Ex-FBI Agent Pleads Guilty to Child Abuse
 
By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer 


WASHINGTON (AP)--The former chief internal watchdog at the FBI has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl and has admitted he had a history of molesting other children before he joined the bureau for a two-decade career. 

John H. Conditt Jr., 53, who retired in 2001, was sentenced last Friday to 12 years in prison in Tarrant County court in Fort Worth, Texas, after he admitted he molested the daughter of two FBI agents after he retired. He acknowledged molesting at least two other girls before his law enforcement career, his lawyer said. 

Conditt sought treatment for sex offenders after his arrest last year, said his attorney, Toby Goldsmith. 

``The problem these people have is they don't really feel like it is their fault,'' Goldsmith said. ``The treatment doesn't work unless you admit you are the one who instigated it, and he did that.'' 

Conditt headed the internal affairs unit that investigates agent wrongdoing for the Office of Professional Responsibility at FBI headquarters in Washington from 1999 until his retirement in June 2001, the FBI said. He wrote articles in law enforcement journals on how police agencies could effectively investigate their own conduct. 

FBI officials said Tuesday they had no information to suggest that Conditt had any problems during his career and he was never the subject of an investigation. 

Goldsmith said he was concerned about the safety of his client in prison given that he is a former FBI agent and an admitted child molester. ``He's not going to be comfortable in the penitentiary,'' the lawyer said. 

Goldsmith said his client had admitted that he had molested at least two other girls before he became an FBI agent more than 30 years ago, but that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing while he served in the bureau. 

``It seems that he never did because he had stricter control at that time,'' the lawyer said. 

Conditt could have faced life in prison, and prosecutors requested he get 50 years. The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison, in part citing Conditt's decision to spare the victim the trauma of a trial, Goldsmith said. 

Conditt's conviction is the latest controversy to strike the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility. 

Last year, FBI Director Robert Mueller transferred the head of the office to another supervisory assignment outside Washington, three months after rebuking him for his conduct toward a whistleblower. 

That whistleblower, John Roberts, alleged the FBI disciplinary office had a double standard that let supervisors off easier than line agents. 

Those allegations prompted investigations by Congress and the Justice Department inspector general. The latter concluded there was no systematic favoritism of senior managers over rank-and-file employees but there was a double standard in some cases involving crude sexual jokes and remarks. 


AP-NY-02-17-04 1508EST

Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V4502.AP-FBI-C...

True enough, I think it was 1983.

The FBI began pre-employment polygraph screening in 1994, in reaction to the Aldrich Ames espionage case (strangely enough, because Ames had twice beaten the polygraph).

Ray,

First, I must admit that I agree with one of your thoughts - using your example, keeping five child molestors out of the FBI (or whatever applicable agency) is a very good thing.  However, we seem to also agree that a number of child molestors may actually move past the polygraph and perhaps even the background investigation phase.  That's bad.  One other point neglected - what about those 1 or 2 qualified candidates that might be unfairly labeled as child molestors because of this flawed process?  Is it really worth it?  Certainly the perfect tool does not exists.  But should we be using this one in the mean time?

However, my primary reason for responding to your post was your mention of an examinee that admitted to both rape and the attempted use of countermeasures.  You state "he had a hard time suppressing his relevant responses."  In this case, your subject was actually guilty.  Could you comment then on the use of countermeasures by those that do not need to lie on relevant questions but would rather reduce the chance of a false positive?   

I firmly believe that, by having knowledge of control question polygraph tests (meaning being able to effectively differentiate between control/relevant/irrelevant), an applicant is at a severe disadvantage in that responses to probable lie control questions will not be adequate simply because the "fight or flight" response allegedly measured by the machine will not necessarily be present.  In this case, should the examinee become "bothered" (in ways other than actually lying) by a relevant question and a response results, that examinee would most likely be considered to show deception for that relevant question.  Please comment and by all means correct any of my statements as needed.  Thanks.

Ray,

You would have us believe that a law enforcement applicant who applied countermeasures learned on this website decided to admit to the same AND confess to a felony crime (rape). Tell us, then:

1) What happened to this applicant next?

2) Was he arrested? If not, why not?

3) If he was in fact arrested, then you should have no objection to posting the confessed rapist's name. After all, arrests are public records.

4) Were criminal charges filed based on the confession you say you obtained? If not, why not, and what is the disposition of this case now?

5) If criminal charges were filed, what is the docket number of the case?

