posted 04-19-2008 06:11 PM            

For a true victim, the memory of the event could be expected to be very arousing for a number of reasons, so false negatives shouldn't be unexpected.

For a false statement (that is, the victim's not really a victim), asking if so-and-so did such-and-such would be expected to do what reaction-wise?

Think about it: "Did Mr. X assault you?" (Pretend that's a good question.) The examinee answers with a "Yes." There's no memory of the event, so there are no emotions that are part of the non-existent memory. The only thing we can hope for is arousal based on the lie (fear of detection, duping delight, etc). But, should we expect that reaction to be larger than the CQs for which there are real memories - and likely emotions - that are brought to consciousness during and following the presentation of the questions?

In a standard "Did you do it?" CQT, the liar has a memory of the event (we hope), and there are emotions tied to those memories - even if it's just the thrill of committing the act. The truthful person has no memory of a crime he didn't commit, so his arousal, if any, would likely be a fear of not being believed in his denial. Again, he too has memories (likely containing emotions) of events that make his answers to the CQs lies. That combination would likely make the CQs very salient - more so than the RQs.

posted 04-19-2008 07:06 PM            

Let's pretend I've made up the accusation that I was touched by you inappropriately. Let's say I take a test and I'm asked if you touched me and I answer with a "yes." Now, since I've made up the allegation, I have no memory of you ever touching me - because you never did.

If I robbed a bank, and you test me on that issue, I have a memory of robbing the bank - a memory that is loaded with emotion related to that robbery. When I recall the robbery, the emotions come with that memory. (It's known as the encoding specificity principle.) That's why we can have a person answer the RQs with a "yes," "no," or whatever - the answer doesn't matter. We're still going to get good reactions even if we tell the guy to say "yes" instead of "no" as we might for a CM test. It's not the answer that is important. It's the question.

Now back to an examiner asking me if you touched me. I say "yes," but I'm lying. Why - other than a weak "fear" of getting caught, should I be expected to react more strongly to that than the CQs for which I have memories and likely emotion.

Think of it this way:

RQ = no memory, no emotion to connect to a memory, but a lie

CQ = a memory (or several), likely emotions, and still a lie

posted 04-19-2008 10:01 PM            

Good topic Barry.

2 cents

posted 04-20-2008 05:51 AM            

I look at it this way. The polygraph is (or should be) used to test a person to see if they committed a particular physical act. The farther away you get from that premise, the less “accurate” the technique is. Now, over the years, we (the polygraph profession) have been extending the basic concept and have been trying, with a reasonable amount of success, to do more than we probably should be trying to do.

In the situation you illustrate, the issue (physical act) is the victim’s lie. The telling of the lie is the act, so it is my opinion we should test the act. In this case, “Did you lie about………”or, “Are you being untruthful about………” At some point in time they lied to an officer/deputy, or lied on a complaint report or statement. I think that is the actual “act” you can test.

posted 04-20-2008 10:28 AM            

Conclusion:

The reults indicate that soliciting "yes" answers in confirmatory testing situations has a higher likelihodd of resolution and no effect on the testing outcome. It appears that soliciting "yes" answers does not affect the nature of the exam. In fact the opinions of all examiners using this technique were favorable. All felt that the relationship between them and the examinee was less adversarial, that question explanation was less confusing and tended to reduce the overall general nervous tension. While these results ca not be quantified they neverhteless have a veriable impact in testing. As a result, withing the CID, solicitng "yes" answers has been expanded to all confirmatory testing.

(whole study is on hardcopy)

I only recall doing one on a victim that stated he was kidnapped and beaten and left in the woods.

It worked I dont remember the questions...

posted 04-20-2008 03:38 PM            

Joe, what you're doing is a "standard" (or as close can be) test on an act, which we all do all the time, and that's my point. What about the "yes" type tests in which we ask if Mr. A did X to you and you say "yes." That's the test. It's not a direct "Did you lie" test, except that it is a form of one, somewhat removed.

