George,

Sorry it took me so long to reply.  I'll limit myself to some of your last post to me since this thread seems to have overrun its course.

Ref this question:
Do you really believe that Polycop's analogy comparing me with "Reverend" Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator" is an apt one? 

I do not think anyone is comparing you to these types of outrageous views.  I do concur with the point he was trying to make that often information found on the internet, to include this site, could be detrimental to the persons using it and to others.  The point is, if you really believe a criminal could avoid detection, then you do not care that you could with enable criminals to continue to re-offend.  The news has been dominated recently by a murderer who had been previously acquitted for other child sex assault offenses.  And thus he was free to rape and kill a five year old.  Don't think polygraph was involved in the previous investigation in this case, but you seek to provide all persons, to include felons, with a possible tool to wrongfully obtain exculpatory evidence.  Doubt it will work, but that is an ethical flaw, from where I sit, regardless of what good intentions you claim. 

I would also address this assertion:
The fact that the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its 30-year history, has not published a single article detailing such a methodology, and that no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to step up to Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (174 days and counting) strongly suggests that that community has no reliable method for detecting such countermeasures, and knows that to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge would expose their inability to detect countermeasures.

To answer such challenges or publish such material in public periodicals would obviously provide new information for counter-counter-countermeasures (and the process would become as redundant and tedious as that sounds).

You also said: 
You had earlier written that "usually NDI results eliminates [sic] the examinee as a suspect." Are you now acknowledging that passing a polygraph "test" cannot reliably eliminate an examinee as a suspect? And with regard to DI (deception indicated) outcomes, what do you think of Len Harrelson's claim that without a confession, polygrams are just polygrams?

An NDI would eliminate suspicion altogether in cases where little else is available to suggest guilt.  For example a "he said, she said" sex assault where neither accused or accuser is more credible.  Other evidence would not be ignored however in any case. That was my point.  Thorough investigation is the key.  For me a confession is the end all, since where I work, the charts are not admissible in court.   A question I'd ask you, perhaps for another thread, do you oppose obtaining of confessions or accepted interrogation techniques?  

And finally in reference to this:
On a final note, I'd be interested in your views on what I think is one of the most important issues you raised. You suggested that a subject's failure to pass means that he is withholding information that he believes is relevant.

Perhaps it is not a good scientific study, but my experience has proven that most of my inconclusive exams, and some of my DI exams, end in post test admissions ammounting to less than the offense being investigated.  After these admissions, an NDI second series often follows corroborating both the admissions (and my assertion).  

I want to say that I am flattered that my initial ramblings developed into such in depth discussion.  Contrary to my first post, I may continue to chime in with my two cents, now and then.

Quote:


And with that simple statement, Drew, George, Gino, Beechtrees, anonymous, and the others on this site have just completely absolved themselves of any guilt or responsibility in ANY of the damage they have caused the innocent applicants for criminal justice or intelligence related employment in this country.  The applicants we dismiss daily for attempted polygraph countermeasures.  The irony of course, is that they have not hurt the ones they sought to.  They have hurt the innocent.

Congratulations....

Polycop

Public Servant,

It's good to hear from you again. Please don't be concerned about the length of any discussion thread. I think as long as rational discourse and exchange of views continues on a topic, then it remains worthwhile. There's no notional limit on the number of posts in any one message thread.

You wrote in part:

Quote:


Perhaps Polycop did not actually mean to liken me to Matt Hale of the "World Church of the Creator," though if such were the case, he made an unfortunate choice for his analogy...

The ethical choice we've made in making polygraph countermeasure information publicly available is that the resultant good will outweigh the bad. It seems that you and I attribute different weights to the harm being done to innocent people as a result of reliance on polygraphy, harm that I and others associated with this website have experienced firsthand. You seem to downplay that harm. In the words of William Shakespeare, "He jests at scars, that never felt a wound."

That CQT polygraphy has no grounding in the scientific method, but is instead a pseudoscientific fraud in the same league as phrenology and graphology, is also an important factor in my ethical considerations.

I'm in complete agreement with what Drew wrote above on this topic. The end of stopping the victimization of innocent polygraph examinees and the risking of the national security via the utilization of polygraph screening techniques justifies the means we are using to bring that end to pass.

Let's move on...

Quote:


Sorry, but I don't buy it. Polygraph has published articles that might be considered quite sensitive, including a detailed description of the screening procedure used by the National Security Agency. The more plausible explanation for Polygraph never having published any article detailing any methodology for the detection of sophisticated countermeasures is that none exists.

Note that with regard to Drew Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge, there would be no need for any polygrapher accepting the challenge to divulge the method by which the countermeasures were detected.

Quote:


I would suggest, for the reasons explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, that CQT polygraph chart readings have no diagnostic value whatsoever.

Quote:


You're absolutely right that what you describe above is not a good scientific study. For example, you (presumably) systematically exclude from your sampling those who pass, since they don't get "post-test" interrogations. If you interrogated those who pass, too, you might get a similar number of "admissions amounting to less than the offense being investigated."

Your notion that those who fail to pass must be withholding information they believe to be relevant has no rational basis, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been borne out empirically through peer-reviewed scientific research. Again, I suggest that great harm can result from this seemingly widespread delusion held by members of the polygraph community.

