I find it odd that the polygrapher would do the stim test in between the first and second sets?  I thought the stim test was a bunch of smoke and mirrors to fool you into thinking the poly actually worked and was best served if performed before the poly was hooked up.

My personal guess (keep in mind that I feel the poly is a hoax) would be that the poly registered some sort of physical event in your body such as muscle movement during those questions, gas, involentary muscle spasm, etc.

The problem arises when the police force and polygrapher believe that a spike in heartrate, BP, and/or dermal activity is actually an indicator of deception.  Hope that they don't and hope that you never gave any disqualifying addmissions.  If the later two points are correct I would venture to guess you passed.

Drugsarebad,

Reading your post, I am almost certain you passed. I had a similar experience.

The "okay I'll make my evaluation and forward the package to HR and they will be in contact..." at the end of th exam is a standard line. In my case, he told me "my report will indicate that you had trouble with the test. But don't worry, the adjudicator will look at the 'Whole Person' before making a determination." 

Several months later, I got a call. I passed.

Random,

Thanks for your support and insight. I have been beating myself up over this. I am going to call HR tomorrow and just inquire as to when I should expect to hear word. If I failed I plan to take the appeal road. I could understand the apprehension if it were drug related but this "trouble" was about not being honest about all/some past employers, which at no time did I fabricate or lie about anything especially my past employers non of which I have ever been fired from. These "troubles could be easily found out and verified if I make it to the BI phase.

Thanks again

NOTE TO SELF: yes spell check is a good thing

Public,

I practiced no specific CMs at all. I have heard from TV and other police contacts that you have to pay attention to the questions and do things like tighten your butt muscles during relevant questions, stuff that will spike a reaction to the obviously truthful questions...at least I am going on a whim here I am not even sure if I am correct but believe me if I didn't pass I will be reading TLBTLD and going into my second one fully loaded.

As for the questions I had "trouble" with one question apparently was about disclosing all past employers. The examiner said I had trouble and seemed to be hinding something about my past employers. I told him I was certain I was completely honest with my employers besides I have never been fired from any job and have always received good reccommendations so I would have no reason to lie or fabricate anything along those lines. The other question was theft from previous employers. This one was very hard to find the ultimate no answer to because who hasn't taken a pen home from work or take computer paper because their printer ran out at home....obvisouly him! I mad admissions during our interview about the stupid things I did when I was younger and they were all minor. I stole two CDs from an ex-employer, and office supplies like pens and paper and binders for college with my current employer nothing to big. Nothing totaling over $50.00. He said I seemed to have trouble with that and I told him maybe it is becuase I know they were stupid mistakes and it bothers me because I never did anything to correct it I just took the stuff but onlys those times and I was actually 100% truthful with him. The post-test interview was all of about two minutes. He asked me if anything was bothering me about those questions and I said the above. He told me that had I put nothing for the questions about stealing from past employers he would make sure of it and I said I was completely honest with everything I listed. He told me that because I was honest in the pre-test interview we are "in a different place and he will have to make his evaluation" That was it, shook my hand gave a smile and opened the door...so long!

I guess I will find out for sure the end result very soon!
Thanks Pulic and I hope I answered you questions? I will be sure to keep the board up to date as soon as I hear something.

George

Although I'm not a big Renzleman fan I do take offense to your characterization of him.  You seem to try and take the high road on most of your posts but every now and then your true feeling bleed through.  You wrote: "David Renzelman, the disgraced former head of the DOE polygraph program, gave a candid explanation of this at the first public meeting held by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph."

How was he "disgraced"?  Because he was asked to retire/resign?  Or is that just your interpretation of the turn of events?   

Again, I'm not here to defend the guy, but you try to pull off that I'm too good to get in the mud with the rest of you routine and then try to weasel that statement in.  What a loser.

George 

I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of screening programs.  As I've stated before, I'm not a big fan of polygraph screening programs.  People are forced to resign from government and private positions on a daily basis.  I doubt we could characterize each person as disgraceful or being disgraced.  My point is you used the term disgraced to characterize a polygraph examiner and program because it happens to suit your little view of the world.  By labeling the examiner and the program (which you did by implication) it helps you place an unfair label on the practitioners.  So I guess you've come to the conclusion that if you can't get rid of polygraph, maybe you can help get rid of polygraph examiners!  Hmmmm.