Gordon,
I agree with you that there is nothing per se sinister about the fact that a polygrapher can manipulate the outcome of a polygraph interrogation.
However, such manipulation being possible, especially in instances where the interrogation is not audio- or videotaped, the polygrapher is given carte blanche to do as he pleases. See, for example, the abuses allegedly committed by Defense Security Service polygrapher Albert D. Snyder in his interrogation of David A. Tenenbaum at para. 29 ff. of his complaint in
Tenenbaum vs.Simennini, et al.: http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/tenenbaum/second-amended-complaint.shtml#29 In a deposition in that case (not currently available on-line), Special Agent Snyder testified that it was the Defense Security Service's (then Defense Investigative Service's) practice was not to record polygraph interrogations on audio- or videotape.
The following excerpt from pp. 30-31 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector provides further cause for concern regarding the power of polygraphers to manipulate the procedure:
Quote:
Special Agent H.L. Byford, an FBI polygrapher, wrote in an e-mail exchange with the webmaster of NoPolygraph.com (Byford, 1999):
"It only gets tight, when there are indications of drug usage above the guidelines or drug dealing. I mean, if someone has smoked marijuana 15 times, he's done it 50 times. Don't you agree? Those who have any doubts about how many times they used are going to fail. Those who are certain that they only tried it once or three times or five or whatever, will pass. ...I got to tell you though, if I was running the show, there would be no one in the FBI that ever used illegal drugs!"
By SA Byford's own admission, an FBI applicant who reports that he smoked marijuana say, about eight times (well within the Bureau's limit of 15 times), but cannot precisely recall the number of times, is going to "fail."
More recently, in a statement submitted on 25 April 2001 to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, attorney Mark S. Zaid wrote:
Quote:
...in 1997-98, CIA polygraphers reported to the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section that they were instructed by CIA management to "fail" certain employees. Additionally, they revealed that they were taught how to sensitize examinees during pre-testing interviews so as to create the likelihood of false positives. Notwithstanding these sensational allegations, there is no evidence either the CIA or Department of Justice ever conducted an investigation.
Mr. Zaid's statement may be read on AntiPolygraph.org at:
http://www.antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-2001/zaid-statement.shtml Even if polygraph "tests" had some proven diagnosticity (which they do not), the potential for examiner manipulation would undermine any confidence in opinions rendered. This being the case, it is hard to understand the opposition of some in the polygraph community to the mandatory recording of all polygraph interrogations. For example, the
California Association of Polygraph Examiners opposed a bill passed by the state legislature in 2000 that would have required all employment-related polygraph interrogations to be audio- or videotaped.
Pages: 1
Potential Polygrapher Manipulation of Outcomes (Read 3826 times)
