any websites about the polygraph, and I answered truthfully - no.  Well, he then went on to say that it's because "those people are very bitter cause of course, they failed".  I felt like asking him, "Why are they so bitter?  People are not bitter for no reason".  Of course, I didn't want to get into that discussion - I wanted to finish the poly as soon as possible.

Amazing how similar some of these stories are.  I too would have thought this website was fill of whiners prior to my own experience (very much like Johns).

John -- take this advice from a total stranger -- and take it for what it's worth: Don't let this experience define your life -- but learn from it!  It will certainly change your outlook on many things.  You know you were truthful.  Your God knows you were truthful.  Count this as a blessing that you ended a disasterous career path before it even began.  I think the FBI is not what it used to be; or not what you were brainwashed as a child to think it is...

I'm afraid the FBI has taken what would have been a loyal, intelligent and hard-working agent into a now informed (some would say bitter) citizen.  Perhaps now if you're ever called on for jury service you'll be a healthy skeptic of any evidence presented by the state.

For the record: I know some good FBI agents; even they are disillusioned with the dysfunction in their own agency.

Call or email your Senator and protest the way you were treated.  No citizen deserves that crap.

Perhaps some of the other posters can tell us what the letters "FBI" really stand for ;)

Jeffery wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 5:21am:

Amazing how similar some of these stories are.  I too would have thought this website was fill of whiners prior to my own experience (very much like Johns). John -- take this advice from a total stranger -- and take it for what it's worth: Don't let this experience define your life -- but learn from it!  It will certainly change your outlook on many things.  You know you were truthful.  Your God knows you were truthful.  Count this as a blessing that you ended a disasterous career path before it even began.  I think the FBI is not what it used to be; or not what you were brainwashed as a child to think it is... I'm afraid the FBI has taken what would have been a loyal, intelligent and hard-working agent into a now informed (some would say bitter) citizen.  Perhaps now if you're ever called on for jury service you'll be a healthy skeptic of any evidence presented by the state. For the record: I know some good FBI agents; even they are disillusioned with the dysfunction in their own agency. Call or email your Senator and protest the way you were treated.  No citizen deserves that crap. Perhaps some of the other posters can tell us what the letters "FBI" really stand for ;)

Thanks again for your kind words.

The truth is that I am not depressed because I don't have the job - the reason why I feel this way is because a big government agency is accusing me of something that #1, I did not do, and #2, goes against my beliefs.  But the fools over at the polygraphers probably think that I got defensive because I want the job so badly - funny how distorted their thinking is.

John:


If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

retcopper wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:38pm:

John: If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

Is the RET in your name short for retarded?

For somebody who grew up with fatith in the system, only to have that faith shattered by an asshole polygrapher -- from an organization that person respected -- is certainly a traumatic experience.  Kind of like finding out that not only does Santa Claus not exist, but he was also gay AND raped your mother.  News that would cause most people to become a bit upset (if they believed in Santa Clause).

Now, for a tough-ass street cop like yourself, probably no big deal.  You know polygraphs are bullshit, right?  So you'd go in there, lie to relevant questions (ever taken some money on the job?  Ever use excessive force?  Ever get a hooker while in the military overseas?) but because you are such a street-smart tough guy, you'd still pass.  Congratulations.  Take a bite out of crime.

But for good, hard-working people with no experience with "tough guys" who rely on deception to be confronted by such crap WITH NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS it can be a devastaging experience.  Even if the polygrapher was just bluffing, most people with integrity and intelligence will decline to associate with such organizations after learning how they operate.

THanks Jeff for responding to this fool.


retcopper wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:38pm:

John: If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

Ret:
This is not about "mere words".  We are talking about a government law enforcement agency accusing me of being a criminal drug user/dealer.  (At this point, I don't even remember what they accused me of - only that it has to do with illegal substances).  
Frankly, I'd rather be in a life and death situation than to be accused of something illegal that goes against my beliefs.  Not everyone thinks the same as you do, you know.

Polyfool,
How does one find out if they've failed or passed?

retcopper wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:38pm:

John: If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

retcopper:

Your statement shows your true ignorance as the situations to which you make this comparison are very different from one another and don't necessarily correlate. ALL POLYGRAPHERS DO NOT TREAT EXAMINEES THE SAME WAY. Some are extremely abusive. You have no idea what Johnn's experience was like, you  can only judge by what yours was like or what you think a polygraph is like. Besides, you don't know what position he was applying for , now do you? He could have been going for a janitor position, for all you know--pretty dangerous profession, huh? The FBI polygraphs ALL applicants, regardless of background, experience or the position for which they are applying. Also people are different--for example, their backgrounds or professional experiences mold annd shape who they are and the level of intensity to which he or she may be accustomed. Furthermore, it's not about an examinee not being tough enough to handle an examiner's brutality---it's about one's integrity getting trampled upon after being taken down to a level of complete honesty. That's something you probably couldn't  understand --it's most likely you've never been there.

 

Johnn wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 12:20am:

Polyfool, How does one find out if they've failed or passed?

Johnn:

At this point, there is really no way to know. After your examiner completes his report, it and your charts have to be reviewed by the poly dept. and headquarters before a final decision is rendered. Since you just took it last week, it's very likely that a final decision hasn't been made yet. If the agency fails you, your application will become inactive in the system and you will be sent a letter stating that your conditional job offer is being rescinded because the results of your polygraph were "not within acceptable parameters." I especially love the part about "we know this decision will be disappointing to you, but trust that you understand the FBI's position in this matter." Based on my experience, it takes about three weeks to receive the letter. You could wait a few more days and phone your applicant coordinator. He/she should be able to access this information in a database and tell you if you were deemed DI (deception indicated) as well as the date your application became inactive, if that's the case.    

