EosJupiter,

Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment.  Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense’s Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two “qualified” FBI examiners in conducting field examinations.  I say “qualified” in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau’s Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner’s failing the DoDPI basic examiner training.   At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner.  I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner.  The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some “real-world” experience and presumably allow for a better research product.   

After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner.  To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence.  I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination.  I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public.  With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me.  The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams.  I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy’s (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI’s Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters.  I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy.  It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau.  My reason for leaving the Bureau’s polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing.  He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion.  I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.   

Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.