Ray,
Quote:I guess I'm skeptical because I have never heard anyone complain that the control questions were overemphasized.
That’s because polygraph testing is usually left to professionals who stay within their standards of training.
Quote:That generally would cause a false negative - not a false positive
In theory, “Generally” is correct, but not absolutely. There is no surgical manner in which to jack up a person up and how that person will react to being jacked up.
Quote:Why did the examiner's comment that "your scores were too high" on the control questions send you over the edge?
I now understand controls. But as an applicant, you are led to believe the only controls are the irrelevant questions.
Under the assumption that each question is relevant, I answered each question honestly. I was told I was lying. I was telling the truth. This upset me. Therefore, I lost faith in the polygraph. Once faith in the polygraph is lost, all further testing is irrelevant. Essentially the game is up.
It is not realistic to believe that an examiner can place surgical stimulation on certain questions that causes an applicant to become upset and not have it have an impact on other areas of the test. If you get punched in the face hard enough, it will cause more places in your body to hurt than just your face. The same is true for my situation.
Quote:Those comments do not sound inflamatory to me.
Absolutely floored many experts, including Joseph Buckley of the Reid Institute who is a polygraph proponent. He told me everything after this statement made by Agent Savage related to the polygraph results was invalid due to over stimulation of the applicant.
Quote:Is it safe to assume that you went into the second series of testing feeling as though you weren't passing the controls?
The controls were irrelevant, again based on the experts in the pro-polygraph community my mind was mush and the controls and relevants were hopelessly intertwined.
Quote:It appears to me that in both tests the examiners were trying hard to emphasize the controls. You accuse the next examiner of slapping his knee and pointing at you. What was he talking to you about? The controls I'm sure. I'll say this as well, I don't believe his actions were as violent and traumatic as you make them seem.
They were definitely emphasizing the controls, and as you will read later on, they were emphasizing the relevants too via premature interrogation.
Insofar as the drama, it was all too real to make up.
Quote:Did you explain that the examiner was attempting to set the controls in order to give you a fair chance to pass the test?
Improper setting of controls results in improper test results.
Quote:Did they listen to the test or did they get your emotional version?
Just the facts. Would the fact an examiner who told an applicant that he was scoring too high in the controls have a negative impact on the remainder of the test? Answer: Yes. The remainder of the test would be flawed due to over stimulation.
Quote:Bill, do you think these examiners were out to get you?
I have no idea. I have heard theories on both yes and no. I just know what happened to me.
Quote:Perhaps your admissions were what shook you up more than the exam itself?
There were no admissions. The Freedom of Information Act confirmed that. The FOIA Act stated there were no pre-test or post admissions on any of my series of examinations with Agent Zamora and Savage.
Although the US Secret Service will not release the tape, they released the report (except questions formats etc for National Security purposes, but are available on the LBTLD.)
The report corroborates there were no admissions made by me before or after the examinations. My polygraphs were based solely on the polygraph results. It is in black and white (and on their stationary).
Quote:If the agent told you that you failed and interrogated you I would have to believe you gave some sort of borderline admission regarding a relevant issue, otherwise why would he re-test you?? It sounds like that was what happened.
Ray, to your defense you were unaware of the FOIA report. Last night I only mentioned the tape as that is the best evidence. I tend to concentrate on the tape because it would be such a dramatic piece of evidence to hear the abominable actions of the two Agents. (Plus I wanted to go to bed and relieving all the details of this is not pleasant, even after almost five years.)
The FOIA act corroborates my statement that no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and that after the first examination I passed regarding national security with Agent Savage, all examinations were determined to be inconclusive.
After Agent Savage’s polygraph, his report was sent to Washington and my file was reviewed. As there was no issue other than my inconclusive results, I was authorized another polygraph with another examiner.
Insofar as my second examination with Agent Zamora, again no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and I was inconclusive on the first two exams. It wasn’t until after the contorted face, knee slapping and yelling I failed the last polygraph. Then after the polygraph, no post test admissions were made.
In my agency, whose training is consistent with acceptable interview and interrogation models, an interrogation would never be conducted until the examiner has formed an opinion. An opinion was not formed until the last polygraph with Agent Zamora (remember this was the polygraph after over five hours of horrendous behavior).
So everyone is on the same waive length. An interview is a fact gathering process and an interrogation is a series(s) of accusatory statements often times conducted in a structured manner to obtain admissions and confessions.
Within interview and interrogation, standardized practice is not to move into interrogation until the examiner had formed an opinion as to the person’s guilt or innocence. DODPI, where Agents Zamora and Savage were trained, adheres to this standard, that being, no interrogation until an opinion is made.
I’m sure this standardized practice is only common sense. You cannot go into a full blown Reid Technique and then re-polygraph the person immediately afterwards. This is what Agents Savage and Zamora did.
Some polygraphists will attempt to short cut the process and go fishing for an admission after an inconclusive result even if no pre-test admission was made. It is their belief either based on their perceived skill or ego that they can move into interrogation and obtain some type of admission. It is their mistaken belief that the inconclusive result is a precursor of a the subject attempting to hide something and a few placed lines of, “Your failing your polygraph so you are withholding something so tell me what it is” will result in an admission.
This is a high risk/high gain technique because once the interrogation card is played, and if it fails, you cannot go back to square one. You are done (provided you are professional and adhere to acceptable to standards in training).
Clearly, the behavior of the Agents was very poor.
1. Telling an applicant he is scoring too high in the control questions thus destroying his confidence in the polygraph as outlined last night.
2. Full blown interrogation after an inconclusive polygraph where no-pre-test or post test admission were made.
3. The interrogations prior to re-polygraphing were hostile and based on a Reid Technique structure.
4. Making comments that I failed the polygraph during the interrogation structure when in fact the test was inconclusive, and then re-polygraphing moments later.
5. Repeated polygraph tests that resulted in inconclusive results, followed by intense interrogations, then re-polygraphed again, then interrogated, then re-polygraph etc. (remember, the FOIA act says no admissions).
Ray, so often I hear accusations about law enforcement and I hope and pray the officers were right. Most of the time they are, but every so often there are accounts of bad behavior. The bad behavior cuts me like a knife through my heart. I am upset with the offending personnel for putting our standing in the community in jeopardy.
What happens behind closed doors in law enforcement is presumed professional, and fortunately, most of the time it is. I have no doubt you are a law enforcement member with high standards and ethic. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
It is frustrating to see our peers conduct interrogations in death penalty cases (or any cases) where their conduct was unethical. I understand in the mid-west (I believe Illinois) there is proposed legislation that interrogations in death penalty cases need to be audio and video taped so as to ensure police credibility based on the number of false confessions where the subject was later exonerated by DNA.
Although my experience was not a death penalty case, what Agent Savage and Zamora did, felt like it almost killed me. It is an example of the lack of faith the public is placing in law enforcement agencies.
Again, at no point did I attack you or the validity of polygraph and stipulated for the purposes of this discussion that it is 100% accurate when professionally administered.
Ray, this is just one experience the polygraph community is going to have spin as an aberration and inconsistent with the values of those that take their profession seriously. (Kind of like how the APA cut their losses before the State Legislature in Kansas when it came to my case, so that ought to tell you something. )
Well my best to you and the remainder of your career.
Take care,
Bill
Pages: 
I had my poly! (Read 36237 times)
