posted 04-11-2006 10:34 AM            

However, I don't see much in this test.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060408.html

Any thoughts?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-13-2006 05:32 AM            

There are a number of chilren involved, and I tested the guy a number of times.

see
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060401.html
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/060406.html

during which he employes a variety of respiration strategies in addition to physical activity during comparison and irrelevant questions.

Those features do not appear to be present during this test.

We know that mental countermeasures are weak, but does anyone think its possible that is going on here? If so, what might this subject be doing?

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-13-2006 09:38 AM            

In my opinion, these charts are not indicative of mental but might be indicative of physical countermeasures. You have a subject here that is potentially getting better with every examination at employing countermeasures and doing so without producing areas that might have tipped you off previously. 060406 appears more stable than 060401 and likewise 060408 appears even more stable than 060406.

Just because an individual is potentially using countermeasures does not necessarily mean they are doing so to hide deception.

This is just my opinion.

posted 04-13-2006 11:13 AM            

What were yoour questions? Is it possible the CQs were more important to him?

I don't do these tests, so I might be way out of touch with reality, but would an examinee know - after several tests - what to expect for CQs? What are the chances a person could set himself up, so to speak? If, for example, I (as your examinee) expect a question such as "Since your last exam have you lied to your therapists...?" could I tell him or her a "big" lie thinking it will help me overcome the RQs on my next test? I could really be fearful of detection on that question, or perhaps I could have duping delight, but, theoretically, could I fool you on that one? Even if you interrogate on the CQs, I could just throw you a bone and hide the "big" issue since you're not going to break out a CQ like you might an RQ.

What I'm thinking is this: My therapist gives me some homework (I don't even know if that's what they do, but bear with me), and I report back what great progress I've been having with his suggestions, and I tell him how he's helping me to the nth degree. Whatever. In reality, I've done nothing he's suggested, other than feed him what I think he wants to hear, i.e., I've lied about all kinds of things. Moreover, I've been doing things I shouldn't, i.e., those things I do before I start offending, but those are routine and "normal" for me. Could I make the CQs the relevant issues and the RQs less threatening or equally threatening? After all, if I know what a CQ is, might I develop a fear of not reacting more significantly to those than the RQs and have that fear result in greater reactions?

I suspect - as I've said before - it is hard for a DI person not to react greater to the RQs even if he's doing something to enhance reactions to the CQs. But, these people have nothing but time on their hands, and I would think it would be easier for this crowd - than those we test in criminal tests - to begin to find the CQs more of a threat once they realize failing to react to those could interfere with their sexual agenda.

posted 04-13-2006 11:17 AM            

Thanks for your thoughts.

In this case the first two tests 060401 and 060406 involve a direct allegation of a specific behavioral act, though the time from was aged by the delay of the report to authorities by about two years.

The target concern for the data I put up on 060408 is about a non-specific (vague) concern in the absence of any behaviorally descriptive allegation.

I also learned about another test on the same targets as 060401 and 060406, in which the examiner cleared the guy.

I agree that the use of countermeasures is not itself indicative of deception. I've heard other examiners discuss in trainings that it is correlated, and I've seen it in examination reports.

Here is one study.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/1982_PNC_103156.pdf

However that was 1982, prior to the age of the internet.

In my view, early findings like this have lost a lot of meaning now that better countermeasre information is readily accessable.

Many people don't do even trivial and mundane things without first looking online. (I just looked online before buying my kid a cheap watch.) So, I too think we don't know exactly what it means when we observe countermeasures.

For this subject however, it becomes very suspicious that he feels the need to use themm on some tests, but not this one.

Could you elaborate on the physical countermeasures that you see in this test?

I marked a couple of respiratory features as suspicious, and there is one suspicious movement prior to the onset of c3 near the end of chart 2. There is a non-specific EDA reaction segment, during chart 3, that is greater that his reactions to the test qeustions. There is a pneumo artifact following that, swallow or cough, so the reaction may have been in distraction or anticipation of that.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-13-2006 12:13 PM            

Given the series of tests you posted with gross movement in the activity sensor in the first to having an almost lack of movement in the activity sensor in the last, I would opine that the subject likely started his first test using an anal sphincter contraction, tried to make it more subtle in the second and ended by switching to some sort of physical activity in the mouth in the last (e.g. biting cheek, tongue, etc.).

posted 04-13-2006 03:11 PM            

quote:

---

What were yoour questions? Is it possible the CQs were more important to him?

---

The RQs for 060401 and 060406 were different than 060408.

quote:

---

would an examinee know - after several tests - what to expect for CQs? What are the chances a person could set himself up, so to speak? If, for example, I (as your examinee) expect a question such as "Since your last exam have you lied to your therapists...?" could I tell him or her a "big" lie thinking it will help me overcome the RQs on my next test? I could really be fearful of detection on that question,

---

Now that is devious.

