cck wrote on Nov 6^th, 2003 at 1:59am:


I had a 2nd test and failed again.
 
Quote:


Yes, virtually the same.

Quote:


Yeah, at the end, but overall it was actually more professional and less hostile than my first.

Quote:


No comment.

Quote:


This is only knowable if you pass, right?

I do think it's possible that CMs can work too well, especially on 2nd or 3rd tests.  (If you do suspciously well when you had trouble before, I would expect the examiner would be "intrigued".)

Quote:


No comment.

Quote:


I didn't make it, and I think the odds are very long against repeat test takers.

They will of course be more suspicious of CMs, since one would expect an intelligent human being who failed a polygraph to do research on this technique.

In fact, I'd guess some examiners assume CMs will be used on 2nd tests, and look at them as opportunities to study the use of CMs by test subjects.  It becomes a test of their mettle (ie, can I catch a cheater?).  This is purely my conjecture.

In a true unbiased "retest", they would not inform the examiner that this is your 2nd attempt.  (This probably isn't practical.)

Good luck to you on your polygraph.

Quote:


I'm trying to be as helpful to the guy as possible, but I'd prefer not to go into too much detail.  How many people get 2nd FBI poly exams?  Can't be a huge number.  Start adding details -- rough dates, exchanges, specific results -- and it seems to me it wouldn't be hard for someone to figure out exactly who you are.

I don't see too many people around here posting under their real names.

I don't think telling us if you employed cm's is going to identify you, especially since you didn't pass anyway; seems moot.

Dear Ray,

Maybe nothing went "wrong."  I was accused of countermeasures during my second polygraph exam (previously described in other posts) and used absolutely no countermeasures.  I had no polygraph knowledge during my first two exams.  I do not know if the "reviewers" in Washington, D.C., agreed with the accusations of the examiner or just decided that I was an "acceptable loss" and did not want to challange his decision (there are many other "fish" in the sea trying to jump into the boat).

The polygraph as used in the FBI for employment screening is very much a different animal as opposed to criminal prosecutions.  No recording of the process, no witnesses, and it is your word (an unproven applicant) against the agent's (seasoned "veteran").  Very difficult odds on any appeal if your case depends on improper conduct of the examiner or disputes over "confessions."

The black mark does follow an applicant because all NCIC checks performed by federal, state, and local law enforcement have an "FBI" status check box which will be marked because there is an "official" FBI record. The requestor will have to perform an additional step to get the information but only very naive departments would hire any law enforcement employees without going to this "extra step."  The inference from being "not within acceptable parameters" will be interepreted as the FBI finding you untrustworthy.  The whole situation just gets uglier from there.

As my experience indicated to my, use of "countermeasure detection" is strictly based on individual interepretation and not indicative of any "scientific method".

Regards.

Upon hearing there were "concerns" with some answers, I followed up with my coordinator and relayed my "concerns" with the polygrapher's.

I receieved a 2nd poly; it "concentrated" on the questions with "concerns".  Same polygrapher, same "concerns", same conclusion.

>Did they ask you similar questions to the first? 
identical; I believe.

>Did they treat you with hostility? 
not on the first nor the second.

>Did you employ countermeasures? Did they work? 
Did they accuse you of countermeasures? 
no, n/a, no.

>So Alf, would you characterize the results of your exam as unfair?   

yes; absolutely unfair.  There were NO valid reasons for finding "concerns" with my drug use/history.  I clear their drug policy by miles.  After my 2nd poly, I was asked to write down my "use/history".

that was simple; MJ twice in '89, haven't seen that or anything else since then!  but still not good enough.

I told them I was fully confident a background check/investigation would prove the veracity of what I was saying...no dice.