"Besides another girl at work told me that her answers came out all truthful even on controlled lie questions"

Rose, I advise you to go do some research and you would see the logical fallacy in your statement.  A "control question" is a question that someone lies on.  In other words, the polygraph examiner won't continue the test until he is sure you lied on the control question. He does this to compare your “lied” reaction to that of your “truthful” reaction on the relevant questions. If you did "truthfully" answer the control question then you would fail or get "inconclusive" results at best.  Go research, than come back to your conclusion then.

I need some help. I have been with the department of corrections in my state for over 10 years with no problems until recently. An ex-inspector made Captain and she and I went out together a couple of times. I was interested in someone else and after she found out she began retaliating against me. I suddenly found myself the subject of numerous investigations by her former colleagues ( inspectors ) for things that that others weren't investigated for. This occured after I filed a complaint against her for putting toothpaste on my car. A inspector she then started going out with was assigned to one of my cases. He encouraged a nurse who had an ax to grind to take a CVSA test after she cooberated an inmate's allegation that i beat and choked him. Not surprisingly, he informed me in a taunting manner that "she passed with flying colors." Unbeknownst to him, a videotape of the entire incident was in evidence somewhere else and was produced after I e-mailed the head of corrections in our state explaining this situation. The video totally refuted the allegations and it was clear i had done nothing wrong. How did she pass this test then? Now, this same inspector had three disgruntled employees take CVSA test's saying I cursed them. Guess what?!!! They passed according to his excited proclamation. I now face discipline because of the administrative rules allowing allegations to be substantiated due to results of a CVSA. I need help.

The internal affairs are the very people on the witch hunt of me. They are called the inspector generals office. The female captain I wrote about is a former inspector who dated the inspector on my case. He is the one who is substantiating the allegations against me based on CVSA tests. He is also pressuring witnesses according to those who have been interviewed by him. If you have any information on studies questioning the validity of these tests, please advise.

fred wrote on Jul 26^th, 2001 at 6:45pm:


Fred,

This situation has so much conflict of interest, I concur with Gino. In addition to securing legal assistance, you also need to contact the director's office IMMEDIATELY!. Do you have documentation to back your statements? You already have said your "jacket" is clean after 10 years on the job.

If there are fellow officers to collaborate what is occurring you need to obtain written statements from them. Remember that documentation goes a long way in defending yourself.

Good Luck

Fred F.

Califmike,

I was actually unaware of this fact.  Thank you for pointing this out.  At the bottom of the article, Palmatier is described as a "polygraph researcher," but not as a practicing examiner.  I wouldn't be surprised if this was left out on purpose (to obscure the apparent conflict of interest).

I suppose I was fooled by the absence of the usual rhetoric touting the superiority of polygraphy.

John,

In both CVSA and polygraph "tests," a post-test interrogation is standard procedure if the examiner believes that the subject has answered the relevant questions deceptively. The absence of a post-test interrogation in your case is a good indication that you passed your CVSA "test."

yes I am a god! hahahah

URL