posted 02-06-2008 10:22 AM            

Subject was HIV pos---no aids. AFMGQT----pcsot. Stim was blind, target was #7. Examinee health was rough---age 34, child molest, targets were porn, being alone with minors, and illegal drugs.

ALSO, ignore the fact that I had improperly marked the Sacrifice Relevant as being answered "no". Stupid me did that for almost a year on several templates. duh

blind stim 0-1---target #7

blind stim 0-2

chart 1-1

chart 1-2

chart 2-1

chart 2-2

chart 3-1

chart 3-2

posted 02-06-2008 10:48 AM            

back in a bit.

r

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

posted 02-06-2008 11:08 AM            

----cool, i right clicked Rays avatar (picture) and clicked "open link" below my post where I could view text and it took me to photobucket where I cut and pasted the HTML code, and STOLE RAYS COOL AVATAR!!!!muuuhhahahahaha

ah, technology in it's most sophisticated form.

posted 02-06-2008 11:15 AM            

Now give the avatar back.

I've got DI (sorry, SR) at R4.

r

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

posted 02-06-2008 11:24 AM            

Not fair. Score 'em up please.

You zero'd the cardio on chart 1, C7?

posted 02-06-2008 11:31 AM            

C7 on chart one didn't bother me, but the cardio at R6 looked like it began before the stimulus, so I zeroed it.

C5 and C7 on charts 2 and 3 looked suspicious to me.

r

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

posted 02-06-2008 12:46 PM            

This was a guy who was an impoverished homosexual male---a real shut-in. HIV, no job, feels run down most days---expresses complete disinterest in a relationship or even friends. Acute dynamic risks included prior sexual (oral on) conviction with same sex 13 yr old, and depression--- and filthy hygiene----stinky, and allegedly having a rotten little apartment filled with dirty dishes, dirty socks, and a couch that smells like ass.

He was also a recovering addict, but was a positive member of his group---thoughtful, sorrowful, and brutally honest about his sexual/masturbatory thoughts regarding teen boys----disarmingly honest.

I called an Inconclusive on this test, interrogated as I suspected countermeasures (wastful pursuit), he confessed to masturbating to more thoughts of boys than original, and having a dildo under his couch. He denied using porn, drugs, or having contact.

6 MONTHS LATER----NEXT TEST (test 2)

He fails on unreported sexual contacts and porn-----solidly.
Discloses rubbing and kissing his male roomate---and having an unrequited crush on the man, who is also HIV pos. He says the roomate has some porn and has seen it at a glance, but has not masturbat with it.
Now, the DOC really doesn't like homosexual males with HIV as a general rule....the meds are pricey, and the institutional infection potential is great. So sanctions are put in place----and the roommate is made to leave.

9 MONTHS LATER....(test 3)

Fails the same questions---unreported sex, porn/sex toys, and this time contact with minor.
Interrogate again---this time new themes, and a refusal to accept anymore of his chicken bone confessions----little confessions that explain arousal, but do not justify his lies or progress in group.
He comes clean to a very heavy degree.
For that entire previous year, he had been attending a bathhouse for men, having unprotected sex with COUNTLESS men, of all ages---perhaps even a minor or two with a fake ID. He admitted to knowingly exposed hundreds or more men to HIV. Of course porn is playing on screens throughout the place. He was going there with his roomate about every other night for 1 year.

The DOC picked him up from my office that day.

Very tragic stuff, and it's hard to not feel responsible for letting this jerk groom me into accepting his token disclosures----disclosures that teammembers congradulated me on---not knowing they were such petty behaviors in comparison to what this guy was really doing----after it was too late.

It was this case (on the third test)that made me handle the notion of countermeasures differently, as we examiners can spend too much time mired in paranoia and less time and savvy interrogating targets and behaviors.
Sometimes countermeasure suspicions play a very critical distraction and can distort our interrogative confidence.

posted 02-06-2008 01:25 PM            

Can you say "carrier?"

r

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

posted 02-06-2008 04:13 PM            

I think if I saw C5 on chart 2 in a live test, I would respectfully admonish the subject.