My whole question goes to the lack of emotion tied to a phony event for which there is no memory.

When a person signs a false statement for which there is jeopardy, then we would expect some emotion tied to that. If we later ask "Did you do it," the question results in a recollection of that emotion, plus the addition of arousal associated with lying and the fear of consequences, etc.

posted 04-20-2008 04:16 PM            

"For a true victim, the memory of the event could be expected to be very arousing for a number of reasons, so false negatives shouldn't be unexpected."

To me, abosolutely!

"Think about it: "Did Mr. X assault you?" (Pretend that's a good question.) The examinee answers with a "Yes." There's no memory of the event, so there are no emotions that are part of the non-existent memory. The only thing we can hope for is arousal based on the lie (fear of detection, duping delight, etc). But, should we expect that reaction to be larger than the CQs for which there are real memories - and likely emotions - that are brought to consciousness during and following the presentation of the questions?"

Again, absolutely, thats why I wouldn't do it. It seems like a tough struggle to get a more SR to that -- then the CQ. I would prefer: Did you fabricate the your account to the police? Did you lie to the police?

I guess that wouldn't be a confirmatory test then.

posted 04-22-2008 06:20 PM            

Does your original question come from a test done on a deputy in Maine?

posted 04-23-2008 08:09 AM            

The case came through this AM on a "Google Alert" I have for polygraph issues.

posted 04-23-2008 08:39 AM            

Teceno asked Damren the same question in three different ways: "While on a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand? ... While urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand? ... While on-duty, urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand?"

Here's the whole thing if it disappears. I don't know who told the paper my score (+10) as I haven't done anything "official" yet. I won't get the video until today. Also, my employer, the Portland Police Department, has nothing to do with this review.

Deputy passes polygraph in touching case
Darcie_Moore@TimesRecord.Com
04/22/2008
BRUNSWICK — A suspended Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Department drug investigator who alleges inappropriate touching by the Sheriff Mark Westrum during a 2006 boating trip has passed a polygraph test questioning him about the incident.

Licensed polygrapher Mark Teceno has owned a Portland company called Forensic Polygraph Services since 2002. He is a founder of the Maine Polygraph Association and is a full-time law enforcement officer as well. He said Monday that Mark Damren, who is in the midst of a four-week unpaid suspension, passed a polygraph test which he administered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This commentary in the press seems to be just an attempt to shift the attention away from him (Damren)."

Chief Deputy Joseph "Jay" Manhardt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damren's attorney, Michael Turndorf, said Damren took the test Wednesday on a voluntary basis.

An internal investigation is ongoing into Damren's claim against Westrum and another investigation just concluded that found Damren guilty of having pornographic content on his computer, using his department cell phone too much and improperly handling information in ongoing cases.

Damren has contested those charges, though Chief Deputy Joseph "Jay" Manhardt defends the integrity of his decision and questions why Damren hasn't released it to the public. Manhardt said copies of the decision have been distributed within the department.

"This commentary in the press seems to be just an attempt to shift the attention away from him," said Manhardt. "My decision was fair to him and reasonable given the true circumstances of Deputy Damren's misconduct."

Manhardt wouldn't discuss the contents of the decision, but he did confirm that Damren's role as undercover drug investigator will change on May 1 when he returns to the department as a patrol deputy.

Teceno, who said he's completed around 800 polygraph tests since he started as a polygrapher in 1998, said he determined that Damren was truthful in his assertion that Sheriff Westrum had touched his inner thigh or groin while on a boat with Westrum in 2006. Teceno used the University of Utah testing technique, which he said is the most researched and valid testing technique.

Teceno asked Damren the same question in three different ways: "While on a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand? ... While urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand? ... While on-duty, urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand?"

Damren answered "yes" to all three.

Teceno met with Damren in an isolated exam room that's quiet and bare of anything on the walls. Anyone being examined has his or her legal rights discussed.

"No one can be forced to take a polygraph," said Teceno.

