Quote:


First of all I see little difference with my paraphrase (from memory at the time) and the actual quote you provided.  I'd leave it to Mark to say for sure if I misrepresented his statement.  I would be the last to do so.

Likewise, while being told to write a number is not deceiving the examiner, giving an answer that is not true, is certainly a lie.  This coincides even better with Mark's direct quote.  

It appears to me we have reduced this from substantive argument to semantics.

You have correctly assessed my view on witnessing of exams.

On the topic of naming agencies who do these type of exams, I would say that doing so might indicate I work for one of these agencies.  Giving hint to the agency for whom I work, might give room for the inference I sought to avoid. Besides, there are many agencies who employ examiners at the local, state, andfederal level.  I couldn't name all or even know if all of them run these types of exams.

I think that I can provide the service you seek, by stating that most agencies would allow the attorney to be present, or make an agreement to no post as I mentioned, if the exam was requested by counsel or set up as an agreement between prosecutor and defense counsel.  If one is in a situation wherein their attorney suggests (or they request the attorney to set up) an exculpatory exam, the best way to ensure they obtain this type of agreement is to demand it of their attorney.  The defense counsel can not force the client to do anything any more than the prosecution, so demand he enter into such an agreement and/or witness the exam as a prerequisite. 

Also, as an aside, some jurisdictions have examiners who work for the prosecutors office, or even the public defender's office.

And don't worry George, no one will mistake you as speaking for the FBI. 

Quote:


Just to clarify, I based my statement on my own personal experience and the widely held belief that when people lie, they experience some internal discord.  That discord, I suspect, is manifest through the polygraph's measurements.  One of the problems with the polygraph is that it cannot distinguish among various types of internal discord.

Even though I was told to lie during a stim test, I did experience discord when doing so, and was not surprised to see a strong reaction there.   

Quote:


Yes, it could support a reason not to trust a DI, as I believe.  But it has no application to an NDI, which turns on other factors. 

Let me ask this though: what is the main point here, and its implication(s) vis a vis the stim test? 

Public Servant,

(1) As has been pointed out many times on this message board, stim tests are really concealed information tests.  The same results can be obtained through a silent test (no response from the examinee).  They have no bearing whatsoever on detecting deception or on the foolishness of CQT exams.  They are merely a con to try to convince an examinee of the overall viability of the process to follow (the substantive exam).  Note Wombat's nice turning of the tables with his con of the con man on a separate thread.

(2) The cognitive dissonance which you suggest for the CQT is much better and generally explained by the fear of consequences mechanism  discussed many times before on this site than the fear of detection mechanism you now shamelessly give us once again from the shallow theory spewed by polygraph academia.  And as previously discussed this (the former) mechanism serves well to explain the large number of false positive results obtained with polygraph screening and attested to through the continuing litany of posts here as well as to explain why most of the so-called polygraph (simulated crime) research (with no real consequences to be feared) should be dismissed out of hand.

Orolan

Why would an examinee fear their answer is perceived as deceptive?  Let me enlighten you.  That's where the art of polygraph comes into play and if the examiner does his/her job correctly then there will be no fear their answers are being perceived as deceptive.   

Saidme,
You don't think a person would be apprehensive sitting for a polygraph exam that could cost them their life if they failed? 
I do agree that a skilled polygrapher might be able to alleviate most of the apprehension, but not all of it. But that's not polygraphy, that's psychology.
Curious. What is your take on those 11 failures? Do you see it as examiner incompetence? Or are all 11 of them guilty?

I think the polygraph examiners here are seriously discounting the internal turmoil occasioned by "fear of consequences", and the possibility that even the innocenct subject will focus on the relevant question more so than the comparison question.

I instinctually found that a direct question about whether or not I committed espionage piqued me much more so than some vague question about whether I had ever taken anything of value from an employer.

Look at the consequences.  So what if an examiner accused me of taking something of value before that I had not revealed during the pre-test.  What is he/she going to do with that?  Hardly anything.  It's so amorphous, especially when the purpose of the test is a COUNTERINTELLIGENCE screening.  It's even off-point.

But what about the espionage question?  Any suspicion of espionage must be followed by an investigation, possibly suspension and/or dismissal.  So it's easily the more important question.

Of course, not every subject sees it that way, but neither does every innocent subject automatically perceive the comparison question as the more important one.  Thus the premise of the CQT--that the innocent subject will focus on the comparison question--is flawed.   

A

As I stated in my earlier post, I don't know the case facts they were discussing so I can't really comment on any specific case.  I can only try and explain to the uneducated how (in my experiences) truthful people can come up DI.  As I've stated in earlier discussions, polygraph is not 100%, nor is anything else.  Could there have been bad examinations conducted in the case, of course.  Could they have failed because they had committed other murders/kidnappings? Of course.  Could they have failed because they were involved?  Of course.  Could they have failed because they had knowledge of the perpetrator but didn't (for whatever reason) want to disclose it to authorities?  Of course.

Mark

I fully recognize internal turmoil amongst truthful (and deceptive) examinees.  Usually, if a truthful examinee will have any response, it will be in the early charts.  As the test progesses, DI's go DI, NDI's go NDI.

Saidme,   

I am troubled by your response to A.

Another conspiracy?

All the people who failed the polygraph test in the Bish case are guilty of murder/ kidnapping, even if their victim wasn't Molly Bish.   

That pool of 11 people would represent some kind of whopper anomaly for the statisticians. 

Lets just say 3 of the 11, conspired and killed the poor girl.  What your saying is that the 8 other people are also murderers?  They just murdered someone else than Molly Bish? 

A cult no doubt-  Maybe it was the NAS and DOE scientists on the loose!  They kill their victims with protractors and calculators no doubt!!