polytechnic wrote on May 28
th, 2008 at 3:36pm:
sackett wrote on May 25
th, 2008 at 4:46pm:
[quote author=5F5E455644585D454800310 link=1211636068/0#7 date=1211732567][quote author=594B49414F5E5E2A0 link=1211636068/0#2 date=1211692554]
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
Sackett
Sackett,
Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners.
Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ?
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?
If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?
Regards,
I think it is appropriate to review the case facts so we can know what we are talking about. Nothing sillier than an examiner trying to talk intelligently about something they know nothing of. And, no. I do not think it unduly prejudices an examiner. I have tested many people where the facts were against them and they passed, and visa-versa.
I have certainly had tests where I questioned the results. Any examiner should be able to admit it. Remember, we're dealing with human beings, therefore, as I have stated previously, things can be "screwy" for a lot of reasons (Please don't ask me to list them, I'm tired). If I find a mistake in my testing procedure or (or sometimes) the examinee's actions, I almost always offer a re-examination. I stay focused on trying to obtain the truth, not a specific result.
As for false positives. I have probably had some (statistics would be so polite to me). However, I can not recall an examination where I called the examinee deceptive and later, evidence exonerated them.
As for hypertension, etc, I do not automatically see apnea as CM's. If it is the normal state of the individual, then it should be taken into consideration. What is there to "address" if it is
normal?
Sackett
That was a fairly balanced reply.