posted 12-12-2008 12:58 PM            

Here is what I am dealing with. An IR exam was given to the suspect not in custody, now would be considered more of a “Person of Interest” rather then a suspect. Two “tests” were ran (IR) and it is noted that “The subjects Polygram on the first test was for all practical purposes unreadable because of the numerous physical movements by the subject during the test”. “The subjects Polygram on the second test contained specific reactions indicative of deception, to the relevant questions listed.

“After careful analysis of the two Polygrams and interrogation on the subject, it is the opinion of this examiner that the subject did not tell the truth during this examination.”

Am I to assume that the “Two Polygrams” were two charts and one exam or two separate exams?

Considering that this was in 1972 and the field of polygraph today is different, I did call the examiner who is eighty years old now. He told me that he was a private examiner back then and that for the most part did only “Pre-Employment” polygraphs for law enforcement agencies, often using an IR format. He did acknowledge that “there were other testing formats out there” but I did strictly IR’s (Keeler Trained).

He has no other reports nor charts available.

Also noted in the report and subsequent reports from the investigators, the “suspect” is noted as not having been to happy about being named a suspect and there was obviously an abrasive relationship between the examiner and examinee (missed a previous appointment). Consequently the “suspect” in further contacts advised law enforcement that he was not going to submit to any more questioning or polygraph exams and that they should contact his attorney.

With this all in mind, what weight do we give this exam from “back then” to what we would or should consider now. This is important as I’m inclined to offer the suspect an opportunity to validate his truthfulness today using current validated polygraph techniques, specific to whether he did or did not kill the victim.

Thoughts?

Thanks

posted 12-12-2008 04:08 PM            

No doubt you will cite the positive changes in technique & instrumentation when recommending another exam. What does your DA have to say about this potential examinee's comment back in '72 about his attorney?

END.....

posted 12-12-2008 04:15 PM            

Obviously though an argument can be made by us if ever an issue that he was, not in custody, it was voluntary, not charged with any crime and he was free to leave at any time.

Of course prior to the recontact we will inquire again about our legal standing.

On the other issue of the IR exam, I'm interested to know from the "Old Timers" as to back in 1972 was this common practice amongst polygraph examiners to run an IR on just about everything and just go from there on the reactions.

Mmmmm! whom should we ask?

posted 12-12-2008 06:06 PM            

Without the prosecutors clarification and OK; you "venture," and learn substantial incriminating information, will you be able to use it due to the '72 attorney comment?

Strongly suggest you check with the same prosecutor that will be jumping all over your behind when you bring him a "suspect" he can't do anything about due to a Miranda issue.

posted 12-12-2008 08:22 PM            

Looks like we are on the same page with the IR in 1972 interest.

I also put a phone call into an examiner (law Enforcement) from that era and am awaiting what he has to say.

I'm really into the idea of this as of course I'm sure there are alot of Cold Cases with Polygraph Exam results needing a new look. I don't believe that the Cold Cases get that look!

posted 12-12-2008 08:23 PM            

There's nothing here to clarify unless your jurisdiction is more strict than federal standards. There is a Fifth Amendment right to counsel if you are under arrest, and there is a Sixth Amendment right to counsel if you've been charged with a crime. That's it. Otherwise, I could invoke right now for all future police conversations.

posted 12-13-2008 02:41 AM            

You can go right in and start talking to this person. But, as long as time is on your side why not take advantage of this and make certain this question is resolved (before) you proceed? What is lost except the time it takes to make a phone call? This person was previously identified by investigators as a "suspect" who advised earlier ('72) investigators his attorney should be contacted before further questioning.

I was taught as a homicide investigator that if a question arose about (anything) I wasn't certain about, if at all possible, it should be resolved before I continued.

Your call!

END.....

posted 12-13-2008 09:27 AM            

So just for the sake of conversation, what about those "Cold Cases" that had polygraph interventions back then. Anyone else review "Cold Cases" and take a hard look at the polygraph exam results?

Sounds like in itself, a review study would be interesting as to applying today's methods and standards to the exams, just to see how they compare and with what outcome results they do or don't show.

posted 12-13-2008 09:33 AM            

quote:

---

No doubt a "defense attorney" will tell you to proceed "without a worry" as an issue/question such as this might make their job defending this individual easier (if) Miranda somehow becomes an issue.