I understand your point about it not being about the job. It wasn't for me, either. Ironically, I had been so upfront and honest with the agency, but was forced to be less than truthful during my appeal interview when I had to  pretend that I was still interested in the job in order to get a retest. I had simply wanted to pass and clear my name, so that I would'nt be blacklisted from other employment requiring security clearances. That's the worst part--that the FBI uses a worthless, joke of a screening procedure that requires one to lie to pass to not only deny employment, but to tarnish the image of the person to which it extended the job offer. Unbelievable, isn't it?

I think you're right about the agency not being what it used to be. Someone I know recently left the FBI after a lengthy career and says the agency has really gone downhill in the past five years.

retcopper wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:38pm:

John: If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

I’m waiting to see you write "YHBT".

Thank you for contributing your worthless flame-bait to the ongoing discussion regarding the accuracy and validity of polygraphs.  If the above quote is any indication of your literary prowess I expect you will shortly be returning to the board at PolygraphPlace.com and posting well-thought-out snippets like, “Polygraphs are cool!”

It is a testament to the openness of this board that trolls like “retcopper” are not immediately banned.

polyfool wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 2:28am:

Johnn: At this point, there is really no way to know. After your examiner completes his report, it and your charts have to be reviewed by the poly dept. and headquarters before a final decision is rendered. Since you just took it last week, it's very likely that a final decision hasn't been made yet. If the agency fails you, your application will become inactive in the system and you will be sent a letter stating that your conditional job offer is being rescinded because the results of your polygraph were "not within acceptable parameters." I especially love the part about "we know this decision will be disappointing to you, but trust that you understand the FBI's position in this matter." Based on my experience, it takes about three weeks to receive the letter. You could wait a few more days and phone your applicant coordinator. He/she should be able to access this information in a database and tell you if you were deemed DI (deception indicated) as well as the date your application became inactive, if that's the case.     I understand your point about it not being about the job. It wasn't for me, either. Ironically, I had been so upfront and honest with the agency, but was forced to be less than truthful during my appeal interview when I had to  pretend that I was still interested in the job in order to get a retest. I had simply wanted to pass and clear my name, so that I would'nt be blacklisted from other employment requiring security clearances. That's the worst part--that the FBI uses a worthless, joke of a screening procedure that requires one to lie to pass to not only deny employment, but to tarnish the image of the person to which it extended the job offer. Unbelievable, isn't it? I think you're right about the agency not being what it used to be. Someone I know recently left the FBI after a lengthy career and says the agency has really gone downhill in the past five years.

Will they start a background investigation, nonetheless?  The two individuals who gave me the security interview told me that my background will start as soon as the poly is over.  I'd be very upset if they start the background all the while taking their sweet time deciding if I was being deceptive or not.

I can't believe how my mind keeps playing that moment over and over again.  I'm filled with what ifs, if only, and what could've.  The entire experience is very traumatizing - at least for me.

Johnn wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 2:35am:

Will they start a background investigation, nonetheless?  The two individuals who gave me the security interview told me that my background will start as soon as the poly is over.  I'd be very upset if they start the background all the while taking their sweet time deciding if I was being deceptive or not. I can't believe how my mind keeps playing that moment over and over again.  I'm filled with what ifs, if only, and what could've.  The entire experience is very traumatizing - at least for me.

Johnn:

The FBI won't start your background unless you pass the poly. That's the whole purpose of it--so the agency doesn't waste time and money on someone whom it deems shows problems in areas, such as drugs. It's really pathetic, I know. Even if the agency begins the background, it will cease if you are deemed deceptive. For your sake, I hope this doesn't happen--it would just mean more explaining to your employer, neighbors, etc. of why you won't be working for the FBI.

Johnn, I can assure you-- replaying it in your mind(mine was more than a moment--it was a lengthy interrogation,) hearing the examiner's voice, words, seeing his face-- all very normal reactions to the traumatization you have experienced. Reading your words brings back the memories of how I felt following my horrible experience. I also understand the what if's---I still wish that I could take back ever applying to the FBI, but there's no sense in torturing yourself with such thoughts.  If I'd passed my polygraph, I would still believe that it worked, oblivious to the reality of its unreliability and shortcomings. My belief about the poly before I took one was that if a suspect or "person of interest" failed one, he/she must be guilty of murder. I have a very different view about the whole thing now. Despite the not so great position I find myself in,  atleast I am no longer in the dark, unaware of what the government is doing to good, honest job candidates  by subjecting them to an unfair, unprofessional screening procedure completely lacking scientific merit. I never in a million years would have believed it unless I had experienced it for myself.    

John, Polyfool, et al.-

I empathize compeltely. I had a similar experience. Let me stew in the room for 30 minutes before returning to fish for some damning (albeit nonexistent) evidence.

I wouldn't bother calling you applicant coordinator- suddenly they become very unavailable to talk to you.

The letter was crushing and I have thought about it often. However, I have moved on, and you will too.

Martin

I don't plan on contacting anyone.  I will find out if I failed by letter, then I will write a letter myself.

I'm sorry about your experience, by the way.


Martin wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 5:17am:

John, Polyfool, et al.- I empathize compeltely. I had a similar experience. Let me stew in the room for 30 minutes before returning to fish for some damning (albeit nonexistent) evidence. I wouldn't bother calling you applicant coordinator- suddenly they become very unavailable to talk to you. The letter was crushing and I have thought about it often. However, I have moved on, and you will too. Martin

Sergeant;

I don't have to post anything about polys because all good cops know that the poly is necessary and effective.

retcopper wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 7:50pm:

Sergeant; I don't have to post anything about polys because all good cops know that the poly is necessary and effective.

Oh, and that's why they don't use poly's for the NYPD?

retcopper wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 7:50pm:

Sergeant; I don't have to post anything about polys because all good cops know that the poly is necessary and effective.

Pre-employment polygraph screening is hardly necessary. Police departments in states like Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey do fine without it, as do all the police departments in democracies of western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

And while polygraph screening may be "effective" for eliciting admissions from applicants who don't yet realize that it's a sham (a dwindling population), it is completely invalid as a means of determining truth versus deception. Making matters worse, it's inherently biased against the truthful, yet easily defeated by liars who understand "the lie behind the lie detector."

retcopper wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 7:50pm:

Sergeant; I don't have to post anything about polys because all good cops know that the poly is necessary and effective.

