gmos wrote on Jan 23
rd, 2008 at 5:01pm:
I know that law enforcement can tell accused persons lies when trying to obtain a confession, but can polygraphers?
Yes. In fact, polygraph procedure depends in fundamental ways on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." These deceptions are documented in Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Moreover, law enforcement agencies often use the polygraph "test" as a ruse to get a suspect in a criminal case into an interrogation booth without a lawyer present. The suspect is misled into believing that he is merely agreeing to submit to a scientific test for truth, rather than an interrogation. If investigators strongly believe that the suspect is guilty, his "failing" the "test" and being subjected to a harsh interrogation may be foreordained.
Quote:What tricks do they use to obtain a deceptive reading?
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
If you have an audio- or video-recording of the polygraph interrogation, I would be happy to review it for potential polygrapher misconduct (for free, of course). If the polygraph examination was not recorded in its entirety, it may be an indication that the agency involved had something to hide: the agency had the ability to make an objective record of the circumstances leading to the confession but failed to do so.
Quote:And does anyone know someone who is trained in this area whom I could hire to to evaluate the procedures used and testify as an expert in my case?
I'll send you some references by private message. Although there are, as Eric Johnson pointed out, polygraph operators who are willing to testify against other polygraph operators, I think you may be better off going with someone who
does not derive income from the administration of polygraph "tests" and has no vested interest in the perpetuation of this pseudoscience. Keep in mind that even a "properly-administered" polygraph examination still has
no scientific basis and is not to be relied upon.
With regard to polygraph-induced false confessions, in addition to the notorious case of
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, see also the cases of
Dr. Thomas Butler,
Abdallah Higazy,
Byron Halsey, and Daniel M. King (documented in Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector). For an overview of some of the interrogation techniques used by polygraphers, see the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Interview & Interrogation handbook:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf and also Julia Layton's excellent overview of police interrogation on HowStuffWorks.com:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation.htm