Quote:


George, I'm sorry.  Respectfully, I will not go into any details regarding methods.  The only thing I will say (not to sound "coy"), but it seems to me this whole poly-anti-poly situation has become a bit of a chess game.  For years, polygraph examiners operated effectively in a certain fashion.  Then a group of people, some with legitimate complaints, some definately not, started using the intenet to blindly attack how we do our job.  Worse, they started telling others to do things that the very recipients of the "advice" didn't even know for sure what they were doing, or why (for proof, look at many of the highly confused postings on this site).

Obviously we have since adjusted our methods (would'nt you?).   So as in a game of chess, now that the "anti" group has made a move, the polygraph community has countered with a number of procedural changes (not all, not yet, but that is what continuing education is all about).

As in urinalysis screening, which based on information primarily available on the internet, watches it's examinees more closely now and checks for the presence of certain altering substances, the polygraph community has also shifted and changed procedures.

Therefore, the reason I do not answer your questions outright should be easy to understand.  Would you ask the urinalysis companies to post on a site like this one, which altering substances they look for, or which new illegal drugs they test for that matter?

As for why we inquire in the pre-test interview about knowledge or research into polygraph:  I don't know about other examiners, but I ask the question because if the examinee answers they have researched (especailly if they relate they have visited sites like this one), I will then implore them to please not do anything stupid, for as soon as I see it, the test (and their job application/pre-trial agreement/probation) is over.

Nonombre

Nonombre,

It seems to me that your unwillingness to provide any details about the allegedly "changed" polygraph methodology of which you speak belies your claim that polygraphers "no longer care what" examinees "think they know."

Nonombre,
Given your experience, I can understand why you are a fan of the polygraph.  It is a powerful argument to say that cases that were otherwise at a standstill were closed because of information gleaned from a polygraph examination.  If that is the sum of your encounters with the polygraph I can certainly understand why you are a proponent; you are restricting your view of  the issue to a single aspect which makes the polygraph appear positive and useful.

However, I think if you look a little deeper, you will find out that the only reason the polygraph was able to get that information is because the subjects being interrogated believed the polygraph was a “lie detector.”  If you were interrogating someone who grew up believing that crystal balls or tarot cards were able to detect lies, then each of those two methods would have been just as effective as the polygraph.  That effectiveness does not mean that such a method is valid or has any scientific foundation.   

If a police polygraph examiner came to you and said that he’d ditched the polygraph and held something that he’d said was a crystal ball in his hands during the last ten interrogations of suspected child molesters, and all ten of them broke down and admitted to the crime, would that convince you of the effectiveness of holding a glass orb during interrogations?  Would it make sense to start using that glass orb for pre-employment screening?  Is society better off because those ten child molesters have been arrested?  Absolutely, without a doubt, yes it is.  Does the fact that the crystal ball trick worked on these ten morons make it any more valid?  Not in my opinion, it doesn’t.

nonombre wrote on Jul 4^th, 2005 at 5:39pm:


The Polygraph community views "false positives" as acceptable losses for the "overall good" they see polygraphics providing.  Those of us in the false positive category obvioulsy think this is bull shit.   

Do crooks sometimes get away with info learned on this site?  Possibly.  But are innocent people protected by information they learn on this site?  Absolutely. And that is the intent.

Crooks using this information to beat the system are acceptable losses, in my opinion, compared to the damage that polygraphics and the ass hole chart rollers who practice it cause.

nonombre wrote on Jul 4^th, 2005 at 6:44pm:

I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics.  That of course would have required more *work*.

The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).

Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works.  See the paradox here?

Jeffery wrote on Jul 4^th, 2005 at 7:06pm:


Jeffrey,

I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you?  Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we??? And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to?  Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.   

Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc).  In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed.  Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.

The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts).  Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site.  (and I am not attacking blindly here.  I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site.  Birds of a feather?)

And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."

Nonombre.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2005 at 7:33pm:



Sergeant,

I respect your response a great deal more than the one I just read from "Jeffrey."  As I said, I am quite new to this field and am trying to be as objective as I can.

I have been told by my more experienced examiner friends that the volume of people employing methods to try and "beat" a polygraph exam has definately increased in recent years (thanks in part to this site, I expect).  I do know that the examiners I know  have caught many (I have seen the charts and their confessions with my own eyes).  However, I guess that a number of people have probably "Beat" the test as well. (and yes, examiners have operationally responded to this threat, even though I am still not going to tell anyone how)   

So Sergeant, what I believe we have here at the moment is a bit of a "Mexican standoff."  The folks on this site say, "Perform countermeasures, they can't catch you."  and the examiners are saying "Those anti-PG guys may be right, or they may be wrong.  However I would not advise trying anything for if and when I do catch you, you can kiss your law enforcment career/probation/pre-trial agreement goodby."

Nonombre