I see…

I guess your definition of a “good cop” is one who knows the polygraph is necessary and effective, and who also thoughtlessly jumps into ongoing threads in which a frustrated person is expressing their pain with “get screwed” comments like this:


retcopper wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 7:38pm:

John: If you are going to cry and throw up at mere words than maybe you should think about another profession.  What will you do when confronted with a dangerous situation where life and death issues are at stake?

You may not share the view of the author that the polygraph is worthless, but why would you feel the need to denigrate someone you’ve never met who is merely expressing his frustration at what he feels was an unfair and abusive polygraph exam?  Is that what you think a “good cop” does?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2005 at 8:05am:

I see… I guess your definition of a “good cop” is one who knows the polygraph is necessary and effective, and who also thoughtlessly jumps into ongoing threads in which a frustrated person is expressing their pain with “get screwed” comments like this: You may not share the view of the author that the polygraph is worthless, but why would you feel the need to denigrate someone you’ve never met who is merely expressing his frustration at what he feels was an unfair and abusive polygraph exam?  Is that what you think a “good cop” does?

He's probabably an overly self-assertive,  gung ho individual who lacks compassion and who's only motive for being  a cop is to exercise some kind of "control" over people.  Very insecure, I imagine.

This is sort of a sidebar:  why is it that polygraphers think they are infallible?  or condescending?   the way they look at you and the way they make you feel is somewhat "guilty until proven innocent".  the rigmarol of even thinking of talking to an examiner to define your innocence is nonsensical.  In California, according to Edward Gelb, a polygraph cannot be given unless the employer suffers an economic loss. such as theft.  Otherwise no way, no polygraph.  So how does Edward Gelb make his money?  I think he defends the likes of the Ramseys, you remember, Jon Benet's parents.  Money talks and bullshit runs the marathons.  We as Americans can send a man on the moon but STILL can't find the little girls' killer(s).   Eddie just might have an answer....bu he ain't saying. :o

JohnN--don't rule yourself out yet.  I've taken polys for 4 intel agencies and have passed 3 of them.  The other, FBI, I'm waiting for the results.

I've never done drugs, but each polygrapher has accused me of it and hounded me.  One of them even had no problem with the drug question for me, but said I was failing the question of selling.  I guess I don't use, but I sell.  Not.

I took the FBI polygraph last week.  I'll describe it in it's own thread.

magic-cat wrote on Sep 8^th, 2005 at 2:12am:

JohnN--don't rule yourself out yet.  I've taken polys for 4 intel agencies and have passed 3 of them.  The other, FBI, I'm waiting for the results. I've never done drugs, but each polygrapher has accused me of it and hounded me.  One of them even had no problem with the drug question for me, but said I was failing the question of selling.  I guess I don't use, but I sell.  Not. I took the FBI polygraph last week.  I'll describe it in it's own thread.

Did the FBI accuse you of doing drugs or tell you that there is a "discrepancy" with a certain question?

Wanted to tell you all that today I received my rescinded "failed parameters" letter.  I'm going to give them an "earful" via letter, so that way, they can attach it to my employee file.   Does anyone here know how I can obtain my files through the freedom act?

Chapter 5 of TLBTLD includes a section on how to file a Privacy Act request.

Johnn wrote on Sep 13^th, 2005 at 10:19pm:

Wanted to tell you all that today I received my rescinded "failed parameters" letter.  I'm going to give them an "earful" via letter, so that way, they can attach it to my employee file.   Does anyone here know how I can obtain my files through the freedom act?

Johnn,

Sorry to hear that you received your "not within acceptable parameters" letter as suspected. If you want to speed up your FOIPA request, you can go to the FBI's website, download the form(s) and fax them to the number located at the bottom of the page. You'll avoid the mail delay and the agency should respond via letter within a couple of weeks letting you know it recieved your request and is working on it. The only drawback is your request won't be sent certified mail. You may want to go that route if you don't receive a timely response regarding your initial request. I strongly suggest that you get your hands on your file even if you have to go to great lengths to do it because you won't really know your polygraph results until you see them for yourself. You may be very surprised as to what  you find out.    

if i were you i would do 2 things.

#1-for the FOIA, send the letter via your CONGRESSIONAL REPS office. that is, you write the letter but have them send it. you get good response. i got mine back in 8 weeks

#2-write an appeal letter and take a second test. if you pass (If i had it to do over again, I would have tried CMs, but i never did), then you can still not join the FBI or you can go ahead and join it. Despite my feelings about the poly process, I still wanted to join. I suspect there are a lot of agents who think its just as stupid as you do. even if you dont take the job, its the best way to clear your name and it doesnt cost you anything.

PM me if you want a copy of my appeal letter. it got me a second chance.

Now, you have stated you are Mormon I believe, and so are most likely devout, and you may have issues with using "CMs". I also had issues and decided not to try them. But having thought about it more, the concept of "Counter-Measures" is a bogus term to start with. You arent trying to counter anything, you are trying to get the damn machine to produce the TRUE result. This all assumes you are innocent as you state you are.

if you are influencing the machine to produce the correct result, it should be called "Proactive Measures" or something.

wrote on Sep 14^th, 2005 at 5:27am:

if i were you i would do 2 things. #1-for the FOIA, send the letter via your CONGRESSIONAL REPS office. that is, you write the letter but have them send it. you get good response. i got mine back in 8 weeks #2-write an appeal letter and take a second test. if you pass (If i had it to do over again, I would have tried CMs, but i never did), then you can still not join the FBI or you can go ahead and join it. Despite my feelings about the poly process, I still wanted to join. I suspect there are a lot of agents who think its just as stupid as you do. even if you dont take the job, its the best way to clear your name and it doesnt cost you anything. PM me if you want a copy of my appeal letter. it got me a second chance. Now, you have stated you are Mormon I believe, and so are most likely devout, and you may have issues with using "CMs". I also had issues and decided not to try them. But having thought about it more, the concept of "Counter-Measures" is a bogus term to start with. You arent trying to counter anything, you are trying to get the damn machine to produce the TRUE result. This all assumes you are innocent as you state you are. if you are influencing the machine to produce the correct result, it should be called "Proactive Measures" or something.