Damren's test was extensive, he said, with questions designed to evoke emotion and determine if the subject is using counter measures to skew the results. The tests measure blood pressure, electrodermal activity and respiration — and depend on fear of consequences.

Scoring
Teceno scored Damren's charts between a plus 14 and plus 16. Barry Cushman, a full-time polygrapher for the Portland Police Department, reviewed the charts and scored them at between plus 10 and plus 12. A plus 6 and up means there is no deception indicated (or shows truthfulness); a plus five down to a negative 5 represents inconclusive results and a negative 6 and below indicates deception.

Studies have shown the polygraph is more reliable than eye-witness accounts Teceno said, the worst study putting it at 80 percent and the best at 98-percent reliability.

Turndorf, Damren's attorney who is based in Brunswick, is using the test to pressure Westrum into taking one.

In a Feb. 22 article in The Times Record Westrum stated that he'd take a polygraph to prove that Damren's allegation about the inappropriate touch is not true. As part of an ongoing sexual harassment investigation as a result of the allegation, Turndorf said the independent investigator, Portland attorney Jonathan Goodman, told both Westrum and Damren that he wanted them to take polygraphs, a matter Goodman said he couldn't talk about Monday.

Goodman, selected by Sagadahoc county commissioners Feb. 29, to conduct the investigation, said he couldn't confirm that because the investigation is ongoing and commenting would be inappropriate. He expects to have the investigation wrapped up in a couple of weeks.

"If (Damren) has taken (a polygraph test), I'll factor that in and anything else brought to my attention," he said.

Westrum's personal attorney, Toby Dilworth of McCloskey, Mina, Cunniff & Dilworth, LLC, called The Times Record on Westrum's behalf Monday.

Westrum response
Asked if Westrum had taken a polygraph or if he would, Dilworth said, "I expect that Mr. Westrum is going to follow his lawyer's recommendation about that." That recommendation, he said, is "between Sheriff Westrum and me."

Dilworth, who was a federal prosecutor for 14 years before he went back into private practice, said "polygraphs give both false positives and false negatives. That's why they're unreliable."

Dilworth didn't know what the results of Damren's polygraph were.

"But I'll say this," he said. "Mr. Damren has chosen to try this matter in the media. He's selectively releasing certain information and not other information and ... you have to feel that he's manipulating the media."

Damren and his attorney have shared documents and information with The Times Record but Turndorf would not release the results of the internal investigation handed down to Damren by Manhardt on April 3. Turndorf claims the report is full of falsehoods that he would give weight to by releasing the report.

Turndorf responded to Dilworth's assertion about media manipulation.

"Look, when it suits Mark Westrum's purpose to manipulate the media, he does so," Turndorf said.

Turndorf defended polygraph tests and the fact that law enforcement agencies have people who do the tests on a full-time basis for all kinds of cases including murders, arsons and sexual offenses.

Teceno said that based on a scoring algorithm he used with Damren's data, there is a less than 1-percent chance a deceptive person could induce the same scoring data that Damren did.

"This is a public official," Turndorf said of Westrum. "The public theoretically votes the public official into office and so they have a right to know if there are improprieties taking place and to make their own decision. At this point in time, it is clear that events that are taking place in the sheriff's department and in the administration require change. And in the absence of significant change, I don't anticipate anything will improve in the department."

Turndorf said Damren and Westrum are the only two who know what happened on the boat that day and both are saying two very different things — which he said suggests Westrum should follow through on his offer to take a polygraph test.

"We've done it," said Turndorf. "Now you step up to the plate and prove us wrong."

Linda McGill of Bernstein Shur represents Sagadahoc County and said Monday that she was not aware that Damren had passed a polygraph. She said that no one from the county will be speaking about the sexual harassment investigation until it has concluded, "which is appropriate under the law and under my opinion, ethical business practice."

