Wonderful.  Congratulations.  But there are many who are falsely accused or otherwise turned away because of bogus polygraph results.

You caught some bad guys?  That's nice.  I just hope your agency doesn't rely on the fact that others "passed" their polygraphs, and so must be nice people.

Nonombre:

I hope you continue to keep an open mind regarding the poly's limitations. My examiner could have cared less that he'd failed an innocent applicant. He wasn't in search of the truth. All he wanted was an admission, even using tricks and coercion in an effort to get one. There was none since I had been honest, but that wasn't enough to keep me from becoming another FBI polygraph failure statistic. 

Nonombre,

If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you  (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams,  (2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams, (3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such.  These tests have absolutely no theoretical basis at all and are lacking in every way as a diagnostic “test.”  I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."

Hi.,

I am a brand new police polygraph examiner and I thought I would take my few short months of experience and weigh in to this anti-polygraph argument with two small questions.  Please don’t boil me in oil for asking this, but…

If the polygraph is so utterly useless and as a result criminals and spies have little to fear of getting caught, then why are there so many postings stressing that if confronted with a lie correctly identified by the polygraph, the person correctly caught should “deny, deny, deny?”

This position would seem to indicate two things.  The first is an apparent acceptance that polygraph can in fact correctly identify liars, or the many postings pushing the guilty to continue to deny would simply not exist.  The second thing it would suggest to me as a law enforcement officer is that the people on this site are in fact openly attempting to assist the guilty to evade capture.  I am not being a “smart ass” here, I am just relating what seems obvious to me.   

This also seems to be true for the whole countermeasure controversy.  For example, in one recent post by Dr. Drew Richardson (the apparent countermeasure guru) repeats the phrase, “UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES deny countermeasure use.”  He states this FIVE times in as many lines of text.  Yet, in the same post, he insists “…examiners can not reliably detect them.”

Well, if Dr Richardson, speaking from purely an objective, scientific position, truly believes that countermeasures cannot be reliably detected, then why is he so fervently telling people who have attempted countermeasures and as a result have been caught in this endeavor, to “deny, deny, deny?”

It would appear to me that Dr. Richardson’s position on this topic is perhaps more personal and emotional than scientific.  Otherwise he would not be so determined on instructing people who have been correctly identified as attempting countermeasures, to deny their use at any and all costs.  Deliberately skew data?  Not a very “scientific” position, I’m afraid.

Yet, former FBI agent Dr. Richardson, like others on this site insists he is making no attempt to assist the guilty.

I’m confused.  What am I missing here?

Once again, please don’t drag me behind a truck for asking about these things.  I am still learning about all this and I am trying to keep an open mind. ...

Nonombre,

If you are truly concerned (as you indicate) for the plight of those falsely accused of deception with preemployment (or other such) screening examinations, you  (1) will immediately and publicly and non-anonymously decry said exams...

Nonombre,

(2) immediately cease and desist from administering said exams...

Nonombre,

(3) immediately initiate a review of your and other department exams that resulted in a DI result absent a signed statement from the applicant supporting such. 

Nonombre,

I do not really expect to see the aforementioned suggested activities on your part, but anything less is nothing less than mere demagoguery and hypocrisy when coupled with statements of concern about the very real and numerous victims of this form of "testing."

Here is another question I have for you.   Have you ever had obtained a deceptive result against somebody and then it later turns out that the suspect/applicant was in fact telling the truth.  I know that here recently, the FBI identified an individual in a case as deceptive and he was a prime suspect in a murder case.  Later on, they found the real murderers and discovered that their original suspect had absolutely nothing to do with the murders.  Imagine, if they did not find those murderers, I wonder if the FBI would have eventually and charged and arrested this guy for murder.  I also wonder if they would have been able to successfully prosecute this guy for murder.  Imagine it, you are innocent of murder and then being arrested and charged for murder.  You could face the death penalty or life in imprison with a bunch of animals always watching your back, all for a crime you did not commit and because some machine told investigators that you were liar when in fact you were telling the truth. 

You make a good point and I am not arguing that we have probably had false truthful outcomes...    I just don't know if that makes the whole thing bad.

You also are pretty critical of how the government has done its polygraph research.  I was wondering (and I am truly not being a wise guy by what I am about to say)  how would you do it?  I mean if the govenment gave you a million dollars tomorrow and asked you to do the perfect polygraph validy study, what would be your research design?

Respectfully

nonombre