I don't think it takes a genius to know after a couple of tests which questions are going to be on the report (the questions about sexual behavior). The other questions about lying and honesty are just the examiner being a jerk.

It seems to me that familiarity with the technique would not help someone pass.

Your suggestion about "priming" the control questions with deliberate lies to therapists reminds me of a case in which an offender subject to monitoring polygraphs took an exam in private, then a week later went to a normal probation maintenance anticipating that the questions would be "since your last polygraph..." I can't recall the exact outcome, but it was entertaining.

quote:

---

What I'm thinking is this: My therapist gives me some homework (I don't even know if that's what they do, but bear with me), and I report back what great progress I've been having with his suggestions, and I tell him how he's helping me to the nth degree.

---

Some therapists give homework, the better ones actually check up on the their clients.

quote:

---

In reality, I've done nothing he's suggested, other than feed him what I think he wants to hear, i.e., I've lied about all kinds of things. Moreover, I've been doing things I shouldn't, i.e., those things I do before I start offending, but those are routine and "normal" for me. Could I make the CQs the relevant issues and the RQs less threatening or equally threatening? After all, if I know what a CQ is, might I develop a fear of not reacting more significantly to those than the RQs and have that fear result in greater reactions?

---

Barry, are you sure your not spending too much time on the anti site?

...fear of not reacting to the CQs...

quote:

---

I suspect - as I've said before - it is hard for a DI person not to react greater to the RQs even if he's doing something to enhance reactions to the CQs.

---

Simple and sensible.

quote:

---

these people have nothing but time on their hands, and I would think it would be easier for this crowd - than those we test in criminal tests - to begin to find the CQs more of a threat once they realize failing to react to those could interfere with their sexual agenda.

---

This is a bit convoluted to me... fear of not being afraid of the CQs causing false negatives???

I do sometimes wonder, when testing a guy on his 30th or 50th polygraph (only one case with this many - not by me), what will happen. In the case of the 50 somethingths polygraph I tested him twice over a period of two years - both INC. He had completed everything they could ask of him in treatment (except passing polygraphs for four years), and managed to approach the end of an eight year sentence without being revocated. Probation was going to revocate and resentence because of his failed polygraphs, when an examiner suddenly cleared him regarding his reported sexual behavior while on probation, a informed the probation officer (who now feels really intelligent for going to that examiner) that the subject is a "spot-responder," and that other examiners didn't notice it.

Well, I got right on the phone and informed people that I had observed a number of spurious grid-loops in the subjects exhaust conjunculator but found them insufficientto call spot-responding. (OK, I'm kidding about this part, but the above part happened.)

**end of rant**

We have to remain conscientious and smart professionals.

Retesting and retesting is not without complication.

quote:

---

Again, I don't think it could be done, but what do you think it would do to your test? I think you could get some confusing INC charts with some subjects. (I think the issue is probably duping delight: "I lied and I'm gonna fool this dummy on this question and this test!")

---

Except this subject is not that psychopathic (and yes, I'm qualified to use the Hare PCL-R). He's average IQ, and works long days running a construction service business. He's adult ADHD. His wife is a smart, detailtype who does the accounting read about the polygraph and Abel Assessment. He's obviously not dumb.

I think its possible he didn't need to use CMs on this test. He definitely reacted to RQs on the second test (with the same targets as the first one).

This guy knows he did not dupe anyone with the first two tests.

As I said earlier, there was a previous polygraph with another examiner that cleared him on the allegations (same targets as 060401 and 060406). I may get a chance to look at those charts.

posted 04-18-2006 07:27 PM            

Added afterthought: As for failure to react to relevants, I have charts from a man who murdered an employee less than two weeks before his exam. He was able to find a polygraph instrument on which to practice and succeeded in nearly eliminating all reaction to relevants. He later pleaded and admitted the practice sessions. Anyone with $1,500 can now buy a practice session with Doug Williams.

posted 04-19-2006 11:57 AM            

I think I agree with you in part on your analysis but you did not say which of the three different examinations (060401, 060406, and 060408) you were looking at, as Ray tested this subject on three separate occasions.

The first two (060401 and 060406) were on the same relevant issue, which was specific to a known action. Correct me if I am wrong, the third examination (060408) was on a non-specific issue, more in the realms of a screening examination.

posted 04-19-2006 12:05 PM            

I've also seen charts on an earlier test with a different examiner, in which the examiner exculpated the subject on the targets of the first two tests. In the video the subject admits to looking up information on the accuracy of the polygraph.

I'm hoping to get the examiner's approval to make the data available for anonymous review.