Thanks, Bill for your advice - I've sent you the PM.
Sometimes, I'm under the impression that polygraphers orchestrate sessions - such as not passing you on purpose if you failed the first polygraph.  Why should they prove each other wrong?  I've read polyfool's story, and this seems to be the norm.  In any case, I'm still looking forward in applying your advice.

Polygraph examiners can and in many circumstances do provide the conclusion to the examination.  My experience is proof of such a transgression.  If you grill someone for 15-20 minutes on a particular topic you will definately see a response to the topic.  Paul R. (I hope you are reading this) knows such is the case as he readily admits to conducting all his exams as he conducted mine by pre-determining the outcome (why don't you come clean and admit it to your contemporaries you liar).  My opinion is that your examiner took one look at you, decided that you didn't have "the right stuff" and made a decision for his agency...ridiculous.

well, ive seen my charts and i did in fact "Fail" them-i reacted to the relevants. it got worse with each test.

Johnn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2005 at 6:53am:

Thanks, Bill for your advice - I've sent you the PM. Sometimes, I'm under the impression that polygraphers orchestrate sessions - such as not passing you on purpose if you failed the first polygraph.  Why should they prove each other wrong?  I've read polyfool's story, and this seems to be the norm.  In any case, I'm still looking forward in applying your advice.

Frankly, I think there's another explanation, and it points to a problem that's not limited to the polygraph.

Police interrogators are often confident that they can discern lies from truth, even though research seems to indicate that they're actually slightly worse than the average person at doing so.  Thus, they may believe they can determine a subject's innocence or guilt, based upon conclusions regarding his truthfulness.

I would imagine that this failing applies to polygraphers, as well.  Whatever the source, if an interrogator believes a subject is guilty, that belief is difficult to shake, and in large part guides the rest of the investigator's actions.  For polygraphers, an irrational belief in the accuracy of the polygraph would likely lead them to conclusions regarding the subject's truthfulness before the session even begins, if a prior polygraph session indicated one way or the other, even though the polygrapher might be required to "demonstrate neutrality".  At the very least, subconscious assumptions about the subject's truthfulness could lead to confirmation bias in interpreting the new results.

As an aside, an assumption of guilt and some of the interrogation tactics that are brought to bear as a result is one of the prime reasons false confessions are elicited, with or without the polygraph.  Once an investigator assumes guilt, he or she will proceed to interrogate, rather than interview, and will sometimes use whatever means necessary (hopefully within the law, but that still allows a lot of leeway) to get that confession.  And interestingly, one common way in with false confessions are generated is the presentation of false evidence to the subject that implicates him or her, or otherwise creates a belief in the subject that denial of guilt is useless and that things will actually be better by confessing.  As you might imagine, the confronting of a subject with a polygraph result of "DI" could easily meet this criteria.

retcopper wrote on Sep 1^st, 2005 at 7:50pm:

Sergeant; I don't have to post anything about polys because all good cops know that the poly is necessary and effective.

Nice dodge.

Fortunately, there are doubtlessly a good many cops out there who take their jobs a little more seriously than this post would indicate.

What studies indicate police interrogators are less accurate than private citizens at discerning lies from truth?  In response your next to last sentence:  There is nothing wrong with lyng to the subject  about what evidence the police have against him to make him think it is useless to lie or deny any further.  I won't respond to the rest of your post because it is disjointed, inaccuratre, and biased.

retcopper

Bias seems to cover your corner also. Does "Just tell the truth and you will do OK" only apply to non-LEO's? Have you ever read or know first hand of a cop lying to someone and obtained a false confession? This has happened too many times and when the confession has been proven false the cop never has to pay for his lies. He remains on the job to do it again and again. Of coarse the cop maintains that the suspect, even though free, is guilty.

retcopper wrote on Sep 15^th, 2005 at 6:25pm:

What studies indicate police interrogators are less accurate than private citizens at discerning lies from truth?

A recent Scientific American Mind special issue detailed this topic.  Please see this post.


Quote:

In response your next to last sentence:  There is nothing wrong with lyng to the subject  about what evidence the police have against him to make him think it is useless to lie or deny any further.

In this, I take it you mean that you have no problem with eliciting false confessions?  Because that's what you're defending when you say there's "nothing wrong" with the practice you describe.


Quote:

I won't respond to the rest of your post because it is disjointed, inaccuratre, and biased.

Sorry you feel that way.  You were doing OK until you punted.

Please feel free to point out the "disjointed, inaccurate and biased" part.  I won't promise that I'll agree, but I can practically guarantee that disagreement won't kill you  :)

Twoblock and Skeptic:

Where did I write that it  was ok to lie to a subject to elicit a FALSE confession? Your anti police feelings are clouding your interpretations.

retcopper

Where did I write that I had anti police feelings? Sounds like you are trying to obtain a flase confession from me.

Did you not write "there is nothing wrong with lying to the subject about the evidence police have against him so he wouldn't keep on lying"? That could mean no evidence at all. That has happened, Bud, and you know it. However, I expect you to dodge these questions as you have those of the past.

Dear Twoblock,

You are always tough, rough, and consistant.  I hope I have your attitude as my body gets more miles on it.

Regards.

retcopper wrote on Sep 16^th, 2005 at 4:48pm:

Twoblock and Skeptic: Where did I write that it  was ok to lie to a subject to elicit a FALSE confession? Your anti police feelings are clouding your interpretations.

Retcopper,
Evidently, there's some miscommunication here.

