posted 11-30-2007 12:29 AM            

B+E to e vehicle(politician so you know how the priority customer goes) a month ago. The victim came face to face with the subject.

Tonight he sees the subject at a local store and Id's him. The victim is sure it is him. He calls the police and lucky for us he has a crack pipe.

An experienced detective, with Reid training, goes after him for an hour and a half. Nothing. They call me in.

Detective tells me without the ID he would say he is telling the truth.

I test him and felt very good about my controls. Polyscore says DI , OSS is -22. I go after him and every word out of his mouth is exactly in line with what someone innocent would say. He was adamant. The detective went after him again and nothing.

Usually after they go to jail on a warrant they get silent. He went to jail still saying the ID was bad and the poly was not accurate-- all the way out the door after we were done questioning him.

The detective says again, just by the way he is acting if it wasnt for your results I would say he didn't do it. We did charge him on the ID by victim.

Now I think....Did I make the right call? I will handscore tomorrow.

[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 11-30-2007).]

posted 11-30-2007 02:11 AM         

I've also learned that many times when a client is DI- and comes across verbally/behaviorally as truthful- he is just a good con & manipulator, and is in fact DI via admission given at later time. Confirming a false negative doesn't happen too often- unless there is some very specific evidence found.

Try not to loose too much sleep over it- save those worries for the violent crime cases

posted 11-30-2007 09:50 AM            

Like Bob said, after you have scored out the charts, check the computer scoring system and if there are differences and if so look and see why before announcing your decision.

I would also hand score immediately upon completeing the charts. Don't wait a day or two.

Also, if you don't have another examiner close by to QC your charts, you can zip them by email and several of us would be willing to QC them for you.

posted 11-30-2007 09:53 AM         

I agree with Taylor. Hand score your charts and then have someone else score them if you are lucky enough to have access to another examiner.

posted 11-30-2007 09:53 AM            

That would be most interesting.

We've all seen cases for which we disagree with the computer, and I agree they are generally cases for which the data themselves are of suspicious authenticity. No computer scoring algorithm developed so far is intended to score bad data to a reliable conclusion. I'll assert that applies to Axciton's claims to detect CMs also, because they have virtually no documentation on how that is supposed to work. It might be possible to ID bad data, but the proposition of accurately interpreting bad data is a real long-shot.

If you can't post the chart, you could send them to me, and I would happily convert to .jpg and host them in a secured webspace.

We should be most interested in these particular cases, because they may represent the greatest potential learning opportunities. Review of these cases also educates us, as professionals, about how to interact reasonably with each other around difficult cases. No one enjoys the awkwardness of trying to do a live review of a difficult case with professionals who have no experience in discussing these matters calmly, without judgement, and without caving in to the unhealthy impulse to needlessly indict the work of a competent professional.

I have an interesting case I'd like to post. I'll put it up shortly.

Please let us know if we can see this test.

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 10:27 AM            

I'll address my reasoning. I was taught in one seminar that after you polyscore, if it is DI you spin the screen around, show them, and say, "What does this mean? What are we going to do about it?" I have had pretty good success with that. When they see the red writing, sometimes you can see the defeat on their face. I am the only examiner in the area, and it seems the Detective/Sgt. only wants confessions from me.

Also, doesn't hand scoring take some time? I like to interrogate right away, or if they are NDI, kick them loose.Its only in special cases like this that I hand score the next day. I mean if someone is -38, do you still handscore? I will do it, I want to do things right. I guess I thought I had a bit of a shortcut.

Nate Gordon does QC for me but that takes a few days; until I get email set up. I will be in his advanced class next week.

posted 11-30-2007 10:45 AM            

Donna and Ted are correct. Handscore first and go with that decision.

Polyscore and OSS are "after the fact" processes (I consider polygraph gimmicks) that I use only for a prop when my verbal I and I techniques are "less than." This is especially useful with young people who might believe a computer before a person...

Anyway, in the words of some DoDPI instructor; somewhere in my past, I repeat to you the most important thing an examiner must remember, "BELIEVE YOUR CHARTS!"

If you stick with your charts (and you know how to score) you will be fine and rarely wrong. It is easy to get caught up in the push by a detetcive or chief to find the person a particular way. Believe your charts! They will tell you the truth.

Best Regards,

posted 11-30-2007 12:08 PM            

Nate's Horizontal method is sooo long. I do have the Algorithm for that.

I understand your points about not short-cutting with the scoring, but for example last night. It's like midnight. The detective kinda wanted to get out of there, he had to be back in a 0400 for surveillance
and 7 Point for me even takes fifteen- twenty minutes. If I did checkmark I could probably speed it up a little. But I think its tough for them to sit around for three hours and wait for me, especially if I dont come out of there with a confession.

Jim, Beleive in your charts! I know have been told that, but I still have to do it.I guess that comes with time.

Thanx guys, this really livened the board up.

