At the January public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on Polygraphs, Department of Energy Polygraph Program chief David M. Renzelman, having claimed "we don't have the funds and the resources to go out and... and... and banter with the people who don't like polygraph," went on to state:

Quote:


AntiPolygraph.org has obtained that video under the Freedom of Information Act, and you can now read a transcript of it at:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/doe-polygraph-video.shtml

Here is how the Department of Energy Office of Counterintelligence addresses what Mr. Renzelman termed the "many fears and misconceptions of people who read the Internet":

Quote:

See Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector before deciding whether Jack Trimarco told the truth when he said "Everything that you need to know about polygraph testing will be covered with you by our examiners."

In another exchange, Mr. Trimarco assures Diane Anderson that polygraph "tests" are not interrogations.

Quote:

You may wish to review the DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook (1.6 mb PDF file) and decide for yourself whether a polygraph "test" is "not an interrogation at all."

The video ends with Jack Trimarco telling Diane Anderson (with a straight face):

Quote:

Hmm. If no one is questioning the loyalty or patriotism of those who are required to submit to counterintelligence-scope polygraph interrogations, then why are they being required to answer questions regarding these very issues? Jack Trimarco's assertion is an exercise in Orwellian doublethink. Those who can think for themselves might contemplate what faith and confidence they can safely place in those who are requiring them to submit to pseudoscientific polygraph "tests" while lying to them about the nature of the procedure.

Jack Trimarco is the subject of an article by Anna Gorman titled "Getting at the Truth of It" in the Ventura County edition of today's (27 June 2001) Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/editions/ventura/20010627/t000053111.html

The following passage from this article caught my attention in particular:

Quote:


Compare Trimarco's "gladiator mentality" quip with what he said in the DOE polygraph video:

Quote:


One doesn't need a polygraph to detect a lie.

Gentlemen:

Has anyone forwarded a copy of Captain Jones' statement to the LA Times? The staff writer should have done some real research on polygraphs before writing her story.  Specifically, researching the hundreds of honest law enforcement applicants falsely accused of lying.  She wouldn't have to look too far since the LAPD just initiated polygraphs in February.  I'll bet they've falsely branded a hundered or so by now.

I was told I failed, but later informed that I had in fact passed my polygraph. (How can that happen?) Unfortunately, my explanations during my post-test interrogation were spun against me and I was removed from the selection process for not disclosing an incident involving a family member.  The ommission was completely innocent and I fortunately have the chance to appeal my removal.

My appeal is being processed as I write this.  I consider myself lucky in more ways than one.  I initially applied to the FBI while still on active duty and passed "phase one" of the Special Agent Selection Process.  I was excited and ready for the interview, but was told a hiring freeze had just been enacted.  As a back up, I started processing for the LAPD.  I can only imagine the horrible spot I would be in if I had made it to the FBI poly and become one of the many false positives.  Not only would I have been screwed at the federal level, but also at the local, since the FBI shares their poly information.

AMM

Fred,

You wrote:

Quote:


Obtaining damaging admissions is the whole point of the polygraph interrogation. If agencies that rely on polygraphy really believed that truth vs. deception could be divined from polygraph charts, then there would be no need for post-test interrogations (polygraphers prefer to call them "interviews" when speaking to non-polygraphers). Those who whose charts are read as deceptive would be simply be shown to the door.