I'm on 2 years of probation for a misdemeanor and had a voluntary polygraph today. My polygrapher told me about this site afterwards, and I thought I'd post my experience and hope to get some feedback. Since the test, I've done my research and am baffled about the results of my test.

After the exam, he showed me part of the graph where it was labeled "C", "R", "C"... I'm guessing, from the little bit of reading that I've just done that the parts of the graph referred to were control question, relevant question, control.

After the polygraph, he said that there were 4 outcomes: 1) no deception, 2) deception detected, 3) inconclusive, AND 4) no opinion. He said it was not 1-3 but was indeed #4 because I reacted MORE to the control questions than I did to the relevant!? Also, he said I was "moving around in my seat", which he stated indicated that I was trying to trick the machine. I was intentionally still as a stone.

I was uneasy and uncomfortable about the control questions, because they were just so vague. I answered my relevant questions honestly, and there was no spike. From the little bit of research I've just done in the past 2 hours, I thought that if you responded more to control questions than to relevant that you would pass???

After informing me of the "NO OPINION" outcome, he repeatedly tried to get me to admit to something that I did not do... for 15 to 20 minutes or more. After that, he told me to call him in the next couple of days if I wanted to come clean and clear my conscience.

Now, I'm out $500 for the voluntary polygraph and will get 6 months in jail for allegedly consuming alcohol. I have to prove that I did NOT drink alcohol in this instance. It's difficult to prove a negative!

Does anyone think it's possible that he is letting me agonize over this so that I do make an admission of guilt? I don't know their techniques or strategies. It will be at least a couple of days before my attorney gets the results.

Here are the (paraphrased) questions that were asked (3 times) in different orders:

"The test is about to begin"
1) Is your name XXXX?
2) Do you consider yourself an honest person?
3) Have you ever been considered an untrustworthy person?
4) Do you intend to answer all questions about alcohol use truthfully?
5) Have you drank any alcohol since September 2013?
6) Have you consumed any alcoholic beverage since September 2013?
7) Other than related to alcohol, have you ever been involved in any crimes?

CLS,

An "Inconclusive" is the same a a "No Opinion", the latter used by the Feds.

The question set seems appropriate. I think he just suspects you are using countermeasures and is trying to get you to admit to it.

I'm a bit confused though. Why would you take a "voluntary" polygraph if the results could put you into jail?

Also, I'm confused as to why the polygraph operator directed you to this site.

The voluntary poly was intended to help me exonerate myself. The results are protected by attorney-client privilege and cannot be used AGAINST me (even if I failed). However, this was the only tool I had in my defense, since there were no other realistic ways to prove that I DIDN'T engage in the activity that I'm accused of. Since this is probation and not a new charge, the burden of proof lies with me.

He didn't intentionally direct me here, but during the post-test interview he asked if I had been visiting "antipolygraph" or any other polygraph sites.

He did say that there were 4 different possible outcomes, mentioning "no opinion" as a completely separate outcome as "inconclusive". He specifically said that it was not "inconclusive".

Unfortunately, this happened in the most harsh county in Texas, where alcohol-related crimes are as bad as child molestation or illegal narcotics.

wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

He did say that there were 4 different possible outcomes, mentioning "no opinion" as a completely separate outcome as "inconclusive". He specifically said that it was not "inconclusive".

That is BS. And you are correct in your previous post in that if your reactions to control questions were stronger than the those of the relevant questions, then it should be an NDI chart.

However, polygraph operators are seeing countermeasures under their beds at night. Their only way of detecting them is if they can get somebody to confess to using them. From what you wrote previously, I do not think you attempted them. Therefore, you should have passed. If you are falsely accused of using countermeasures, I would look him right in the eyes and tell him you told the truth and that you plan to sue him for malpractice.

Ex Member wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 4:42pm:

wrote on May 20th, 2014 at 12:12pm: He did say that there were 4 different possible outcomes, mentioning "no opinion" as a completely separate outcome as "inconclusive". He specifically said that it was not "inconclusive".  That is BS. And you are correct in your previous post in that if your reactions to control questions were stronger than the those of the relevant questions, then it should be an NDI chart. However, polygraph operators are seeing countermeasures under their beds at night. Their only way of detecting them is if they can get somebody to confess to using them. From what you wrote previously, I do not think you attempted them. Therefore, you should have passed. If you are falsely accused of using countermeasures, I would look him right in the eyes and tell him you told the truth and that you plan to sue him for malpractice.

That is very good advice Arkhangelsk!  It is past time for those who are abused by these polygraph thugs to get proactive!  Stand up for yourselves and sue the bastards!

Arkhangelsk

CLS is correct, inclusive and no opinion are not the same call.  Inconclusive is used when the charts are evaluated and the score falls between the cut scores for DI and NDI.  No opinion is used when the examiner's global evaluation indicates the collection of data should not be scored.  Usually suspected cm but sometimes fatigue, medical or other problem.   

Thanks for your input, but I have never heard of this.