I wish they were all easy. The first one I did for them they interviewed the guy for 7 hours over two days, after testing him he confessed to me in 5 minutes. I guess their all not that easy!

posted 11-30-2007 12:10 PM            

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 12:50 PM            

that sounds like a personal problem...

Besides, it was time to trim your nose-hair anyway - I've seen your pictures (looking around for an example to post...)

Actually I test quite a few well dressed folks, yesterday it was a tenured history professor.

I don't really have a preference - except those goat-herders from the Colorado outback.

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 01:21 PM            

With the Utah and DACA tests, you need to know your score after three charts to know if you're done. If not, then you run more charts, so you've got to be able to score as you go. It's not that tough once you get used to it. With some tests you can just mentally note "...that CQ's a plus something... that one is too... and the third one is as well." You're at at least a plus three with one chart.

posted 11-30-2007 01:35 PM            

Come to think of it, maybe the skittles are why I always run that extra 6 charts in addition to the 3. hmmmmm

posted 11-30-2007 01:43 PM            

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 02:41 PM            

good gosh! Everybody was hibernating until we started talking about personal hygeine issues. Where'd that come from...?

Buster, confidence in your charts does come with time and experience. BUT, until it comes to you, believe in them anyway...

And, for the record, trying to evaluate charts while you're collecting them is OK, if you can accomplish it; and the charts are obvious. If not, always take the time afterwards to conduct an appropriate evaluation, even if it is from the computer screen.

As far as hygeine, I agree with Ray. Give me your tired, smelly and desheveled. I love it! When I was at another place, before here (Vegas), I had detectives trying to outdo each other with smelly suspects. Man! When they raised those arms to attach the pneumo's; whew!!!

Ya'll have a good one (Barry, "ya'll" is a single syllable southern word meaning everybody...) LOL

Jim

posted 11-30-2007 02:57 PM            

I run similar to a Utah Barry.
(2) C-R C-R C-R Countermeasure Question
(3) C-R C-R C-R Countermeasure Question
(4) R-C R-C R-C Countermeasure Question

I can get an idea from looking at the GSR on how the guy is doing, but actually keeping track of a score, I am not that comfortable yet.

By the way he was -16 by hand and -42 by Nates software.

posted 11-30-2007 03:04 PM            

Test cancelled due to Behavioral countermeasures. I kept barfing in my mouth. His agent told me that he never smells. I gave him to another examiner---no time for turdy types. Sacket and Ray must be like racoons---they love the smell of rotting flesh.

posted 11-30-2007 03:09 PM            

quote:

---

even if it is from the computer screen

---

The Utah Scoring System expects you'll be scoring off the screen, utilizing the computer to make that job easier (e.g., increasing gains, data editing, etc).

posted 11-30-2007 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

the inside of a rotten taun taun

---

posted 11-30-2007 03:16 PM            

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 11-30-2007).]

posted 11-30-2007 04:21 PM            

you almost sound like you've got something against rotting flesh.

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 04:43 PM            

As for smelly SO's I actually told one go brush his teeth or I wasn't testing him! After that the halfway house always made sure the So's were showered before my exams.

Back to scoring. I use the 3 point unless it is inconclusive and then I go back to the 7 pt. Buster - don't over evaluate your charts. And tell the detectives to wait! Don't let anyone rush you.

Barry, I also score 'in live' and then go back and do a quick (sometimes not so quick) review after. I also have the examinee facing me so I can see any movements. I don't understand why examiners are still having the examinees on the other side of the desk facing away. I would think you could miss too much.

posted 11-30-2007 05:28 PM            

ps. I am not above using morbidly obese nudes for body templates.

E

posted 11-30-2007 05:36 PM         

I wholeheartedly agree with Taylor, Ted, Jim, et al about hand scoring and believing in your charts. It will become second nature and take less time (in most situations) with more experience. Also, having someone readily available who can QC your charts always helps, but that is not always an option.

My only other constructive comment relates to your initial post in which you wrote in part, “An experienced detective, with Reid training, goes after him for an hour and a half. Nothing. They call me in.”

In a later post you wrote, “I understand your points about not short-cutting with the scoring, but for example last night. It's like midnight. The detective kinda wanted to get out of there, he had to be back in a 0400 for surveillance and 7 Point for me even takes fifteen- twenty minutes. If I did checkmark I could probably speed it up a little. But I think its tough for them to sit around for three hours and wait for me, especially if I dont come out of there with a confession. “

I have always been trained to not conduct an examination right after the examinee has undergone an interrogation. You wrote that the detective had gone after the examinee for an hour and a half. If the detective was very accusatory, it could have possibly sensitized the examinee to the relevant issue. Just a thought. Within the private sector, it is very common to have the client (attempt to) dictate what questions to ask, etc. There have also always been institutional pressures: How many exams to run in a day, confession / admission rates, etc. If the detective needed to go on his way, then perhaps it would have been better to conduct the examination the following day or perhaps another day. That would give ample time to pass after the detective’s interrogation and give all parties a chance to get some rest. Remember that you are examiner and if the conditions aren’t right, don’t run the exam.