I didn't say that the point was to elicit a false confession.  What I'm saying is that the act of lying to a subject in an interrogation can trigger a false confession, regardless of the intent of the police (which is, quite likely, to get a truthful confession).

That isn't to say that some police interrogators or polygrphers aren't simply interested in getting a confession, regardless of whether it's truthful.  I'm sure there are tnose types out there, too.  But I'll happily stipulate that most aren't like that.

wrote on Sep 15^th, 2005 at 5:13am:

well, ive seen my charts and i did in fact "Fail" them-i reacted to the relevants. it got worse with each test.

Bill,

How could you tell which types of questions you  reacted to? Didn't the FBI redact all that information on your charts when it released them to you?

Skeptic wrote on Sep 15^th, 2005 at 6:16am:

As an aside, an assumption of guilt and some of the interrogation tactics that are brought to bear as a result is one of the prime reasons false confessions are elicited, with or without the polygraph.  Once an investigator assumes guilt, he or she will proceed to interrogate, rather than interview, and will sometimes use whatever means necessary (hopefully within the law, but that still allows a lot of leeway) to get that confession.  And interestingly, one common way in with false confessions are generated is the presentation of false evidence to the subject that implicates him or her, or otherwise creates a belief in the subject that denial of guilt is useless and that things will actually be better by confessing.  As you might imagine, the confronting of a subject with a polygraph result of "DI" could easily meet this criteria.

Skeptic,

I think you make a good point here. Reminds me of my first experience with the polygraph. The examiner falsely accused me of lying about drug use and selling. After being confronted with a failed test result and then interrogated at length, I was mentally and emotionally exhausted. I felt defeated and had believed so strongly in the poly's accuracy prior to taking one. I remember thinking that if what the examiner is saying is true and I really failed, then no wonder he doesn't believe me --if I were him, I wouldn't believe me, either--not with a failed poly. My belief had been that if someone failed a poly, he or she is guilty of the accusations, period. I was so beat down that for a moment, making things up to please him seemed like it might be the best thing to do just to make it stop. Then, I thought, that's crazy--there's no way I'm going to sit here and make up things that I didn't do--I didn't care about the job, anymore. My examiner told me that if I told him the truth, he would hook me back up to the poly and we could finish the test so that I could pass. I believed the poly worked, so the examiner's promise to hook me back up, kept me from admitting to things that I didn't do. I believed that if I lied about something I didn't do, the machine would show that I was lying. My examiner was successful in convincing me that the purpose of the test was to determine if I measured up to the high moral standards of the FBI and if would lie about anything. I thought the test would reveal my true character and integrity. To me, the test wasn't about drugs (although, even though I knew nothing about the poly, I knew the spying questions were important.)  I thought the test was about honesty and integrity, which kept me from just giving up and giving in, but it was a struggle as the examiner intensely presssured me and tried to trick me many times into admitting to things I didn't do. By the way, I was not interviewed following the in-test. I was interrogated immediately afterwards.  Knowing what I know now, I can't help but feel foolish and wonder how I could have been so stupid and naive to believe that the polygraph could determine lies from truth.      

polyfool wrote on Sep 17^th, 2005 at 10:02pm:

Skeptic, I think you make a good point here. Reminds me of my first experience with the polygraph. The examiner falsely accused me of lying about drug use and selling. After being confronted with a failed test result and then interrogated at length, I was mentally and emotionally exhausted. I felt defeated and had believed so strongly in the poly's accuracy prior to taking one. I remember thinking that if what the examiner is saying is true and I really failed, then no wonder he doesn't believe me --if I were him, I wouldn't believe me, either--not with a failed poly. My belief had been that if someone failed a poly, he or she is guilty of the accusations, period. I was so beat down that for a moment, making things up to please him seemed like it might be the best thing to do just to make it stop. Then, I thought, that's crazy--there's no way I'm going to sit here and make up things that I didn't do--I didn't care about the job, anymore. My examiner told me that if I told him the truth, he would hook me back up to the poly and we could finish the test so that I could pass. I believed the poly worked, so the examiner's promise to hook me back up, kept me from admitting to things that I didn't do. I believed that if I lied about something I didn't do, the machine would show that I was lying. My examiner was successful in convincing me that the purpose of the test was to determine if I measured up to the high moral standards of the FBI and if would lie about anything. I thought the test would reveal my true character and integrity. To me, the test wasn't about drugs (although, even though I knew nothing about the poly, I knew the spying questions were important.)  I thought the test was about honesty and integrity, which kept me from just giving up and giving in, but it was a struggle as the examiner intensely presssured me and tried to trick me many times into admitting to things I didn't do. By the way, I was not interviewed following the in-test. I was interrogated immediately afterwards.  Knowing what I know now, I can't help but feel foolish and wonder how I could have been so stupid and naive to believe that the polygraph could determine lies from truth.

I have an example from my own life, but not from law enforcement.  I was maybe 7 or 8 years old, and my parents were absolutely convinced that I'd done something wrong.  They kept accusing me over and over, and eventually I "confessed" to having done what they insisted I had done.  When later proof came up that I hadn't done it (I don't recall exactly what it was; perhaps my brother admitted he had done it, or it was something missing that was then found...doesn't really matter now), my parents asked me why I'd confessed.  I simply told them that I'd 'admitted" to doing what they'd accused me of doing because they kept accusing me.

I remember feeling like denying whatever it was simply wasn't worth it; they were getting madder and madder, and wouldn't believe me.  

Now, I'm not saying that we all revert to 8 years old when we're interrogated.  But ANYONE can be worn down to the point of a false confession, especially when presented with information that either makes us doubt ourselves or convinces us that truthfully denying guilt is useless and counterproductive.

It takes a strong-willed, almost defiant personality type to keep insisting on innocence in the face of such pressure.

Dear Skeptic,

Here is a twist to add:  I was also convinced that the polygraph had to have some validity for the FBI to be using it in the way they are in applicant processing.