Anonymous and Marty,

You make some valid points in your posts.  I'll try to address each of them to the best of my ability.   

Quote:


I think a very minimal number of applicants with relevant issues "move past" the polygraph, with or without the use of George's CM's.  The point here is that there is no effective alternative to the polygraph when it comes to uncovering undisclosed activities such as criminal activity.  The majority of admissions that occur in pre-employment polys would NOT be discovered in an intense background investigation.

Quote:


First of all, no applicant is labeled a "child molestor" at least by my department.  Child molestation falls within a larger category of "crime."  Let's just say this - an applicant who fails this question is usually going to take you to the problem.   

I believe false positives occur but, they occur far less than most anti-poly people think.  I think it is unfortunate when it happens and I genuinly feel bad for those that have gone through it.  However, failing one department's or agency's polygraph DOES NOT bar you from employment with another agency or department.  This is a fact.   

Quote:


Here's my take on this.  First of all, if an examinee fails to tell me what he or she knows about polygraph then that's on them.  I can't read minds   However, I understand why they may be reluctant to speak with me openly because this site puts an examinee between a rock and a hard place. George and other posters on this site present examiners as being evil and the enemy (not an exact quote but you get my drift) Make no admissions!!!  The reality is that if an applicant tells me what he or she knows I'll have a better opportunity to present a fair test.  It makes my job more difficult but then it's on me.

If an applicant fails to tell me what they know then the test essentially becomes a known-lie test.  IMO, this test is still valid however I think the odds of inconclusive results are somewhat increased.   

I agree that this is an issue that needs further exploring.

Anonymous Too,

How ironic is it that you're asking me to identify myself, my employer and an applicant while you call yourself ANONYMOUS TOO.  Anyway, let me answer your questions.

1) What happened to this applicant next? He was disqualified from the process.
 
2) Was he arrested? If not, why not? Unfortunately he was not.  The two primary reasons are 1) length of time that had elapsed since the crime  2)  Applicant could/would not identify the victim.   No victim no crime.   
 
3) If he was in fact arrested, then you should have no objection to posting the confessed rapist's name. After all, arrests are public records.  Even if he had been charged I would not identify him because he was an applicant when these disclosures were made.  We have a non-disclosure policy.  If he is reading these boards (you know who you are) perhaps he'd like to post his name    
 
4) Were criminal charges filed based on the confession you say you obtained? If not, why not, and what is the disposition of this case now?   Again, statute of limitations and no victim identified.  Being in law enforcement, you should understand how difficult rape cases are even with a victim identified.  Very unfortunate and often frustrating cases to work.
 
In my experience, most applicants are not charged for the crimes they disclose.  It all depends on the time frame surrounding the criminal activity, nature of the crime and supporting evidence.   

Ray,

You write, among other things:

Quote:


I would not characterize polygraphers as being generally "evil" or "the enemy." A polygraph interrogation is, however, an adversarial situation. As polygrapher Jack Trimarco put it in a candid moment with a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, "You have to go in there with a gladiator mentality... It's a competition, and you have to win."

The American Polygraph Association seems unwilling to publicly state how its members are to handle subjects who admit to understanding polygraph procedure and countermeasures. APA president Skip Webb offered only a flippant, non-responsive reply when I put the question to him:

http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects

Until such time as the polygraph community publicly and unambiguously states how individuals admitting to knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures are to be handled, and offers some credible assurance that such individuals will not be subjected to retaliation, reasonable people might wisely choose to conceal their knowledge of polygraphy from their polygraphers.

Ray wrote on Feb 18^th, 2004 at 10:34pm:

Ray,
I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you mean a DLCQT?? Matte spends considerable effort in his books bashing the DLCQT and is of the belief that it yields too many false negatives - not false positives.

I am rather intrigued by Matte's use of additional questions, to hopefully address both fear the poly works and fear that it doesn't, as a means of compensating for the obvious anxiety a specific incident, forensic poly produces on the relevant questions. Possibly valuable to reduce false positives for uninformed subjects.  Again, I see this as something that is dubious in the case of an informed examinee.  I have found Matte silent on how an "informed" status impacts his exam assumptions though he asserts, by way of a cross examination script, that the testifying polygrapher would be just as accurately examined themselves. The obvious followup questions were not even broached in the script - nor in any other I read. So IMO the script's position (and Matte's presumably) is bluster.

-Marty