The 16 August 2003 issue of
The Polygraph Chronicles, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter published by
The Polygraph Place, includes an article by polygrapher
Nate Gordon, who provides an overview of the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar held 3-8 August 2003 in Sparks, Nevada. Gordon mentions that one presenter gave a talk on how to rig a polygraph "test":
Quote:There were excellent presentations offered, and one that gave me the sensation I was in a time machine. After attacking the CQT, due to its vulnerability to countermeasures, this presentor gave instructions on how to use techniques that ensured DI charts, when you already new [sic] the examinee was DI, and only wanted leverage for a confession.
I find the above to be a very disturbing notion. How does a polygrapher "know" that an examinee is "DI" ("deception indicated")? If such knowledge is based on real evidence, then why not just confront the examinee with that evidence?
FBI polygrapher Michael Templeton must have thought he "knew" that Egyptian student Abdallah Higazy, who was staying at a hotel adjacent to the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, was lying when he denied knowledge of an aviation radio that was allegedly found locked in his room safe. But what Templeton, who extracted a false confession from Higazy, could not have known is that the hotel employee who claimed to have found the radio in Higazy's room safe was lying.
That how to rig a polygraph "test" was on the agenda at the American Polygraph Association's annual seminar is all the more reason for anyone suspected of a crime to refuse to submit to any polygraph "test."