posted 01-19-2013 09:35 AM         

It does not appear that the P300 method was used in conjunction with a mock crime

There was no mention of CMs, overall compliance, test-subject suitability, or consideration for "special populations."

But overall, the piece was well spun.

I'm sure there are visions of widespread use for this in NCCA's Amerika, so it will be interesting to follow the money trail.

But don't worry, the data is cool.

With more spin applied to the right decision makers, I would not be surprised to see the technology applied to prospective gun buyers.

If it saves one life...

posted 01-19-2013 10:35 AM         

Revenue: $10 mil. - $25 mil.
Employees: 50 - 100

Industry: Law Firms & Legal Services
SIC Codes: 8111
NAICS Codes: 541110
Company Description: Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories is a privately held company founded by Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell. After 20 years of research and testing, Dr. Farwell began applying the Brain Fingerprinting® technology in the criminal justice system. In several dramatic cases (Harrington & Grinder), he demonstrated that Brain Fingerprinting testing could profoundly change the criminal justice process, giving both prosecutors and defense attorneys a new scientific method of identifying the guilty and exonerating the innocent. In a major breakthrough, Brain Fingerprinting test results were admitted as evidence in a US District Court in March 2002. On February 26, 2003, in the Terry Harrington appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court left undisturbed the law of the case establishing the admissibility of the Brain Fingerprinting test evidence. Following the impact of these cases and numerous projects with the US Government, Dr. Farwell and Brain Fingerprinting testing received significant media attention and appeared on programs such as CBS 60 Minutes, The Discovery Channel, ABC News, CNN and others. Articles in Time Magazine, The New York Times and additional publications have created worldwide interest in applications for the technology. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc. was founded in 2003 to make this ground breaking technology widely available. In addition to the criminal justice system, Brain Fingerprinting testing will be applied to help in the fight against terrorism. Research is also being conducted in the areas of drug efficacy in the pharmaceutical industry, advertising effectiveness, insurance fraud and security screening.

He has good rea$on$ to challenge the polygraph industry!

posted 01-19-2013 10:46 AM         

Brain Fingerprinting

is a controversialforensic science technique that determines whether specific information is stored in a subject’s brain by measuring electrical brainwaveresponses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen (Farwell & Smith 2001). Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that the brain processes known, relevant information differently from theway it processes unknown or irrelevant information (Farwell & Donchin 1991). The brain’s processing of known information, such as the details of a crime stored in the brain, is revealed by a specific pattern in the EEG (electroencephalograph

) (Farwell &Smith 2001,Farwell 1994). Farwell’s brain fingerprinting originally used the well known P300brain response to detect the brain’s recognition of the known information (Farwell& Donchin 1986,1991;Farwell 1995a). Later Farwell discovered the MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related Multifaceted Electroencephalographic Response"),which includes the P300 and additional features and is reported to provide a higher levelof accuracy than the P300 alone (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell 1994,Farwell 1995b). In peer-reviewed publications Farwell and colleagues report over 99% accuracy inlaboratory research (Farwell & Donchin 1991, Farwell & Richardson 2006) and real-life field applications (Farwell & Smith 2001, Farwell

et al.

2006). In independent researchWilliam Iacono and others who followed identical or similar scientific protocols toFarwell’s have reported a similar high level of accuracy (e.g.,Allen & Iacono 1997).Brain fingerprinting has been applied in a number of high-profile criminal cases,including helping to catch serial killer JB Grinder (Dalbey 1999) and to exonerateinnocent convict Terry Harrington after he had been falsely convicted of murder (Harrington v. State

). Brain fingerprinting has been ruled admissible in court (Harringtonv. State,Farwell & Makeig 2005). In the controversialSister Abhaya murder case, the ErnakulamChief Judicial Magistrate court had asked theCentral Bureau of Investigation to make use of all modern investigation techniques, including brain fingerprinting.

[1]

Brain fingerprinting technique has been criticized on a number of fronts (Fox 2006b,Abdollah 2003). Although independent scientists who have used the same or similar methods as Farwell’s brain fingerprinting have achieved similar, highly accurate results(Allen & Iacono 1997; see alsoHarrington v. State

), different methods have yieldeddifferent results. J. Peter Rosenfeld used P300-based tests incorporating fundamentallydifferent methods, resulting in as low as chance accuracy (Rosenfeld

et al.