I thought my examiner's "attacks" were part of a psychological test of spirit and will.  He knew what I was saying was truthful because the polygraph proved it but he was going to play with my mind to see if I would break under stressful interrogating.  

The only problem was the more I denied doing anything and not confessing to anything, the more infuriated he seemed to become.  In reality, he WAS accusing me of using countermeasures, I had not, and he was absolutely convinced I was.  He wanted a confession to get a gold star on the report.

What a twisted tale is woven in the polgraph examiner's room.

Regards.

I think it is instinctive to confess to something we didn't do when repeatedly accused of it. I believe in evolutionary psychology and in the past giving in to an accusation was probably in a persons best interest. Since an accusation of something was generally an equivalent to a conviction, someone who gave in could express remorse and ask for leniency. Look at the Salem witch trials. People who confessed were treated much better than those who insisted that they were innocent. Give me a day in a room with your average meth addict and I bet I could get him to confess to any nearby unsolved murder through trickery and psychological intimidation.

polyfool wrote on Sep 17^th, 2005 at 10:02pm:

I felt defeated and had believed so strongly in the poly's accuracy prior to taking one. I remember thinking that if what the examiner is saying is true and I really failed, then no wonder he doesn't believe me --if I were him, I wouldn't believe me, either--not with a failed poly. My belief had been that if someone failed a poly, he or she is guilty of the accusations, period.

You spoke my words exactly how I feel!  Personally, this is the reason I'm going through a personal "great depression".  I used to be a firm believer in the polygraph.
After the event happened, I was so traumatized that I spoke to a few of my close friends about the situation.  One of my friends actually asked me if I've ever used drugs.  I was shocked that he would ask me that question.  Of course, it's because he believes in the polygraph - I wouldn't believe me either unless I went through the experience.  This is one of those experiences in life where one has to go through it in order to understand it.

Skeptic and Twoblock:

Of course I am talking about obtaining a "true" cnfession. Skeptic writes that  there are some cops who are satisfied to get a confession from an innocent person and I guess that could be true, although I have never seen any indication of it.

Twoblock

Example: A police interrogator separates two suspects for questioning.  Each one is told that the other gave a statement implicating them both. The interrogator is lying and is an example of what I was referring to.

Johnn wrote on Sep 19^th, 2005 at 3:31am:

You spoke my words exactly how I feel!  Personally, this is the reason I'm going through a personal "great depression".  I used to be a firm believer in the polygraph. After the event happened, I was so traumatized that I spoke to a few of my close friends about the situation.  One of my friends actually asked me if I've ever used drugs.  I was shocked that he would ask me that question.  Of course, it's because he believes in the polygraph - I wouldn't believe me either unless I went through the experience.  This is one of those experiences in life where one has to go through it in order to understand it.

Johnn:

I think you are right about this. My belief in the polygraph was so strong before I took one that if I hadn't experienced it for myself, I never would have believed that it doesn't work, either. I would probably think that the people behind this site had some sort of ulterior motive and the posters were just bitter liars who got caught. I think I had even more faith in it than the average person. A lot of the people I know who learned that my polygraph failure was for real (instead of additional testing of some sort) said , "Well, you know, those things are not admissible in court."  My belief in the poly was still so strong even after my failure that when I showed up for my appeal interview, I felt paranoid and nervous, thinking everyone at the FBI thought I was a liar. I didn't know about TLBTLD at that time and was still very much in the dark.  I think it is difficult for those who haven't gone through such an ordeal to fully understand what it's like and why the experience can be so hard to shake.

I have been a reader/lurker to this forum for quite some time.

I can testify to the fact that polygraphs are a joke, a waste of time and are basically a crutch used by law enforcement in place of good investigative work.

You know that already, otherwise you would have not posted the tripe that I am replying to.

I understand that you, being a cop, have to preach the party line.  That is, you preach the line only because you don't want to admit that many, not all, in your profession are just one step away from being on the other side of the thin blue line.

Polygraphs are crap, period.

Hello,

I have a question that I hope someone can answer. Before I ask, though, I'll give you a little background.

First, I was very happy to find this site and read about what you are doing to combat polygraph abuse. I didn't need to be told that the tests are unscientific and inaccurate - I already knew that from personal experience.

Six years ago I tried to become a police officer. Several police agencies considered me to be a top candidate after my oral, written, and physical tests. One gave me a conditional offer of employment for a non-officer position, pending successful completion of a background investigation and a polygraph exam.
I passed the background but did not pass the polygraph. They gave me a second chance. Again I did not pass.

Like many of the people who have written testimonies on this site, I was shocked. I did not lie, disclosed all my minor blemishes in the pre-questioning stage, and went in to the test full of confidence because I had nothing to hide. Why would anyone who had something to hide voluntarily apply for such a job and submit to that test?

Nonetheless, I was told that my results indicated that I was untruthful about something. They did not tell me what I supposedly lied about. I signed all my rights away before testing and now will probably never know.

Several of your testimonials describe how failed testers couldn't sleep and were generally shocked by the results. That happened to me too. I have never had such a severe emotion, good or bad, in my entire life while I drove home. I hope that was the low point for my life. RET suggests that Johnn should find a different line of work because of this apparent weakness. Take that as a compliment, Johnn. Those feelings make you human.

The bottom line is this. I was considered by the police to be a criminal. I have never been arrested. I have never been convicted. I have never committed a crime (sure, there have been small things like occasional marijuana smoking in my youth, but I disclosed all of that before the test). Still, they think I'm a criminal.

All I did was apply for a job! If they had just rejected me for a job that would be no problem. In fact, I'm glad I didn't get the job because I moved on to much better things in my career. But to be branded a criminal? Ridiculous. I confirmed this a couple of weeks ago. I called the police agency to ask if my records were still on file because I had heard that they may be destroyed after a few years. The police officer I spoke to was friendly until he asked for my name. I gave it, he punched it into the computer, he realized immediately who I was (even though I already told him), and then suddenly he barked at me like I was a convicted felon. He said, despite assurances I received six years ago, that he would disclose the results of my test to anyone who asked (if they are legally entitled to it) and that for all intents and purposes I am considered a criminal. HE ACTUALLY SAID THOSE WORDS. Remember, I only applied for a job.

