Randy,

Arson suspect Aaron L. Speed was polygraphed at the Charles County Sheriff's Office in La Plata, Maryland, though it's not clear whether it was a sheriff's office or an FBI polygrapher who conducted the polygraph interrogation.

The federal criminal complaint filed against Mr. Speed by FBI Special Agent G. Joseph Bradley is available on-line here:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/arson/usspeed121704cmp.html

It appears that investigators had good reason to suspect Mr. Speed before polygraphing him, as statements he allegedly made regarding his whereabouts around the time the fires were set are apparently contradicted by cell phone records.

It is to be hoped that Mr. Speed's polygraph examination was audio- and/or video-recorded. The FBI has a deliberate policy of not recording polygraph examinations, which gives polygraphers carte blanche to use coercive interrogation techniques that the Bureau would be embarrassed to have to defend in court. Such unethical tactics can lead to false confessions while leaving an innocent suspect without any way of challenging the means by which the false confession was obtained. Given Mr. Speed's apparent history of emotional problems, he might be more prone to make a false confession than others. If Mr. Speed's post-test admissions are indeed  true, then I suspect that more arrests will follow soon.

On a side note, it seems unusual to me that federal, rather than state, charges have been filed in this arson case. For federal law to apply, the housing development would have to have been somehow "used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce." That seems a stretch.

Ray wrote on Dec 28^th, 2004 at 3:21am:


It's only a good example of effectiveness if the guy really did it.

But let's blame those damned uneducated juries who aren't as informed as the elite police.  If only they knew what the police considered acceptable, they'd convict everybdoy the police brought to trial.  Afterall, only guilty people are indicted.

I believe in an open system.  The police should not have to explain or justify their tactics to the public.  Their tactics should stand on their own merits.  If the public determines that police tactics are inappropriate then they probably are.

Just because things are approved by a court doesn't mean they are morally corect, and doesn't mean that a sympathetic jury of ones peers will tolerate those actions.

Having not been interrogated by the FBI, I can't comment on their tactics, but having taken a polygraph, I would be a very sympathetic juror.

And your comment of "people like me"?  What kind of people is that?  People who are repulsed by the thought that innocent people can be accused by the polygraph, or people repulsed by the thought that criminals can easily defeat it?

Jeff,

When I refer to "people like you" I mean people who probably tend to border on being anti-law enforcement.  People who are skeptical of the way law enforcement officers serve this nation...people who feel that tactics employed by law enforcement are not "morally correct," even though those tactics have been given a mandate by our nations legal system.  My statement is not meant to be a put down of you or your beliefs...it's just a fact...and it's certainly an obstacle law enforcement has to deal with. 

George,

I agree that interrogation tactics such as false promises of leniency and threats are absolutely unacceptable and unethical.  I'm on the fence as far as the sleep deprivation tactic...it's not an option in my outfit although in some circumstances, particularly when employed by military forces in the field, I can see it's benefit.  When I say sleep deprivation I mean complete lack of sleep...being forced to stay awake by adjusting one's enviroment.   

There are some great examples of interrogator abuse which are clear....I believe the state of Illinois had some serious problems where police where beating "confessions" out of murder suspects who were often underage and mentally limited.   

IMO, the example of Dr. Butler does not appear to be a clear case of a false confession.  He commited crimes as defined by the government, knew he had done so and was eventually convicted and sentenced to two years in prison.  The judge also ruled there was no evidence of coercion.  I don't doubt Butler was tired, but he was certainly given an opportunity to eat and rest.  They sent him to his own house for that purpose.

As for his claim made to CBS, that the agents told him he would not be charged, I found that more to be a claim made by a man looking to make himself into a sympathtic defendant.  What else would you expect him to tell CBS?  That the agents were great guys?  It's an easy defense...put the police on trial.  I also doubt his claim that the agent told him he would go home if he signed the statement...the FBI charged him with over 60 counts and lying to the government was just one portion of the indictment.  I do believe that they told him they wanted to conclude the investigation and reassure the public...they may have told him this could all be over right now and he could make it right if he just told them what happened...a completely ethical minimization tactic.   

I guess I take issue when, anytime an article hits the net regarding a confession that places the law enforcement or polygraph in a positive light,  you insinuate that a false confession was obtained.  George, false confessions are the exception not the norm especially in today's enviroment.

I don't think you're wrong in your cry for all interrogations be taped...I certainly see your point.  I just think it creates more problems for law enforcement.  If you've never been a criminal investigator it may be hard for you to fully understand.  Here's where I agree with you 100 percent...shocking I know...I do think all pre-employment exams should be audio taped.  It protects the applicant and the examiner.