I like Gordon Barland's example, when he says, "just keep doing what you're doing." Ambiguity can be an interrogation technique.

r

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

posted 02-07-2008 03:10 AM         

Stat, I come away with SR (DI) to RQ 4 based on a 7pt scale (but an INC on a 3pt scale with a -2). There were several occasions I would not have agreed with Ray, particularly with respect to the EDR channel(sorry Ray:-) Cht 1: R4/C3- I gave a +1 (with the weight due to increased frequency of response, as opposed to Ray’s -1); Cht 3: R4\C3- I gave 0 (as opposed to Ray's +1; same amplitude even though C3 does appear to have a faster rise time; the peaks of R4 and C5 just don’t quite look right to me, and I chose to 0)

If he was sitting still for the exam (with no head or feet movements which impacted his respiration),then I would suspect countermeasures. Although of the low level variety- meaning he really did not ‘know’ what to do specifically. I think he was just changing his thought process (some form of mental mind game,something to take his mind away from the question;praying,singing a tune in his head,etc) I base that opinion on the significant irregular rate\ rhythm\tidal volume changes occurring in the respiration channel during the course of the exam.

Mentally challenged people (if they know right from wrong) are ‘sharp enough’ to know they got to do ‘something’ in order to muck up the test in hopes to pass. I would have asked after each polygram, what was he thinking about during that chart- with a comment he appears to be thinking of 'other things' during the test because of unusual 'rhythms' occurring(without specifying respiration) and stressing the importance of staying focused to the task at hand.

Meds I don’t see as having any bearing on the test.

posted 02-07-2008 09:14 AM            

Remember that there is no parasympathetic response that "shuts down" the EDA reaction. It's a lack of sympathetic response that results in a return to baseline. Look at how jagged the EDA appears at times. That's probably not something the guy could do intentionally, so something is affecting that channel. Does it get in the way of seeing which reaction (CQ/RQ) has the greatest amplitude? For the most part, no, but I'd still be cautious.

posted 02-07-2008 02:11 PM            

No argument. I scored EDA amplitude only, using 3-position, without any regard for how much bigger. I could just as easily have zeroed those R4s, but what fun would that be.

I wonder about mental activity and EDA. It makes sense physiologically. We need to learn more about mental acivity and its reflection through sympathetic acetylcholine. Cortex (prefrontal/attentional) or executive activity is a function of sympathetic acetylcholine, which might affect sympathic acetylcholine enervating the eccrine sweat pores. How many attention deficit kids do we see who's EDA tracing are all over the place.

I'm with you on the meds too. That is also not the ugliest EDA I've seen this week.

HIV (sans AIDS) meds will be antivirals, and not symptom management.

Side effects we need to be concerned about are

• Sympathomimetic effects (some antihistamines)
  
• Anti-cholinergic effects (some antidepressants)
  
• Corticosteroid effects (asthma inhalers)‏
  
• Extrapyramidal effects (some neuroleptics)
  
• Postural Hypotension effects (some anti-depressants and other, but probably won't affect the polygraph much)
  

Extrapyramidal effects are sometimes managed with constituents like benzotropine/cogentin. I don't know if cogentin is anti-cholinergic.

I don't know much about antiviral meds, but I haven't heard about these side effects.

The caveat will be that some might cause nausea problems. Nausea itself shouldn't affect the polygraph any more than stomach grumbling (which is hardly even noticeable in the data). Most patients will habituate to mild nausea. However, severe cases might get anti-nausea meds, some of which (like scopolamine) have anti-cholinergic effects (dampened EDA). It would probably be much more dampened than this charts exhibits.

I have a confirmed scopolamine CM case.

I've heard Bruce's spiel about cocaine users - strong reaction and then an abrupt 45 degree change in direction downward. It would be nice it human physiology were that convenient. Bruce has never shown or published that data, but he makes that demonstration with impressive hand gestures that mimmic the action of the chart tracings. We all need to be more demanding about trainers/marketers, and insist that professionals refrain from making assertions based on anecdotal (even if professional) experience that is not really demonstrated in data. We are all to comfortable touting our "expertise" or "expert opinion" as a somehow reasonable stand-in for the absence of data. Reliance on expert opinion may be unfortunately necessary in court, where judges must make decisions about thing for which they make know very little, and come to defer to recognized experts. In science, expert opinions are most often found to be of no greater value than non-expert opinions. Expert opinions are called "untested hypothesis." No credible scientist would ask that his expert opinion or untested hypothesis substitute for conclusions based on the study of data. If we don't known, then we don't know. That simply means we need to study the data. It doesn't mean we proceed (in science) with a conclusion supported only by expert opinion. In real-life pragmatics, we often do proceed with nothing more than expertise. That is fine in community pragmatics. However, polygraph science needs to stick to the principles of science. When we don't know, we say that we don't know. When we say we know something, we demonstrate how we know it, so that it can be replicated.

r

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