Here is my question. Am I screwed for life? I have worked as an educator in private business for many years, have great credentials, a graduate degree, and am now considering working at a public university or getting a teaching license. Public universities and K-12 schools always do background investigations. Will they find out about this? Will they consider me unemployable or a criminal? I guess they will find out because every background questionairre asks if an applicant has failed a previous background investigation (and I will continue to tell truth).

Will my failed attempt to work for a police agency prevent me from every working at a school, for the government, for an airline (they require FAA background tests), for private businesses that do government contracts?

Am I branded as a criminal for life? Do you have any experience with this? I want to apply for a job with a university or school but am really afraid that they will come back and say that I'm a criminal because my name and record is in a government database.

A final comment for RET: obviously, we disagree on the validity of the polygraph. However, I am hoping that you, more than any other person, can shed some light on my question. You probably know best.

dungadin,

To answer your questions, I think it would be necessary to ascertain 1) the police department's record retention policy and 2) the regulations governing disclosure of applicant information. Since there are no national standards (these are state and local matters) I don't think anyone here is going to be able to give you a definitive answer.

dungadin wrote:

Quote:

Will they consider me unemployable or a criminal? I guess they will find out because every background questionairre asks if an applicant has failed a previous background investigation (and I will continue to tell truth).

You're right.  Continue to tell the truth.  You didn't fail a background, you failed a polygraph examination (big difference).  The results of a background check are verifiable, not so for the other.  Be honest when applying, according to your statement, you have indeed never failed a background investigation.

dungadin

Falsely labeling you a criminal is, in itself, a criminal act. Your police records showing that you are a criminal, is available to any background investigator and they will be happy to supply this info. I don't think many, if any, will hire you based on that record. In today's times anyway.

Here goes my broke record "SUE THE LYING BASTARDS" if you want to clear your name. I don't give a damn that anyone says, responding to your post, that you don't have a legal claim. Yours is an action that is begging to be filed in a court of law.

Of coarse, if you are willing to go through life with falsy tarnished integrity, then roll over and play dead and permit me to be the first one to throw a shovel full of dirt on your face.

Don't look for sympathy from retcopper. According to him there are no bad cops. If they label you a criminal, then by damn there has to be something to it.

Why is that as soon as I hear "mormon" I have to assume there is a lifestyle issue? ???

Eastwood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2005 at 5:19am:

Why is that as soon as I hear "mormon" I have to assume there is a lifestyle issue? ???

If that's not a rehtorical question, then I give up...  Why do you have to assume there is a lifestyle issue?

Thanks for the responses. It's good to know that there are people out there who understand.

Twoblock: I fear that you are right about my record being available to anyone. However, I don't think I'm in a position to sue because I have experienced no damages (other than being denied the police job) and I don't think that the police have broken any laws.

Since I have not submitted myself for any background investigation since that time, I can't really say that I have suffered any consequences. My worry is that I will suffer consequences if/when I apply for a job in the public sector in the future and am wondering what other people have experienced.

Those of you who have failed polys - have you been denied employment by other organizations (non-police) as a result?

Brandon Hall: Thank you as well. I never thought of the distinction between polygraph and background investigation. You are right, they are separate issues. Something to think about.

G.W. Maschke: I learned from my phone call that the law is unclear. I got two different answers from two different people in the same office. I doubt that anyone can get a definitive answer when dealing with government these days. Maybe my best option is to ask a lawyer for advice, but that may open a can of worms. For example, my records may be destroyed after so many years. If I do an official inquiry, they may never be destroyed.

Sorry for the rambling. I have not been able to speak with anyone about this in six years. It's really nice to chat with people who share these concerns.

dunagin

It is very plain, to me, that you have suffered character assassination. It is also plain that the PD has commited a crime for maintaining  a record falsely showing you are a criminal which was tatally thier unfounded call. Again it is plain, to me, that you are suffering mental anxiety. Otherwise, I don't think you would be on this site asking questions concerning your possible future employment.

If I was in your shoes, I would have someone pose as a background investigator and contact that PD. If your false criminal record is divulged, then that is the first step in your evidence gathering for your lawsuit. Ask a lawyer (out of that PD's jurisdiction) about this scenario. The reason I say this is because a lot of lawyers do not want to take on hometown PD's. Some hometown lawyers would actually notify the PD of your actions.

You sound like you are NOT up to the challenge, however. It's your call.

OK, I've done some more thinking. It's not a matter of being up to the task, it's simply a matter of being realistic.

First, I don't have a criminal record. The police officer said that a failed poly makes them think of me as a criminal (loosely quoted) but that's not the same as having an official criminal record.

Second, while this situation may be unfair, it is not unjust. I knew the rules going in. I didn't do any research beforehand and paid the price (I didn't have anything to hide so I didn't worry about it). The police followed the law, I don' t doubt it.

Third, regarding mental anguish, yes - it sucked. It still does. However, I voluntarily submitted myself for the test. No one made me do it.

I would love to see the laws changed. If my record really is tarnished (I'm not sure it is), then I would like to clear it. However, I don't see any basis for a legal claim. There is no way that I could win. One needs to be 100% confident before making a legal challenge against a government. I signed waivers. I signed statements indicating that I understood the rules. I could only screw myself further if I sued and I'm not even sure I'm screwed right now!

The question remains, what happens next? I read a report on this site claiming that 75% of rejected applicants at one agency are rejected because of the poly. According to another statement, 50% of truthful applicants fail the poly because they are nervous (that's my category).

That's a heck of a lot of people! What are they doing now? Washing dishes at a greasy spoon along with released felons? Are they living productive lives?

