Defense attorneys begin to get notifications about scrutinized lab technician
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html

In summary
Forensic Lab Technician Aaron Layton FAILED a polygraph test for the Columbus Ohio Police Department in 2003. 

When Layton applied for a job with the Columbus Police Department in 2003, he failed his initial polygraph test and then made a series of admissions during a second test. 

Among those admissions:
Layton told the polygraph operator that while conducting a marijuana test for the Arapahoe County Probation Department in Colorado, he got an initial positive result but skipped a required second test, then lied about it in his report. He also said he "committed perjury" when he testified about the test in court.

Layton said this action was not unique -- while working for Forensic Laboratories he "never conducted confirmatory tests and he falsified his reports 'hundreds of times.' "

He said while working at the Colorado lab, he would forge his supervisor's signature and notary stamp on affidavits involving evidence and procedural results.  

A convicted Sex Offender he was arrested in Denver in 2007 for failing to register as a sex offender and is still on probation, but he decided to seek the relatively polygraph free environment of the left coast.

He subsequently found employment with a company called Bio-Tox running forensic tests for agencies including Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties.

His history and the admissions he made following his polygraph test have called into question every evidentiary test he has conducted and will likely cost thousands of dollars to resolve, not to mention the possible human cost of convictions based on his perjured testimony.  All of which could have been prevented with a pre-emloyment polygraph. 

Just like the one he failed for Columbus P.D. 

This is one excellent example of why companies providing evidentiary services to Law Enforcement and the Courts should be exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act restrictions prohibiting Pre-employment polygraph testing. 

She hasn't confessed to helping in the robbery. You don't know what questions she was asked on the polygraph test. She hasn't been convicted but still you have concluded that Quote:
 
Just because it fits your pre-conceived opinions regarding polygraph doesn' t quite make it so.  

Did you ever actually do any scientific research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect?

Or is that just another one of your unconfirmed opinions?

Quote:


What about em? 
The true positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.

Acknowledging that false positives do occur, what proof do you have that someone complaining about a false positive on a polygraph isn't simply lying to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a lie, any more or less than a convicted child molestor claiming his charges were just a BIG mis-understanding and he didn't do what he was accused of.  Even with dozens of victims, making statements against the pervert, they frequently go on web sites and ramble on about how wrongful accusations that have ruined their lives and frequently demand reform to laws that allow the word of a child to be weighed equally against their denials. 

The only penalty for failing a pre-employment polygraph test is having to fill out another job application somewhere. Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?

It's obvious to me that there may be a possibility of psychological damage brought about from an unreasonable inability to move on. But then, the inability to move on isn't caused by the polygraph. It comes from the mind of the examinee. 

Move on.  Thats what Layton did. He moved on to a place where he didn't have to take a polygraph. I certainly think its reasonable to conclude that not having to take a polygraph figured into his decision. I'll bet you dollars to bottlecaps HE knows it works.


George, I noticed you didn't answer my question. 
You don't need to bother now. 
If you had done any scientific research or even if you were aware of any research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect, I don't think you would be able to keep it to yourself.

NAS seemed to question the credibility of claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners. They didn't say it was impossible but they seem to doubt that there is proof that anyone could pull it off, say by, reading a book about how to beat the polygraph. 

Quote:


What is your point?

Whatever polygraph detects, the fact still remains that  polygraph's ability to identify the true positives and true negatives (properly identifying liars and truth tellers)  significantly outweighs the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association and if a false positive occurs in a pre-employment test, the only material penalty the examinee suffers is the time spent filling out another job application.

Lets not mischaracterize what they might postulate and besides we’re talking about pre-employment not security screening. 

The FBI reported that they administered approximately 27,000 pre-employment polygraph examinations between 1994 and 2001. More than 5,800 of these tests (21 percent) led to the decision that the examinee was being deceptive. Of these, almost 4,000 tests (approximately 69 percent of “failures”) involved obtaining direct admissions of information that disqualified applicants from employment or of information not previously disclosed in the application process that led to a judgment of deceptiveness. 

For that time period with that agency, less than 7% of the 27,000 pre employment tests could be remotely considered false positives, but inside that LOW number it is not unreasonable to presume that at least part of that 7% were actually liars that just refused to own up to their lies. Based on the date of his FBI Polygraph George Maschke would fall somewhere in the 7% who after being called deceptive did not make any disqualifying admissions. 