2004) as wellas susceptibility to countermeasures, and criticized brain fingerprinting based on the premise that the shortcomings of his alternative technique should generalize to all other techniques in which the P300 is among the brain responses measured, including brainfingerprinting.Brain Fingerprinting was an international finalist in theGlobal Security Challenge 2008 in London.

Ted

posted 01-19-2013 12:58 PM         

quote:

---

He has good rea$on$ to challenge the polygraph industry!

---

Ted,

The entire lie detection racket -- polygraph, CVSA, fMRI, schools, instruments, insurers, PCSOT, LEPET, gummint screening, research grants, Ad nauseam -- is ALL one big indu$try.

It's interesting to watch the politics when one group's rice bowl is being messed with.

I'd love to see a flow chart of the behind-the-scenes $take holder$ who are "dedicated to truth."

Dan

posted 01-19-2013 05:22 PM         

Correct me if I am wrong but I beleive that YOUR name would also be on that flow chart....unless you are testing for free?

posted 01-19-2013 09:11 PM         

Why, of course it would.

The polygraph "profession" has few equals. Maybe less than that.

I ask you...

Where else in this great nation of ours -- outside of a Nevada whorehouse -- can you legally make hundreds of dollars for about 90 minutes of "work"?

posted 01-19-2013 11:13 PM         

I'm truly "dedicated to truth."

Truth about the "test."

Most of my work is for people who have been victimized by false or inconclusive results.

My mission is to right those wrongs.

How is that immoral?

Dan

posted 01-22-2013 06:29 PM         

quote:

---

Oh, I get it now, you're a just a much better whore!

---

Clearly, you do not get it.

If anything, I am the anti-whore of polygraph.

The case I'm dealing with now is a perfect example...

I spent the entire day reviewing -- and eviscerating -- a four-hour polygraph "test" conducted by a state cop.

The test is so deficient on so many levels, the defense attorney who hired me will want the "Cliff Notes" version of my lengthy report.

Honest to God, if I thought it would do any good, I'd file a complaint with the APA's ethics board.

There are lots of bad tests being run out there. Some are hastily run multiple-issue polygraphs conducted by overly ambitious private examiners. Other bogus polygraphs are administered by police examiners, who, in spite of having the best of everything on their side (time, environment, instrumentation, etc.) choose to engage in practices that totally negate the process.

I fail to understand why the cops do this. Maybe they feel the chances of a review are nil. It's puzzling.

In either case, the polygraph "test," which is a fragile entity under the very best of conditions, gets compromised.

When a person is aggrieved by a bad polygraph, they often seek relief. I endeavor to help them (and/or their attorney) understand "what went wrong," in the defective polygraph, and then run a good, solid exam of my own -- without the trickery, drama and fatal flaws of the bad one.

Should the subject pass, my polygraph is made fully available for review -- including video, of course.

How is running a good polygraph -- i.e., treating the subject in a professional manner, observing the proper protocols, checking all the blocks, formulating proper questions, employing sound technique throughout, using careful and conservative scoring, etc. -- in any way "whoring"?

posted 01-22-2013 08:00 PM            

I teach the pre-test and I teach "What Did I do wrong". Before you go off on a rant about "corn pone" and other Southern slams, don't bother. I'm Southern, and damn proud of it so it just rolls of my back.

I teach those two courses like a Southern Baptist preacher and I know it but I do it because I totally agree that the polygraph test we do is so fragile that it requires doing it absolutely right in order to make it work properly.

Do I wish we could come up with something other than the comparison question technique? Absolutely I do. It takes a great amount of "skill" and "art" to do it so that it works as it should. That's not a good thing. I wish, we had a testing protocol that worked even if you were a mediocre examiner, but we don't.... yet.

I think I run a very good polygraph test and the first day that I wake up and decide I don't do it absolutely by the book, I'll become a WalMart greeter which, with my Southern accent should be a great second career.

My concern is not that you "rectify" bad polygraphs...I totally agree with slamming those who do it wrong on purpose. My concern is that you assume that everyone in the government is conducting poor polygraph tests and doing so willfully and with malice or worse, ignorance. Our government examiners are taught the right way to do polygraph. If they elect to do otherwise, then they do so on their own, not with the blessing or on the orders of the government.