Dungadin:

Did you really know the rules going in? Did you know that you were submitting to an invalid, unreliable testing procedure when you gave consent? You probably believed in the polygraph like most people. After all, why would local, federal and state governments use it if it didn't work? That's how I looked at it. When I signed my waiver, I thought I had control over the situation by simply telling the truth. I didn't know my fate would be determined by a so-called test as reliable as a coin toss and a wacko, jerk polygraph examiner. That's not exactly informed consent. Had I been informed, I never would have consented to such an arrangement and I'm sure you wouldn't have, either.  

Polyfool,

You raise an excellent point. Persons who sign polygraph liability waivers agreeing to hold harmless a polygraph operator and the agency that employs him cannot be assumed to have granted informed consent. On the contrary, it is standard practice for polygraph operators to disinform examinees about polygraph procedure and validity.

Wait a second, am I missing something here?  I don't remember signing a poly waiver.  All I remember was initialling a few nonsense questions.


polyfool wrote on Sep 25^th, 2005 at 9:38pm:

Dungadin: Did you really know the rules going in? Did you know that you were submitting to an invalid, unreliable testing procedure when you gave consent? You probably believed in the polygraph like most people. After all, why would local, federal and state governments use it if it didn't work? That's how I looked at it. When I signed my waiver, I thought I had control over the situation by simply telling the truth. I didn't know my fate would be determined by a so-called test as reliable as a coin toss and a wacko, jerk polygraph examiner. That's not exactly informed consent. Had I been informed, I never would have consented to such an arrangement and I'm sure you wouldn't have, either.

Johnn wrote on Sep 26^th, 2005 at 7:15am:

Wait a second, am I missing something here?  I don't remember signing a poly waiver.  All I remember was initialling a few nonsense questions.

Johnn: The form that you remember initialing and giving written responses to the FBI guidelines required your signature to proceed with the test. BY signing that form you gave your permission to be polygraphed. However, what your polygrapher didn't tell you was that you were submitting to a scientifically invalid, unreliable testing procedure that if you failed would blacklist you from future federal law enforcement employment and would be released to any other federal agency to which you apply.

i didnt feel like reading through the new threads. any update on this one?

Dungadin:

Some would agree that by definition that a person is a criminal if convicted of a crime. In the legal sense you are not a criminal if you have not been convicted of a crime. If you correctly heard the officer say "you are considered a criminal" because you might have failed a polygraph exam then you should prcoeed to get some answers.  At the very least  I would suggest that you speak to that officers superior, relay everything that transpired and ask why you are " being considered a criminal."  

Thank you, everyone, for your advice.

I would like to get all of the information. However, based on the hostile attitude of the person I spoke with by telephone I am reluctant to go about doing that on my own.

I would like to ask a lawyer for assistance (not to file a lawsuit, but to get help in accessing my file and discovering where I stand).

Can anyone suggest such a lawyer? What area of legal specialty should I look for?

Thanks.

John,

I had to take a 2nd poly and to date havent been told if I passed or failed it...yet before my 2nd poly, they started the BI....not sure why, as that makes no sense....

I somehow missed this original posting.  I would be interested in knowing the name of your polygrapher.  I too am Mormon, and was told the exact same line about having high standards as you were.  I was also accused of reacting to the drug question.  The chance is small, but if it was the same examiner doing the same thing to two Mormon applicants, that might be the basis to show systematic bias.

FBI-Reject wrote on Nov 13^th, 2006 at 5:43am:

I somehow missed this original posting.  I would be interested in knowing the name of your polygrapher.  I too am Mormon, and was told the exact same line about having high standards as you were.  I was also accused of reacting to the drug question.  The chance is small, but if it was the same examiner doing the same thing to two Mormon applicants, that might be the basis to show systematic bias.

Hello reject, sorry for the delay.

I really can't say that I was discriminated against by the organization because I didn't tell them that I was religious when I took the test.  I just told them that drug usage goes against my beliefs.  For all they know, I could have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses or Hasidic Jewish.  I only mentioned my denomination when I appealed.  

Of course, they failed me on the appeal.  What a waste of time and vacation day.

Ya know what's funny? Poly people don't give a crap ab out your truth..they wanna know your nervousness...

polyfool wrote on Sep 26^th, 2005 at 4:11pm:

However, what your polygrapher didn't tell you was that you were submitting to a scientifically invalid, unreliable testing procedure that if you failed would blacklist you from future federal law enforcement employment and would be released to any other federal agency to which you apply.

Waitaminnit....I was told that this would only prevent future FBI employment, that they do NOT share this result with other agencies!!

Retcopper is so full of crap and in such denial!  Just another cop looking after the six of all the crooked, degenerate cops of the world.  It is too bad that you give good cops a bad rap.  A while back you said the polygraph is necessary.  Why is that?  So you have something else to lie about to someone in order to extract a "confession".  Cops like you are nothing more than bullies that think because you wear a badge that you are above everyone else.   You would rather use JUNK science such as the polygraph and lies than actually getting off your butt and doing some real police work.  People that are weak and have always been taught to respect and trust the police will break if they are being told that evidence exists against them.  They trust you and you abuse that trust.  On top of that you tell them they failed a polygraph which they also entrusted.  So, what do you do?  You talk to them like you are their friend as if you only want to help them out.  You tell them to trust you and that the system will go easy on them if they just come clean.  So, they feel helpless.  They feel like no one would believe them no matter what.  So, they make up a FALSE confession just to get out of that little room.  Try to say that doesnt happen everyday to hundreds of people all accross this nation that claims innocent until proven guilty.  That is a joke!  If you say it doesnt you are either having the worst case of denial or you are simply a bofaced LIAR!  I am tired of cops that will lie straight to your face to reach their agenda.  They need to remove the word integrity from their police cruisers as they have none! I know you are wondering so I will just answer your question.  Yes, this happened to me, but I was strong!  The snake that called himself a detective could not break me.  We have clearly showed my innocence and all is well! I am not a cop hater.  I know alot of really great officers that present themselves with great honor.  But, to me you represent yourself as nothing more than a lazy, sorry excuse for a police officer!