"The Commissioners have made every attempt to conduct an investigation that's objective, fair, arms length..." McGill said, adding that it is unfortunate and unusual that a person or people who could benefit from the investigation are commenting on or undercutting it.

posted 04-23-2008 08:54 AM            

I don't recall reading any material indicating anything but a negative response should be received for a RQ. We're running a fine line on semantics, but a RQ is a "possible lie" and the CQ a "probable lie." I prefer to use questions that will elicit a "no" response to both the RQ & CQ.

I agree with rcgilford's comment that the lie is the act that can be tested. After a proper pretest, "Did you lie to me/LE when you stated you were inappropriately touched by John Doe." A "true victim" would not be lying to this question.

I stay away from a "yes" response due to the fact this was how I was instructed; and, again, I haven't read any material that supports a change away from this method.

posted 04-23-2008 10:00 AM            

I agree we don't detect lies, we're structuring a question hoping for the most significant change, while working within an accepted procedure.

posted 04-23-2008 03:26 PM            

Did you make a false report about that man touching your groin area?
Did you make a false report about being touched on your groin by that man?
Did you make up that story about that man touching your groin area in that boat?

posted 04-23-2008 04:08 PM            

Attorney for Westrum says sheriff passes polygraph
Darcie_Moore@TimesRecord.Com
04/23/2008
BRUNSWICK — Sagadahoc County Sheriff Mark Westrum's attorney said that Westrum passed a polygraph test Tuesday regarding an allegation that he had touched drug investigator Mark Damren inappropriately on a boat ride on the Kennebec River in August 2006.

The finding contradicts the results of a similar test taken last week by Damren, in which a polygrapher judged that Damren was telling the truth about Westrum touching him.

"Sheriff Westrum had a polygraph examination today and he passed it on the question of whether or not he touched Mark Damren while on the boat," said Toby Dilworth of McCloskey, Mina, Cunniff & Dilworth in Portland on Tuesday afternoon. "The polygraph was taken by Delton Record ... a polygrapher who has more than 30 years experience."

Dilworth said Record is based in Rye, N.H., and has testified as an expert in Massachusetts and New Hampshire 20 times. He works for police departments, district attorney offices as well as private corporations, according to Dilworth.

Record did not return calls Tuesday and today seeking verification of Dilworth's statements.

As in the case of Damren's test, which was administered by Mark Teceno of Forensic Polygraph Services, Westrum's polygraph test will be sent to Barry Cushman of the Portland Police Department for review, Dilworth said.

"I'm not going to release them to anyone other than Barry Cushman and (Jonathan) Goodman," Dilworth said of the test results.

Attorney Jonathan Goodman of Drummed Woodsum in Portland was selected by Sagadahoc County Commissioners to conduct an investigation as a result of Damren's allegation. Goodman said Monday that he would consider a polygraph taken by Damren, "and anything else brought to my attention" in his investigation.

Attorney Michael Turndorf, who represents Damren, said Monday that Goodman asked both Westrum and Damren to take polygraphs. Goodman couldn't confirm the request Monday because of the ongoing investigation and state statute that prevents him from discussion it.

However, said Dilworth, "we did this in response to Goodman's request."

Dilworth said Westrum had just taken the test so he didn't have all the details but listed the two questions asked related to the touching allegation: "Did you deliberately touch Mark Damren while he was urinating on the day in question?" Westrum's answer was no, which Record found to be truthful. The next question was, on the date in question, "Did you deliberately touch Mark Damren on the hip?" Westrum answered "no" again.

Dilworth attacked Damren's claims.

"There's all sorts of other evidence that shows that Damren's story just doesn't add up," he said. "It doesn't make sense that a man is going to try to grope another man on the side of a boat in a busy waterway on a busy summer afternoon, with people going by and people on the shore. And it doesn't make sense ... Damren's story doesn't make sense in that, if it happened the way he said it did, someone would have ended up with a bloody nose or in the water."

Dilworth couldn't speak to how both Damren and Westrum could pass a polygraph test with opposite results, but said "we know from the literature that polygraphs give false positives and false negatives."

Damren's account of the story alleges both men were drinking at the time and asked if that could play into the results, Dilworth said, "I have no idea." Asked if he expected that to be part of Goodman's investigation, he said, "I'm sure John's investigation is thorough, so yeah."