I realize that this next part will probably sail right past you given your demonstrated knowledge of polygraph, but the second series in George’s FBI polygraph contained the following 3 questions. 
Quote:


The FBI Polygrapher determined that there was deception indicated on this test series. Based on currently accepted polygraph procedures, there is no way to make any type of reasonable conclusion as to which question or questions caused the reaction on the exam. This is why current protocols require a follow-up test to further explore areas indicating reaction. In short problems with application information are just have likely to caused the reaction as drug use or drug sales on this test series. If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him.

The characterization that the FBI agent ACCUSED George of anything is yours not George’s.  In his complaint letter to the FBI Director he simply stated that Quote:
He further went on to describe the examiner’s demeanor as follows Quote:
I noticed he didn't hesitate to use the word accuse in his letter to LAPD when he thought it was appropriate.

He didn’t claim that the FBI agent accused him being a drug dealer or anything, why are you? Looking for drama?

And in the end, all it really cost George was the time it took him to fill out another job application. I've heard he now holds a prestigious position at the Hague and somewhere out there is an FBI Special Agent who passed his pre employment polygraph and currenlty occupies the position to which George mistakenly believes he was somehow entiltled

Sergeant  while I don't really care what you think about polygraph or polygraphers. True positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association. 

I do care about the innocent people who come on this forum looking for information that you and your buddies scare into trying to cheat on a polygraph with your half truths and horror stories. Whether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.

Contrary to what you may want to believe, 99% of polygraph research is designed towards reducing the possibilty of a false positive. polygraph does not wish to harm the innocent any more than they wish to be harmed. The process doesn't need much help spotting liars. If a Bad Guy beating the test wasn't an unusual occurrance, it wouldn't be newsworthy. 

Allow me to illustrate the polygraph screening process in a manner that even a rookie patrolman can understand.

The standardized field sobriety test is used hundreds of thousands of times every year by officers in the field. It is a screening test and while there are many differences between polygraph and SFST there are some similarities. 

Basically Every person who fails and SFST isn't intoxicated and every one who passes isn't sober. It does not measure the amount of alcohol in anyones blood. It measures coordination and mental accuity and from someones performance on the test and officer assigns a score. If the score is in favor of the driver, he is released. If it is on the bordeline, SFST has no INCONCLUSIVE RANGE, the officer flips a coin. If the score is high enough then based on his analysis he puts handcuffs on the driver and hauls them to Jail for an intoxilyzer which ALSO does not measure the actual amount of alcohol in blood. If the intoxilyzer fails to confirm his analysis, he lets the driver go, or maybe calls in a drug recognition expert to perform another series of screening tests which may lead to release or a blood test. If both the officer and the DRE are wrong then the guy goes to jail has charges filed and has to post bond ALL before there is any confirmation by chemical analysis that this driver has done anything wrong. The observations made by the original officer are a combination of subjective and objective but unless someone has a video camera going there is no record of the data collected except for the officers notes and his memory of the drivers performane. He intends to use both his notes and memory to provide evidence of probable cause for arrest and to support his charge of DUI at trial. 

The driver is not and cannot be obligated by law to submit to a SFST, but I have never heard of an SFST training program, policy, or officer that informs the driver that they have a right to refuse to stand on the side of the road at 2 O'clock in the morning and do acrobatics for the nice policeman. They are coerced into taking the SFST by being told if they don't take the test they will just be arrested anyway. They didn't volunteer to do it. The officer didn't tell them that they have the right to refuse to do it. They aren't told that the test has an error rate. They aren't told that if they do what the officer has coerced them in to doing that their actions will be used as evidence. 

The driver gets hauled to jail if he fails it and he gets hauled to jail if he refuses to submit to it whether or not he is drunk. His only crime may have been crossing a yellow line or sitting too long at a green light. 

On a pre-employment examination, the examinee volunteers to take the examination by virtue of pre-exsisting knowledge that it will be required as part of the hiring process. Just like he volunteers to take a written test, submit to an interview, physical exam and psychological testing. He will be told that he does not have to take the test. The vast majority of agencies will also read him the miranda warning on the off chance he may admit to criminal activity during the exam. So he goes into the process voluntarily and aware of his rights against self incrimination. He submits to a screening test in which the data that is collected is permanently recorded for further review. Depending on Law and deartment policy this may be retained for 2 to 3 years or become part of an officers personel file. 

If he passes the exam he moves on in the application process. Will he be a good officer Who knows? Some times drunks get past field sobriety tests and sometimes liars get past polygraph. 

If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure. The manner in which he is questioned may differ from agency to agency or examiner to examiner, but a problem concerning the way a post test interview is conducted is not an indication of a problem with polygraph, it is an indication of a problem with the way interviews are conducted. 

