if i were you i would do 2 things.

#1-for the FOIA, send the letter via your CONGRESSIONAL REPS office. that is, you write the letter but have them send it. you get good response. i got mine back in 8 weeks

#2-write an appeal letter and take a second test. if you pass (If i had it to do over again, I would have tried CMs, but i never did), then you can still not join the FBI or you can go ahead and join it. Despite my feelings about the poly process, I still wanted to join. I suspect there are a lot of agents who think its just as stupid as you do. even if you dont take the job, its the best way to clear your name and it doesnt cost you anything.

PM me if you want a copy of my appeal letter. it got me a second chance.

Now, you have stated you are Mormon I believe, and so are most likely devout, and you may have issues with using "CMs". I also had issues and decided not to try them. But having thought about it more, the concept of "Counter-Measures" is a bogus term to start with. You arent trying to counter anything, you are trying to get the damn machine to produce the TRUE result. This all assumes you are innocent as you state you are. 

if you are influencing the machine to produce the correct result, it should be called "Proactive Measures" or something.

Polygraph examiners can and in many circumstances do provide the conclusion to the examination.  My experience is proof of such a transgression.  If you grill someone for 15-20 minutes on a particular topic you will definately see a response to the topic.  Paul R. (I hope you are reading this) knows such is the case as he readily admits to conducting all his exams as he conducted mine by pre-determining the outcome (why don't you come clean and admit it to your contemporaries you liar).  My opinion is that your examiner took one look at you, decided that you didn't have "the right stuff" and made a decision for his agency...ridiculous.

Johnn wrote on Sep 14^th, 2005 at 6:53am:


Frankly, I think there's another explanation, and it points to a problem that's not limited to the polygraph.

Police interrogators are often confident that they can discern lies from truth, even though research seems to indicate that they're actually slightly worse than the average person at doing so.  Thus, they may believe they can determine a subject's innocence or guilt, based upon conclusions regarding his truthfulness.

I would imagine that this failing applies to polygraphers, as well.  Whatever the source, if an interrogator believes a subject is guilty, that belief is difficult to shake, and in large part guides the rest of the investigator's actions.  For polygraphers, an irrational belief in the accuracy of the polygraph would likely lead them to conclusions regarding the subject's truthfulness before the session even begins, if a prior polygraph session indicated one way or the other, even though the polygrapher might be required to "demonstrate neutrality".  At the very least, subconscious assumptions about the subject's truthfulness could lead to confirmation bias in interpreting the new results.

As an aside, an assumption of guilt and some of the interrogation tactics that are brought to bear as a result is one of the prime reasons false confessions are elicited, with or without the polygraph.  Once an investigator assumes guilt, he or she will proceed to interrogate, rather than interview, and will sometimes use whatever means necessary (hopefully within the law, but that still allows a lot of leeway) to get that confession.  And interestingly, one common way in with false confessions are generated is the presentation of false evidence to the subject that implicates him or her, or otherwise creates a belief in the subject that denial of guilt is useless and that things will actually be better by confessing.  As you might imagine, the confronting of a subject with a polygraph result of "DI" could easily meet this criteria.

What studies indicate police interrogators are less accurate than private citizens at discerning lies from truth?  In response your next to last sentence:  There is nothing wrong with lyng to the subject  about what evidence the police have against him to make him think it is useless to lie or deny any further.  I won't respond to the rest of your post because it is disjointed, inaccuratre, and biased.

retcopper wrote on Sep 15^th, 2005 at 6:25pm:


A recent Scientific American Mind special issue detailed this topic.  Please see this post.

Quote:


In this, I take it you mean that you have no problem with eliciting false confessions?  Because that's what you're defending when you say there's "nothing wrong" with the practice you describe.

Quote:


Sorry you feel that way.  You were doing OK until you punted.

Please feel free to point out the "disjointed, inaccurate and biased" part.  I won't promise that I'll agree, but I can practically guarantee that disagreement won't kill you 

retcopper

Where did I write that I had anti police feelings? Sounds like you are trying to obtain a flase confession from me. 

Did you not write "there is nothing wrong with lying to the subject about the evidence police have against him so he wouldn't keep on lying"? That could mean no evidence at all. That has happened, Bud, and you know it. However, I expect you to dodge these questions as you have those of the past.

retcopper wrote on Sep 16^th, 2005 at 4:48pm:


Retcopper,
Evidently, there's some miscommunication here.

I didn't say that the point was to elicit a false confession.  What I'm saying is that the act of lying to a subject in an interrogation can trigger a false confession, regardless of the intent of the police (which is, quite likely, to get a truthful confession).

That isn't to say that some police interrogators or polygrphers aren't simply interested in getting a confession, regardless of whether it's truthful.  I'm sure there are tnose types out there, too.  But I'll happily stipulate that most aren't like that.

Skeptic wrote on Sep 15^th, 2005 at 6:16am:


Skeptic,

I think you make a good point here. Reminds me of my first experience with the polygraph. The examiner falsely accused me of lying about drug use and selling. After being confronted with a failed test result and then interrogated at length, I was mentally and emotionally exhausted. I felt defeated and had believed so strongly in the poly's accuracy prior to taking one. I remember thinking that if what the examiner is saying is true and I really failed, then no wonder he doesn't believe me --if I were him, I wouldn't believe me, either--not with a failed poly. My belief had been that if someone failed a poly, he or she is guilty of the accusations, period. I was so beat down that for a moment, making things up to please him seemed like it might be the best thing to do just to make it stop. Then, I thought, that's crazy--there's no way I'm going to sit here and make up things that I didn't do--I didn't care about the job, anymore. My examiner told me that if I told him the truth, he would hook me back up to the poly and we could finish the test so that I could pass. I believed the poly worked, so the examiner's promise to hook me back up, kept me from admitting to things that I didn't do. I believed that if I lied about something I didn't do, the machine would show that I was lying. My examiner was successful in convincing me that the purpose of the test was to determine if I measured up to the high moral standards of the FBI and if would lie about anything. I thought the test would reveal my true character and integrity. To me, the test wasn't about drugs (although, even though I knew nothing about the poly, I knew the spying questions were important.)  I thought the test was about honesty and integrity, which kept me from just giving up and giving in, but it was a struggle as the examiner intensely presssured me and tried to trick me many times into admitting to things I didn't do. By the way, I was not interviewed following the in-test. I was interrogated immediately afterwards.  Knowing what I know now, I can't help but feel foolish and wonder how I could have been so stupid and naive to believe that the polygraph could determine lies from truth.