Teceno also could not be reached by press time.

Dilworth was asked Monday by The Times Record — in advance of a Tuesday story about Damren's test — if Westrum had taken or planned to take a polygraph test, to which he responded "that's between Sheriff Westrum and me."

Asked Tuesday if he had advised Westrum to take the polygraph, Dilworth again said that under attorney-client privilege, "I can't tell you what I tell him or what he tells me." That is he cited for not telling The Times Record Monday that Westrum would be taking a polygraph test.

Dilworth said Delton Record was recommended to him by other lawyers who had used a polygraph examiner recently.

"I wanted someone who ... was not a law enforcement officer in Maine, who would not be accused of treating Mark Westrum favorably because he was a sheriff, and I didn't want someone who knew Mark Westrum or Mark Damren."

Turndorf, contacted Tuesday, said he didn't about anything about Westrum's test.

"Obviously the results will have to be examined before anyone can say they're reliable," he said. "I give it no weight until I see everything. It doesn't excite me too much, frankly. If in fact Mark Westrum was asked if he deliberately touched Mark Damren on the hip and Mark answered truthfully, then that question in my mind is about as useful as asking if he drives a police cruiser," because touching his hip is vastly different from the groin and thigh area where Damren alleged Westrum touched him.

Turndorf noted that Damren's polygraph charts will be open and shared with the Westrum and his attorneys, but said he doesn't expect that to be the case with Westrum's polygraph.

posted 04-23-2008 06:43 PM            

While urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand?

While on-duty, urinating from a boat, did Mark Westrum touch your inner thigh or groin with his hand?"

No one is going to come up NDI on these questions if they are lying. These are very "hot" questions.

After a proper pre-test, anyone who was lying about being touched should have strong reactions here. I don't know what his comparison questions were but assuming they were "normal", the liklihood of this being a false negative are really slim.

Of course this is merely my opinion which is like a ceratain hole in a certain place...everbody has one.

I agree with Bob that had he failed these questions, we would not have been able to know with any certainty wheather the man touched his inner thigh or groin area, but the reality is, if he scored NDI on these, it really doesn't matter. (spelling doesn't count on forum opinions does it? (LOL)

posted 04-23-2008 07:05 PM            

The suspect was being tested on touching the victim, in general, and also touching the victim on the “hip.” To me, those are different body parts than the victim's RQs.

Example: If a female sexual assault victim is NDI on questions such as, “Did Joe touch your breast?”, and Joe is tested and is NDI on, “Did you touch her stomach?, then Joe has not been tested on the issue (assuming the victim’s complaint is touching the breast).

I also understand that in this situation the suspect's polygraph examiner is probably developing RQ based upon what the suspect and his lawyer's are telling him.

Am I being too technical on body parts? I don’t think I am.

posted 04-24-2008 12:06 AM            

As Barry points out, in a criminal sexual incident or any physical crime between two or more persons both the victim and suspect have a memory and an emotional-physiological attachment to the incident (albeit different). Asking a victim the ‘Did X occur’ question would logically stimulate that emotional-physiological response and presumably lead to a false positive.

I guess one could weigh the facts of an incident and decide that the above might not be true. However, this leads to questioning as to why you might ask one a “hot” question and not another.

For me, the confirmatory examination on the direct issue for an alleged victim is did they lie. It is the false report, testimony, affidavit, etc… that is the crime for them and will ultimately get them in trouble.

The aforementioned has no salience to the true victim, as their concern is with what they were victimized.

The other question that Barry posses is whether false negatives related to an issue that lacks emotional-physiological attachment due to absence of memory is probable. I believe that there is emotional-physiological attachment to a false report and the potential social stigmas that may follow it.

In looking at some of the recent cognitive research in relationship to polygraph (mostly CIT), salience must be present in the stimuli at a greater level for the respective condition in order for the desired outcome to prevail.

So, in the example given by Barry, the question for me would be three fold.