Mark,

Bravo.  At last, I do see the criminal investigator shining through.  I would agree that the more specific the issue, the more effective polygraph is (which goes back to my assertion of withholding information deemed relevant, since broader questions cover more seemingly ambiguous material).  I would argue that polygraph is very effective in criminal investigation, especially when accompanied by thorough investigation (accomplished before the examination) and good professional oversight.  I would also argue that criminal specific examinations are less susceptible to countermeasures.  While you might be able to enhance reaponse to controls (regardless if it looks natural or not), you can NOT eliminate response to relevant questions.  And guarenteed, a felon is going to respond to the relevant questions!  --Unfortunately, I probably just gave George a sigh of relief regarding the ethical issues I raised.

While I would not agree that screeening should be abolished, I would agree that there are many more variables in that environment.  Not my area of interest, and hope to never end up there.  However, I think it is still a useful tool.  Adjudicators need to look at the totality of the background invetigation, not just the exam, and ensure they keep the examination results in context.  Again, the results of the exam, especially an inconclusive, should not be the determining factor alone.  You would likely be surprised how many felons, spies, and even terrorists are identified (and confess) after screening exams.  The ones I know of are NOT public information -- something I'm sure you understand.  Of course its hearsay, obviously not my personal experience.

That's all I will say about screening since it is not may area of expertise.  So the bad news is that I may run out of things to comment on, since the focus seems to be on screening exams.  

George reference:
"He jests at scars, that has not felt a wound."

Perhaps I have not felt the wound that you believe you have as a result of polygraph.  But I know that if I had, I would not be on some crusade to help anyone and everyone pass a polygraph.  So the fact that you did not get a job justifies seeking to help anyone to include felons, beat poly. Seems a bit shaky to me, but I am willing to agree to disagree.  That horse is dead by this point I'd say.

Final word would be advice to the innocent coming into my office.  Don't risk making yourself look guilty by getting caught using countermeasures.  I work hard to ensure the results come out correctly.  I do not have time to waste doing a post test interview on someone who is not guilty, and thus I have nothing to gain from getting DI or Inc results from an innocent person.  I also do not have time to waste trying to determine why someone claiming to be innocent is sabotaging his own chance at exhoneration with countermeasures.  For those seeking advice for screening exams, I'm sure the screening community would share these views.

Public_Servant,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


I maintain the following:  It is not sufficient to let your colleagues in the screening world do as they wish based on the hearsay passed on to you, nor to continue to figuratively scratch their back while they scratch yours.  This “test” is not a function of the good intentions nor or the professionalism of the examiner performing it.  Neither will overcome the error associated with this nonsense.  Polygraph error in this realm is not a function of individual malpractice but the total hucksterism associated with the application itself.  It is neither a tool (except in the sense of a wrecking ball or a dull meat cleaver) nor is it useful in any clearly demonstrable sense other than as a full-employment aid to the polygraph community.  Polygraph people need to understand that this application is completely theoretically unsound and for the time being largely causes serious harm in the realm of and to applicant examinees.   Mark Mallah, to whom you addressed your last reply, will be glad to let you know about the error that occurs in the world of counterintelligence screening as well.

I maintain that unless you, specific-issue polygrapher, remove this cancer from your midst, that you too will be eventually touched by it.  And to the same, it is not enough to wash your hands of the matter and say let the adjudicators take care of it.  As you are undoubtedly aware, the Bureau and various other groups end an applicant process with a deceptive polygraph examination without any investigative corroboration.  There is no meaningful adjudication and you cannot pass such a suggestion off to the victims of this site with a clear conscience.   

You mention this being a test with "many more variables".  That sounds very academic.  I am an academic and have a serious appreciation for such.  The truth of the matter is that all such variables lead one to conclude that this "test" is unsound and nonsense at best and, more likely and unacceptably, the cause of great harm justified with various imagined and contrived benefits.  You are your brother's keeper, specific-issue polygrapher--do what you can to end this foolishness--if not, you share the responsibility for these victims' plight (which is anything but academic to them) and, no doubt, will eventually pay the price for your complicity.  Regards,

Drew Richardson

Public Servant,

I have no in-principle objection to law enforcement officers interrogating suspects. However, I do believe that as a safeguard against abuse (or any allegation of abuse), all such interrogations, including those involving polygraphs, should be videotaped, or at least audiotaped, from beginning to end, and that a copy of the tape should be provided to the interogee on demand.

Public Servant wrote on Jul 26^th, 2002 at 10:01am:


1. Here is quintessential Public_Servant hubris. Hey, listen up:

EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COMES THROUGH YOUR DOOR IS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INNOCENT. You call yourself a public servant? Well, I'm the public, so start serving me by understanding that simple Constitutional fact. Unless you are interrogating a felon about the incident for which he has already been convicted, the man sitting in your chair is INNOCENT. I'm not saying he or she hasn't commited the criminal acts, I'm saying for the purposes of your polygraph interrogation that person is innocent until proven guilty, deemed so by a jury of his peers in a court of law.

Innocence or guilt, as a matter of law, is proven in a COURT OF LAW, not in your polygraph chair. Since the vast majority of courts have ruled that polygraph results are not admissable, the only reason you exist as a polygrapher is as a sort of 'super interrogator', in which case those who have actually commited the crimes to which they are suspect are absolutely protected against self-incrimination and would be well-advised to understand the trickery and deceit you regularly employ as this super interrogator, whether you like it or not. Innocent suspects are well-advised to understand the trickery and deceit you regularly employ as this super interrogator, whether you like it or not.

Lastly, why have you repeatedly made reference to those examinees whom you have caught using countermeasures and yet will not offer up one scintilla of proof as to who they are, what countermeasures they used, and how you detected those countermeasures? Since you won't answer the question directly, I am forced to ask WHY won't you answer? Can it be that you cannot detect countermeasures, that your assertions otherwise are lies, and this is all a desperate attempt to save the ruination of your power and career?