Anyone who knows me well or has been trained by me over the past 28 years knows that I don't suffer fools or Charlitans. I expect perfection in a field that requires the absolute best effort to achieve valid results.

Where we differ, I think, is that I believe the comparison question polygraph techinique, properly coducted the way it is currently conducted, works very well and achieves results that provide meaningful results.

All jokes and barbs aside, I think that deep down, we are more alike than different in our beliefs about the polygraph test. I just don't assume that "everyone else" is doing it wrong.

You can trust me when I say that I run every test with the goal in mind to allow the truthful person to "pass" the test. I will never run a polygraph test with the goal of setting someone up for an interrogation or use it as a prop for doing an interrogation. If they fail my test, I want it to be because they lied not because I did something or failed to do something that created that result.

I'm coming to the end of my career in polygraph and law enforcement in just about 8 months. I don't plan to conduct polygraph tests after that but I won't ever look back upon the past 28 years and worry that I ran a "bad" or inappropriate test that I could have done better. I'm proud of that. I've gotten a lot of confessions from people who failed, but more importantly, I've run a hell of a lot of tests where the person passed the test and it took law enforcement off of their backs. I sleep well at night.

posted 01-22-2013 09:45 PM         

The quote you cite is clearly the exception and not the rule. Private practice is not the McDonald's Drive-Thru business model that many in the public sector think it is.

My experience has been that there is "easy money" and "hard money." The case I described a few posts ago is hard money, but I knew that going in: I agreed to do a review AND conduct a polygraph for only $500 total.

Why so cheap? Two reasons. First, the attorney who called is new (to me), and I wanted to become known to his firm. Second, his client is a blue-collar dimbulb country hick who can't even afford his own automobile.

As to your question...

I have at least six hours into the case already. That should easily double, but let's say it tops out at ten hours. (No appearances are foreseen.) That's 50 bucks an hour. Big deal. And don't forget I have overhead costs. Still, it's high cotton compared to the $23.62 hourly rate I made as a "Polygraph Operator" (official classification) testing skinners in "treatment" at the NH State Prison.

An easy-money case is a private-party polygraph with no burdensome discovery and a good clean specific-incident allegation. Fidelity tests can fall into that category, but they never die. Regardless of how they turn out, someone is dissatisfied. The amount of time spent on the phone or writing email responses (post test) really adds up.

Private practice polygraph is brutally competitive. Most callers are "Walmart shoppers" looking for the best price. They think a polygraph is a polygraph is a polygraph. The education process is time consuming and painful.

Another fun fact: Private-practice examiners are protective and territorial.

So, while making "hundreds of dollars for about 90 minutes of 'work'" is not exactly rare, it's not terribly common either.

By the way, I turn away 90% of the fidelity inquires that come my way. Most of the people are crazy, and some are dangerous. Virtually all are blinded by rage, hurt or spite. That scene is one helluva freak show, a la Jerry Springer. In fact, I no longer allow both parties to come to the appointment. That kills at least half of inquiries, as the enraged/suspicious S.O. immediately suspects hanky-panky on my part.

Jim Matte taught me a lot about polygraph, but his most valuable lesson was Do no harm. I turn down a lot of cases because I just don't like the way they smell. For example, if I sense domestic violence could be an issue, I pass. (Immediately prior to getting into polygraph I worked as a victim/witness advocate in DV cases.)

Bottom line: Private polygraph is a hardscrabble existence for a choosy, ethical examiner.

Barry:

Regarding the deficiencies... I'd rather not say right now. This is an active case, and relatively high profile for us (Northern New England). Maybe later, maybe not. It's a small world.

Skip:

Shazaam! And there I was, thinking you slept well at night 'cuz after your dinner of possum and hush puppies you guzzle a jug of CORN LIQUOR! Gol-ly!

posted 01-24-2013 10:32 PM            

STOP berating by comparison Nevada whores. They are professional, mandatorily clean and inspected and a well run profession. Plus, they make a crap load of money; not only for themselves and their businesses but also the counties they support by providing a tax base that otherwise would be absent.

"Lay" off our whores....! ;-)

posted 01-25-2013 08:34 AM         

But I gotta tell ya, Skip sure sounds like he knows his way around whores.

Must be a gummint thing.