Quote:


Yes, I acted based on ethical principles. (I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept.) I think it is fundamentally wrong that the honesty and integrity any citizen should be judged on the basis of pseudoscientifc polygraph chart readings, and I'd like to see that policy changed.

Certainly, much of the information on AntiPolygraph.org was available elsewhere before we went on-line. But finding such information required many hours in a research library. Now, it is readily available to anyone who does a keyword search on "polygraph" or "lie detector."

Quote:


How do you know this last statement to be true? Do you have inside information? If what you say is true, then it's an admission that the revocation of my security clearance was essentially retaliation for my having exercised my First Amendment right to free speech.

Based on the available evidence, however, I don't think it's as simple as that. My FBI polygraph results were certainly highly prejudicial in the mind of the CCF adjudicator. And had the 902nd MI Gp polygraph section not deemed polygraphing me to be "too hot of a potato," there is still no guarantee that I would have passed any re-test. Indeed, the previous FBI polygraph results would have presumably created a negative bias going into it.

Quote:


I can see how one whose bread and butter depends on widespread public ignorance and misinformation/disinformation about polygraphy would hold such a view.

Quote:


Regardless of motives, the more important question is, are our arguments regarding polygraph matters correct? Please don't hesitate to point out anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you believe to be false or misleading. This message board is available for that purpose.

If you choose to register, you'll have the option of editing your posts, receiving e-mail notification when discussion threads are updated, and exchanging private messages with other registered users.

Quote:


On the one hand you have George, blaming everyone but himself for his failures, and on the other hand you have this man, the one George blames the most.  Which one sounds more like a mental patient?  George!


Jack Trimarco & Associates 
Polygraph / Investigations, Inc. 
9454 Wilshire Blvd., 6th Floor 
Beverly Hills, California 90212 
Phone:   310-247-2637 
Fax:   805-383-9973 
Email:  Jtrimarco@aol.com 
 
 
      
   
   Major Case Involvement Dr. Wen Ho Lee Espionage Case; The “Unabomber”; “Whitewater”; Oklahoma City Bombing; World Trade Center Bombing (1993); numerous cases involving classified foreign terrorists, espionage, proliferation, economic espionage, national information infrastructure and perception management; “Fed buster”; Princess Cruises Extortion; Gerald Gallego Serial Killer; Bank of America, Davis, CA hostage standoff; V.A. Hospital, Brentwood, CA hostage standoff; Enrique Camarena assassination; Top 1- fugitive, Claude Dallas, Top 10 Fugitive, Daniel Barney; Charles Keating Fraud Investigation; Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103; Dr. Peter Lee Espionage Case; L.A.P.D. Rampart Scandal. 
Polygraph Experience  Former Inspector General, D.O.E. Polygraph Program,Polygraph Unit Chief, F.B.I. Los Angeles Field Office 1991-1998. Conducted more than 1100 polygraph examinations in connection with F.B.I. investigations. Selected by the U.S. Department of Justice and the F.B.I. to conduct polygraph examinations in sensitive intelligence matters and criminal investigations throughout the U.S. and abroad. Formerly held top-secret security clearance. Established private practice in 1998. Conducted more than 60 seminars/presentations on interviewing and interrogation and polygraph related matters throughout the United States. Conducted training at the F.B.I. Academy, C.I.A., and U.S. Justice Department. 
Polygraph Testimony As An Expert Witness California vs. Renee Lloyd (1993) State of California Superior & Court, Rancho Cucamonga, California; U.S. vs. Noe Orozo Viveros (1994) U.S. District Court, Central District of California, U.S. vs. Samson Gillette (1999), U.S. District Courtt, Central District of California, California vs. Catarino Gonzales (2001) Sate of California, Superior Court, Los Angeles. State of California vs. Gary Bearman (2003). 
Professional Memberships  American American Board of Forensic Examiners, American Polygraph Association, Advanced and Specialized Polygraph Examiner, California Association of Polygraph Examiners, American Association of Police Polygraphists, California Association of Hostage Negotiators, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Diplomat, Board Certified Forensic Examiner of the American Board of Forensic Examiners, Fellow, College American College of Forensic Examiners- Lifetime Member, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS); California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, National Association of Legal Investigators (NALI), Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, California Association of Licensed Investigators (CALI), Southern California Fraud Investigators Association (SCFIA), Beverly Hills Bar Association, Ventura County Bar Association, Orange County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Certified Investigative Professionals Inc., (CIPI), Professional Investigators of California (PICA), and Forensic Consultants Association. 
Education Montana State University at Billings, B.S., Psychology, 1976, High Honors; Montana State University at Billings Graduate School, Psychology, 1976-77; Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Alabama, attended Graduate School, Psychophysiology, 1990 (no graduate degrees). 
Employment United States Air Force (USAF), 1967-71, USAF “Airman of the Year” – Italy, 1968; Yellowstone County Deputy Sheriff, Billings, Montana, Patrolman 1971-73; Detective 1973-78; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Special Agent, 1978-1998, Received numerous commendations for exceptional performance. Nominated twice for F.B.I. Medal of Valor.