---

This comment presupposes two things: first, there is a Miranda issue (but this was about invoking in a non-Miranda situation); second, all defense attorneys from whom a police officer asks for legal advice will lie to you to help a case they don't even have. My don't we paint with a broad brush. (Forget the fact that such nonsense could cost a guy his job.)

My point was that a defense attorney will readily tell you he doesn't have a constitutional issue to attack.

My bigger point was that this is such a simple issue, there should be no question about the answer.

posted 12-13-2008 09:43 AM            

I tend to believe there are no Miranda Issues and asking a defense attorney is not something I haven't done before without having a professional, responsible reply given. I wouldn't discount the idea out of hand and would of course ask one that I know and respect.

As far as the guy singing like a canary in the office and the attorney showing up stating that they represent the guy and that we should stop the interview. I had that happen and I'm sure not the only one. I had taken a break from the interview and went to my office and had answered my desk phone. It was an attorney and he demanded that I stop the interview. Of course I told him that his client didn't ask for an attorney and that I'm sure he could get a hold of his client when we were done.

posted 12-13-2008 01:04 PM            

This is not a complex issue but it certainly isn't a "simple issue!" Why take the chance of screwing up a case before you even begin? It is not simple when you have an old case with a former suspect referring to his attorney before he proceeds further.

Now he's a "person of interest" and we're hoping to administer another exam. What if an admission/confession is received and tossed out simply because readily available time was not taken to confirm (from the prosecutor)your position based on '72 facts?

END.....

posted 12-13-2008 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

This is not a complex issue but it certainly isn't a "simple issue!"

---

No. It's very simple. You're making it unnecessarily difficult. The issues are about the same. Either the subject has a right to counsel or he doesn't (and he doesn't). That's the issue. Period. Whether he's a "suspect" or "a person of interest" makes no difference. You don't have a right to counsel just because you are a suspect. That went out a long time ago (before Miranda).

Take your time. Ask others for input. Perhaps you can create a committee that will meet and review the facts over the next several months (tongue in cheek). In the meantime, we'll be talking to the guy.... I'm all for taking the time to do things right, but this is one you should know already.

posted 12-13-2008 04:54 PM            

It will be interesting to hear what your prosecutor has to say.

posted 12-13-2008 05:47 PM            

Very important! That is also what my mind set tells me as well, regarding this case. More important to this same matter is the idea that if all along this guy just got tired of the accusations and abrasiveness of the investigators and examiner and is truly not involved in the homicide, valuable time and resources were spent since 1972 trying to show that this guy was the one! I took this on with the idea that if he isn't the one, we need to clear it up so that we can look more closely at other leads, now and in the future without being stuck with "him"

That's the way I'm going to sell it to him, his best interest and ours. I'm sure if he is innocent that he would put all the past aside and buy in. If not then, he solidifies himself forever being a "suspect" in this case.

posted 12-13-2008 08:23 PM            

quote:

---

It will be interesting to hear what your prosecutor has to say.

---

posted 12-14-2008 04:20 PM         

Toneill,

Regarding your query about the use of the RI test in 1972, the RI test was the technique of preference for pre-employment tests by government, police, and private examiners. It was no longer recommended for criminal tests except in special cases such as examining another examiner. The only school of which I am aware which was still advocating the RI test for most criminal cases was the Keeler school. All others taught that the CQT in one variant for another was the preferred technique.

Without the charts being available for review, I would strongly concur that the person of interest be re-examined if at all possible.

posted 12-15-2008 09:38 PM            

Thanks for all of the input regarding my questions on the IR exam and the Miranda Issue. It made for interesting perspectives being put forth. I did hear back from another seasoned examiner that was from the same era and schooled in Keeler. He told me that he made a quick transition when it came to control question techniques (Reid) being introduced and never looked back at the IR exams except for screening purposes. He concurs that knowing the testing used and the examiners proficiency that we should discount using those results totally and try to move on with a re-contact of the "person of interest" and perhaps a new poly.

Again Thank You...Also I sent an email off to our AG's office asking for their opinion on the "Lawyer'd Up" issue, although I as others believe we are in good standing ie: not in custody, nor charged....no problem..so again thanks...I'm still interested in looking back at the old cold cases, that involved polygraph exams and reviewing them.