I must qualify my comments by stating that I have never conducted examinations as part of an active criminal investigation; however, for the past 12 years, I have only run specific issue examinations, mostly involving examinees who allegedly committed criminal acts. I do have the luxury of scheduling my examinations. Also, I was previously an examiner in the private sector for almost four years. I do realize that there are pressures to get the job done. Just a thought for future examinations. Take care.

posted 11-30-2007 05:56 PM            

NEVER EVER BE AFRAID TO CALL INCONCLUSIVE/ NO OPINION. The pressure to make a call will always be there----so learn to explain what it means---use plenty of analogies. I don't cvare what some would say, some formats used in our profession cause a higher level of inconclusives than others. No one likes inconclusives--least of all the examiner. Tell your superiors--in an impathetic way---that you don't like them either. The common knowledge is that newer examiners get more inconclusives----who knows precisely why. It's probably a number of reasons. A good rule of thumb is to not hype your tests with a pre-pretest drum roll to your authorities---because when the dreaded INCL arises---they tend to disappoint more. 2 cents

posted 11-30-2007 06:03 PM            

Hey Eric, do you have the GIMP? I don't use photoshop, but the GIMP does everything that photoshop does and its free and open source - though it has a Linux type windowing system that is a little odd at first.

By all means send the pic of Eric.

Is it the one where his nose hairs look like a handlebar moustache?

Here is an old-fashioned way of damaging someone's mug (snow fight with the kid).
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/rnsnowdamage.jpg

and of course, another sneaky way of messing with someone's pic
http://www.raymondnelson.us/images/vaughan_rabbitears.jpg

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 07:02 PM            

A little on topic now.

I agree with the wisdom of not allowing oneself to be rushed.

Just because they want a fast or simple answer does not always mean there is a fast or simple answer.

I don't score live, but can score fairly quick in between charts.

I also like three position scoring, as I'm suspicious of the arbitrariness and convenience of things like ratios. The theoretical rationale of comparing larger to smaller reactions is simple and robust; but who has ever shown, through data, that a ratio of 2:1 provides discriminate validity while a weaker ratio, say 1.5:1, does not. Besides I rarely see ratios of 3:1 or 4:1. I do not believe that the search for greater diagnostic data will be satisfied in the realm of larger or more obvious response difference. Rather, it seems far more likely that greater diagnostic and differentiating information may be gleaned from smaller or more subtle response differences, or other data concerns such as quality/integrity/authenticity.

As far as trusting your charts - trust 'em.

It is not our job, as field examiners to worry about false positives. It is the role of the field examiner report whether someone is or is not reacting significantly to the test questions. It is the role of the scientist and researcher, and perhaps the QC reviewers and attorneys, to wonder about false positives and false negatives. Just remember which hat you are wearing.

More later on the ethics of computer scoring algorithms.

r

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

posted 11-30-2007 07:31 PM            

"Don't hype your tests too much" Maybe I should stop telling them "Get your popcorn ready," when I get there -like TO.

In what I am doing now I don't think its realistic that these guys aren't going to go after them first. I put that on the rules, but if something big happens they usually give it a shot first, then call me. I spoke with a very well respected ex-trooper-examiner and he said the same thing. I don't see how to correct this. They don't like to schedule tests because if they do the person never shows up. Or if they speak with a lawyer, they will NEVER take a test. I have passed some people with some pretty high scores in these instances.

I probably lost 15-20 tests this year with people who were going to come back to take a test and said that their lawyer said no, or they never show up and are never heard from again. Its tough to get them in to talk voluntarily anyway, getting them back again is even tougher. Thats why I am a bit jeaolous of PE testing. They have to sit in that chair and have to cooperate.

The only reason I got a shot last night is because of a CDS arrest as a tool.

I am still shocked at the amount of responses, thank you guys/Donna so much.

posted 11-30-2007 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

It is not our job, as field examiners to worry about false positives. It is the role of the field examiner report whether someone is or is not reacting significantly to the test questions.

---

We've got some 20-year-old cold cases out there because false positives sent investigators down the wrong road. We've got DA's deciding whether to prosecute or not.

quote:

---

More later on the ethics of computer scoring algorithms.

---

posted 11-30-2007 08:26 PM            

It is our job to conduct the test properly, according to procedures determined by studying data and outcomes. That absolutely includes your points about waiting until the examinee is calmed down into a suitable mental state.

It is unethical to conduct an examination in a manner, or under circumstances, in which we know there is an elevated risk of achieving an erroneous test result.

So, to clarify:

After conducting an ethical and proper test, it is not our role, as field examiners, to second-guess the meaning of the reactions. In part, that pondering of false-positives is the role of QA processes.

more in a bit.