Firstly, are both sets of stimuli (comparison and relevant) plausibly equal absent relevant salience?

Secondly, did both sets of stimuli have a plausible ability to create relevant salience for the respective condition?

Thirdly, did the subject give a greater physiological response to one of those sets of stimuli?

If so, one could expect that the subject gave their larger physiological responses to the appropriate stimuli and thus are of the respective condition (i.e. deceptive or truthful). Even in this situation, both stimuli are manufactured through a structured interview process and the subject is connected to that which has relevant salience to them.

I would not think that this is the best case scenario for this type of examination but it is plausible that the results are correct. This is the variable ridden process we all call polygraph.

The hip examination to me, if true, would be nothing more than testing for the salience of novel stimuli.

posted 04-24-2008 02:04 AM            

There are two or three different issues here.

1) the "yes" answer confirmatory question - in which the subject does not even have to lie about a serious behavioral concern in order to defeat the test

2) the science of attaching our pneumo-tubes to one person, in order to reach through the etho-sphere of time and space to investigate the behavior of a person who is NOT attached to those-there pneumo-tubes

and stat's additional discussion about

3) Did you lie to me about... which make the examiner a component of the stimulus (the stimulus should be the behavioral issue/allegation, not the examiner - else we validate a whole big bunch of excuses about why people fail polygraphs because examiners are jerks)

I generally don't run these tests. Not saying I wouldn't under certain circumstances. However, it seems like I've seen more confirmed false negatives and confirmed false positives around these kinds of questions than the standard behaviorally descriptive/time-delimited did-you-do-it zone comparison questions.

I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that these questions violate a number of assumptions, principles and requirements of science. One of those principles is the idea of parsimony. Parsimony tells us that any theoretical explanation of why the polygraph works, needs to also explain why it works under various conditions, and why it would fail to work. Fear, and FFF are NOT parsimonious explainations. Neither is Guilt or the behavioral act of lying. FFF is a convenient mish-mash of distinct physiology - FF are BAS, while the third F is BIS. Nobody actually fights or flees a polygraph. Neither to they truly Freeze. Its just BAS and BIS. Makes you wonder, done'it. Fear cannot explain Why the DLCs work. Lying cannot explain why CITs and SPOTs work while having the subject simply repeat the last word of the question. Guilt cannot explain why the polygraph works with "conscienceless" psychopaths. Neither can fear; psychopaths have low fear-conditioning. Anxiety is similarly inadequate, because plenty of people diagnosed with anxiety disorders have passed and failed polygraphs accurately (besides that, we generally misuse the construct of anxiety, which is a category of psychiatric disorders). Nervousness too is inadequate to explain why the polygraph works because most everyone is nervous at their polygraph.

One related problem is that we polygraph professionals who believe in these constructs to make the polygraph work will tend to attempt to stimulate those phenomena at the time of the test: fear, guilty, anxiety, nervousness, FFF. Is it any wonder our detractors think we're a bunch of meat-heads.

It seems to me that the two well-understood and know constructs that we should be discussion more are cognitive/prefrontal theory and its relationship to physiological task demans, along with orienting theory, and conditioned response theory. If you take the time to think about it. These theories can begin to account for the range of circumstances under which the polygraph works. Interestingly, they are also capable of informing us about the potential and real problems we might occasionally encounter with polygraph accuracy. Furthermore, these psychological and physiological mechanisms have been extensively and intensively studied and validated as workable constructs in our sister sciences. Inn'at nice.

For those who want to say the orienting is about CIT/GKT exams... I defy anyone to show me how the orienting response is suddenly switched "off" simply because we have chosen a different examination technique. If the orienting response is available, then it is available during any type of polygraph test.

So, confirmatory test are potential trouble. They still may be quite valuable in situations such as informant/source testing, when green-lighting someone with no attempt to shake-the-tree would be unwise. This is not the case with victim-confirmatory testing.

I believe these tests deserve further study, in order to learn how to minimize errors.

more later. I've got to get back to work.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)