I've heard all the stories, some from credible about screaming accusations and angry behavior, but I have yet to ever raise my voice in an interview and never felt the need to do so in order to get admissions, I don't see why polygraph interviews would need to be any different. 

If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. If neither one of those occurs, current protocols endorsed by APA call for a follow-up test to attempt to resolve any areas of reactivity. 

If he passes the second test then he moves on in the process. If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure.If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. At this point if he makes no admissions then a report will be forwarded to the hiring authority indicating that there were significant and consistant reactions to certain questions on the test which were not resolved. 

The APA Policy states that noone should be denied employment based solely on the outcome of a polygraph examination. They recomend that agencies further investigate the applicant in attempt to discover more information. 

No One goes to jail. No one loses their freedom for even a minute. All they have to do is fill out another job application at their own convenience. Whether you read or chose to ignore the FBI pre-employment testing data I posted previously, according to their records  unresolved polygraph failures are under 7% and part of that 7% will be false positives and part of that group will be liars who didn't confess. Getting caught using countermeasures will move part of those false positives into the resolved failures group. 

So It doesn't really matter whether or not you can point to a specific response that is absolute proof of deception the process has proven that it detects liars at rates significantly greater than chance and that makes it a useful tool in the pre-employment process.  

Quote:

Feel free to read my prior posts, but I can tell you that my advice to anyone taking a polygraph has always been to tell the truth and not withhold any information.  Not just to the relevant questions, but to all the questions.  I've disagreed with a number of antipolygraph posters on that exact point on a number of occasions.

If you consider someone like me, who consistently advises people to tell the truth while also stating that he doesn't believe the polygraph is capable of detecting deception, as someone who gives tacit approval for people to lie to the police, you certainly have a unique way of interpreting things.

You obviously feel the polygraph is good and accurate.  You certainly have that right.  Perhaps you could afford others the right to their opinions as well without subjecting them to ad hominem attacks that do nothing but damage your own credibility.

Quote:
 Odd then that the words “abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don’t appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm

Regarding what you claim to be the AMA’s Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

Drew Richardson capable? Was he even capable of passing his polygraph internship? Drew may have had to lie to an examinee seven times on the handful of exams he conducted, but that doesn’t prove anyone else does. He supposedly wrote the “Epitaph for polygraph almost 19 years ago.  Can you cite one major piece of Federal Polygraph Legislation since EPPA in 1988? Your generalized statement accusing polygraph examiners of lying is an ad hominum attack on polygraph examiners.

My comments regarding George’s situation with the FBI was not an Ad Hominum attack, I was just pointing out that a poster’s claim that the FBI accused George of being a drug dealer was misleading and (I suspect) a deliberate overstatement for dramatic purposes.  George never claimed in his letter that he was accused of anything by the FBI. In fact my post included the statement “If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him.”  Why am I unwilling to automatically assume he was truthful? The man endorses lying as a means to get a job. That puts his personal credibility at issue .

You and the other members of George’ s anti polygraph posting coalition really over use that AD HOMINIM ATTACK JUNK.  Doesn’t your Latin Dictionary have more than one page? You fellows are always Ad Hominum this and Ad Hominum that, but you don’t hesitate to accuse polygraph examiners of lying and chicanery. You accuse the FBI  of lying in their statistical reporting based on the smallest scrap of anecdotal evidence. But should anyone with a differing opinion dare question the morals or character of someone who endorses lying or voluntarily associates themselves with someone who does, you can’t wait to raise the old AD HOMINUM ATTACK Flag, can you. 

Why do you accuse “polygraph”  as a whole for the failure of agencies or individuals to follow proper practices and procedures.  In a blatant Ad Hominum attack You questioned the ability and qualifications of an individual FBI agent you’ve never even met and whose work product you have never seen and it appears your reason for that is “He isn’t George”

While I agree that the  taxpayers do have a right to have the most qualified persons employed in positions of public trust, I do not agree that George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini or anyone but the hiring authority has the right to determine the necessary qualifications for a government job. Polygraph examiners almost never decide who gets hired and who doesn't any way.

Nopolycop  Were you ever able to find employment anywhere? Un less you made admissions your results should not have been shared. Blame the agency, Blame an Individual Examiner. but "Polygraph"isn't responsible, but it still didn't cost you anything material other than filling out another application. 

Gino, and you too George if your reading:
I’m going to leave you with one question. I’m betting I don’t get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject.  Here it is any way.

Why haven’t you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?