F.B.I. Polygraph Unit Chief (Los Angeles- Retired) Former Inspector General, Polygraph Program, U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Counterintelligence, Ventura County District Attorneys Office (Forensic Polygraph Examiner), Certified Polygraph Examiner (APA), California State Private Investigator #20970, authorized to carry a concealed weapon by County of Ventura, State of California, Ventura County Public Defenders Office, Ventura County Sheriffs Department, Orange County Public Defenders Office, U.S. Attorneys Office, (Central District of California.)
 
Areas of Expertise F.B.I. Polygraph Examiner, F.B.I. Hostage Negotiator, F.B.I. EXPERTISE Psychological Profiler, F.B.I. Defensive Tactics/Firearms Instructor, F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team Member, F.B.I. Interrogation Instructor and Homicide Investigation Instructor. 
Polygraph Training  Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, 14-week polygraph course. Attended 32 polygraph training seminars conducted by the F.B.I. or professional polygraph associations across the U.S. (1990-2003). Attended numerous Federal, State and Local Agencies, National and State Polygraph Associations, private and professional groups. 
 

Guest,

You write:

Quote:


I told the truth and was wrongly accused of deception based on a procedure that has no scientific basis. For what failure(s) do you think I should I be blaming myself? 
 
I do not think that Jack Trimarco is primarily to blame for what happened to me. The problem is not so much that he made any mistake in administering the polygraph, but rather that the entire polygraph procedure is without validity. Any polygrapher might have obtained similarly wrong results. 
 
Moreover, I did not imply that Mr. Trimarco has any mental disorder, nor do I understand the basis of your suggestion that I do. 
 
Finally, I reiterate my invitation to you to point out anything on AntiPolygraph.org that you believe to be false or misleading.

It is possible that polygraph screening may be validated. The National Academy of Sciences certainly suggests efforts to do so. When and if it is I hope the childish and antagonistic attitudes of the presumed polygraphers who post here are not representative of the profession.

-Marty

Quote:

On page 226. NAS recommends better controlled studies to eliminate various biases and determine what the polygraph can actually achieve. They are properly distressed at the wide range of estimates of accuracy and are of the general opinion current estimates overstate the actual accuracy. They believe polygraphy may be improved, but not greatly.

Matte relates an interesting story where 21 policemen were given a multiple choice test in a class they were taking for advancement. The test was handed back the next day (after recording the original answers) and each person corrected their own test. It turned out 7 of the 21 changed wrong answers in the process. Later, it was announced to the class that some individuals cheated and that their jobs were at stake. A subset of the class was then polygraphed.

The charade was to set up more realistic conditions to test the polygraph. For inexplicable reasons, only 2 of the cheaters were polygraphed along with around ten innocent cops.

This kind of test on a larger scale might be one line of attack to improve the polygraph.

It wasn't mentioned whether the cheaters were actually disciplined.

-Marty

Jeremy,

Thank you for your kind words. My experience was indeed (and to some extent still is) terribly difficult.

Regrettably, our government's willfull disregard of the overwhelming scientific evidence against polygraphy ensures that the injustices that I experienced continue to be repeated against others.

If you know anyone who might someday face a polygraph examination, I hope you'll pass on to them what you've learned here.

George, are you suing?  Fill us in on legal aspects of this case.  Thanks and good luck...

Quote:


I have not filed suit. I considered joining the ongoing federal polygraph lawsuits that Mark Zaid has filed, and have provided a supporting affidavit, but the primary relief sought (reinstatement of the plaintiff's applications) is not something I seek. I no longer wish to work for the FBI. And in the case of the Army, security clearance determinations are not reviewable by the courts.