A closer look at the Federal Polygraph Handbook reveals the following:

"The following opinions are those that may be rendered when sufficient test data is collected during a PDD examination: deception indicated (DI), significant responses (SR), no deception indicated (NDI), no significant responses (NSR), no opinion (NO)."

Notice that there is no "Inconclusive" and the "No Opinion" is used when there IS sufficient data, which conflicts with your post.

Further scrutiny shows:

"Administrative Opinions. These opinions reflect the results of a series or an examination that are not based upon physiological responses to the applied stimuli such as when the examinee terminates an examination or is practicing countermeasures. In such instances, administrative opinions such as inconclusive, purposeful non-cooperation, etc., are appropriate."

also:

"C8.5.4.3. No Opinion. If it is not DI or NDI, it is NO with the exception of administrative opinions."

So, has the rest of the polygraph community added their own definitions which are in conflict with the Feds? When did this happen? Who did it and where is it documented?

I'm still wondering (and hoping) that all of this was just part of his normal interrogation strategy. The reason I think this is a possibility is because after rendering the "NO OPINION" decision, he intensely persisted in trying to get me to make an admission. Also, at the very end, he told me that I could call him in the next few days if I decided I did want to make an admission. So, he left the interrogation "open-ended". I don't know the purpose of this, unless it's just a final attempt to get me to fold.

The most frustrating thing is that I didn't pay $500 for "NO OPINION". I didn't even previously know about "countermeasures" and had done no research. I wasn't aware of the fallible nature of polygraphy and always thought it was foolproof, which is why I jumped at the opportunity to take it voluntarily.

Thanks you guys for your feedback.

Ex Member wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 3:28pm:

So, has the rest of the polygraph community added their own definitions which are in conflict with the Feds?

Yes, Angel, the polygraph community is neither monolithic nor static.  The feds get the most run because they control most (all) research funding and the APA, but the federal way is not the only way.  The discussions between Jim Matte and APA's Barry Cushman about Matte's technique have been heated and personal.  Cut scores vary in almost every technique.  The FBI still refuses to computer score.  Some techniques still employ symptomatic questions.

The feds are slow to change.  Private examiners have more freedom and greater incentive, avoiding lawsuits, to stay current with the latest research. 

pailryder:  not sure I agree with everything in your post;  No Opinion, at least within the DOD polygraph community, applies to results where sufficient charts have been collected, and numerically scored as N.O.;  N.O. also applies to exams where the exam was started but insufficient charts were collected to render any kind of opinion.  If exam is terminated after the collection of an ACQT but before completion of any relevant testing to render an opinion, it is also called N.O.

What makes you say that the feds control the APA?  APA is a private organization with no official connection/affiliation with the federal government;  it is not subject to federal polygraph oversight or policy.

quickfix wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 7:05pm:

What makes you say that the feds control the APA?

Well Fix, the private examiners don't control it.  LEA guys control the AAPP.  I guess the APA membership is in control and they are typically fed and retired fed.   

My understanding is that the American Polygraph Association also receives an indirect taxpayer subsidy, as numerous governmental agencies pay their polygraphers' membership fees.

I don't know any federal examiners whose APA dues are paid for by their agency.  None of the agencies I have ever worked for ever paid membership dues.  I am no longer a member, since I got nothing of value for my $125.00 dues.  It's a good ol' boys club with the same officers elected every time, who give each other the same awards year after year at their annual seminar.  Any perceived affiliation with the federal gov't is simply because some federal examiners are members.   There is no "controlling interest" over the APA.

Yes, you are correct, it's a good ol' boys club.  I'm not saying federal influence, is a bad thing.  But the history of the APA is it represents the federal governments interests.

The membership dues may not be paid by the agencies, but don't tell me seminar fees, travel, and lodging are not reimbursed for many from the training budget.   

wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 4:46pm:

I'm still wondering (and hoping) that all of this was just part of his normal interrogation strategy.

Sorry CLS, you got brushed aside for a while. As pailryder noted, it appears that the polygraph community is splintering and adopting their own concepts on the fly. So, making you sweat a while could indeed be some strategy of the particular sect he happens to belong to. Please share with us what the ultimate result is.

quickfix wrote on May 21^st, 2014 at 7:05pm:

pailryder:not sure I agree with everything in your post

And that is a good thing.  Unfortunately for Arkhangelsk we are not splintered into cults, but we are not monolithic in our thinking as many who post here appear to assume.  Polygraph is a robust and flexible technique that is practiced worldwide.

Fix
I know DOD rules on DI, SR, NDI, INC, NO,NDI, NSR.  I was explaining why I thought CLS's examiner distinguished Inc from NO.

Results arrived at attorney's office today. He ended up ruling it as "inconclusive", which is as bad as a fail in my case. Once again, thanks everyone for your feedback.

CLS,
Ask your attorney if he can get the charts for an unbiased 2nd Opinion.

pailryder wrote on May 22^nd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Unfortunately for Arkhangelsk we are not splintered into cults

I said "sects" not "cults." I don't think you guys pull down the shades, stand in robes in a circle rubbing a talisman to ward off the Maschke omen.