Marty,
As far as the following:
Quote:
My understanding is that in Japan, where CIT's are actually the most common forensic polygraph type administered, such issues are often cleared up after the CIT is given rather than before. Determining suspect exposure to CI can inadvertantly inform them. Areas where they have come in contact with CI are more apparent post test.
Asking the subject what knowledge they have prior to the examination, without introducing the questions of the tests to be administered, will give them no more knowledge than that which they already possess. If there is predetermined knowledge indicated, those tests that are tainted by such knowledge would be eliminated. I also think that introducing the question, absent revealing the various alternative and correct answers, as suggested by Lykken, prior to the start of each test can help clear up any inadvertent knowledge. Tests should be sequenced as to not expose the subject to the correct answer anyway, if not absent even with sequence. If the fingerprints of a suspect of a breaking and entering were to be compared to latent lifts obtained from the scene of a crime and it was known that the suspect had legally accessed that area prior to the commission of such crime, the need for such a comparison may not be necessary.
My response regarding the lack of presumed guilt was in response to your agreeing with John’s notion of:
Quote:
More generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions. The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.
To which you replied:
Quote:
Pretty much true I think, even where the polygrapher doesn't think of themselves as hostile. Otherwise we would see CQT's given by examiners that are uninformed about the case and subsequent interrogations being done by others. Something most easily and properly done with a CIT.
Again, I think this is potentially present in both procedures.
Quote:
Perhaps I am overly cautious. First, I believe the vast majority of examiners are in fact trying to get to the truth on relevants. The reason for not briefing the examiner is to prevent inadvertant bias by well meaning human beings. After following some of the consequences of "Facilitated Communication", a fad that once was believed near infallible and has been proven to be unconcious, self-deception by well meaning people, I want to see objectivity (blind and double blind processes) inserted whereever possible.
Although blind and double blind studies are worthy of use in scientific studies within a controlled setting, the actual practice of such things in the field of forensics are rare.
Forensic sciences are costly methods of investigation that are, for the most part and for most disciplines, not available for use in most investigations. In a perfect society with unlimited resources, your method would be plausible. In this ideal society, there would be plenty of qualified investigators to conduct thorough investigations on any crime and unlimited resources at their disposal, to include forensic scientists. However, this has not been the case in even the best of economic times. In today’s even more taxed economy, there are even less of those resources to achieve such a goal. Unnecessary steps are eliminated in the field to help reduce the manpower and cost needed to adequately complete any investigative method, with the integrity of the investigation and the excepted level of the given investigating agency being the standard of measurement.
Pages: 
My CIA Experience (Read 14432 times)