There is now a criminal filing on the targets of the earlier test.

I have another case to review (two tests on one subject, with an examiner other than myself), and the examiner has given approval for me to post the data anonymously. The tests look clean on my initial first glance. However, the volume of evidence compelled the subject to enter into a guilty plea agreement. So, probation is wondering what to make of those tests.

posted 04-19-2006 08:14 PM            

As I understand it, the dual process theory, as it applies here, relates to a delay caused by multi tasking (system conflict), which could apply to deception as well. The answer (task completion) delay can be an identifier. It is thought that both processing the question and deciding to lie or conceal information will in turn cause a greater delay in one completing a task (e.g. pushing a button or answering verbally) than if one told the truth. The theory itself is much more complex than just the aforementioned. There has been some research conducted on the connection to deception/concealed information but little has been done in regards to countermeasures in polygraph. Here are a few links to research;

Travis Seymour, PhD, http://psych.ucsc.edu/faculty/nogard/cogmodlabsite/projectgkt.htm
Bruno Verschuere, PhD, http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/publications.htm

It has been my experience that physiological responses related to mental countermeasures are usually delayed and physical ones are usually spot on. I am not saying that this is the fact of the matter but only what I have seen in my experience.

I do know that the contraction of the anal sphincter can causes a defecation reflex, which would be seen in the respiration channel.

Anyways, countermeasures and there detection can be difficult, given the number of other variables that may be present at any given time.

Ray, did you contract with the examinee and conduct a “Yes” test? Just wondering because it is my understanding that is part of the PNC. http://www.raymondnelson.us/qc/1982_PNC_103156.pdf

I contract and conduct a modified “Yes” test on every examination but only report noncompliance when the examinee admits to it and details why. I usually do not tell the examinee what I suspect they were doing, how I know what they were doing, and suggest a re-examination of the subject, when denial of the relevant issue is still present. I say usually do not tell them because I did have the occasion where a young man bit his tongue so hard that the blood started coming out of his mouth and running down his chin, so it was too evident not to mention. There was definitive distortion in the cardio on this examination, as well as every other channel, because he flinched when he bit too hard.

posted 04-19-2006 09:15 PM            

I seem to learn something every day, and this has been very interesting.

Some of this I am not familiar with such as defecation reflexes appearing in my pneumo channels. I've had to clean puke off my pneumo tubes, but this ...

I did not conduct a yes test. I have on other tests, but at the time of this test, I was marvelling at how clean the data looked compared to the two earlier tests.

I'm still concerned about the test at which another examiner cleared him on the allegations. 0401 and 0406.

The info on mental countermeasures is very interesting. Thanks. Tommorrow, when its not so late, and when I'm back home, I'll read through it again more carefully. Does anyone have any thoughts about how these observation would be expected to be similar in screening type tests? In 0408 there is no allegation, and the child was interviewed to no result (or a result indicating no information suggestive of any abuse). Is there any reason the observed reactions would be different in the absence of a known incident. I'll have to read it again tommorow to think about whether there are any complications with generalizing info from GQT and CIT to screening type tests. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be interested.

I'm getting a consistent message that the beggest issue of concern here is the possibility of mental countermeasures. The motion is very sensitive, and I never show subjects the test charts, and never indicate how I know something or what exactly is visible in the test data, as that would ammount to "coaching."

So far, I've been unwilling to indicate anything other than an unresolved/inconclusive test result. I find it very difficult to exculpate anyone when they are goofing around with any test. The courts and social services will simply have to do there jobs as to the finding of fact in this case.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-20-2006 05:14 AM            

The information on the defecation reflex was just that, information. As you know, defecation is not always the product of the reflex. If it were, we wouldn't need the activity sensor because the smell would tell.

Again, I am not arguing that anyone is wrong about their opinion on this or that I am right. It simply my opinion, if countermeasures were used, that the subject utilized some sort of oral countermeasure in the last examination (408).

I do not think it is any different in screening than in specific issue testing when it comes to asking less than salient questions, whether comparison or relevant.

As has Jim, I have participated in research in this area. My job was to train approximately 100 subjects in mental and physical countermeasures, with practice on a mock examination. I agree with Jim's assessments on the responses seen.

posted 04-20-2006 11:04 AM            

(I was trying to make a joke about the defecation thing, only I'm not that funny, or so I've been told.)

A yes test would have been very interesting.

I saw the new thread - good timing.

I think it may be time for another new thread on this stuff too.

I'll post more later when I'm done staffing all these blasted problem cases.

I have another countermeasure case for which I've been advised I will be getting a subpoena. Its on the qc index (guess which). The subject is being revocated from a deferred judgement due to lack of progress in treatment and ... not passing polygraphs (I advised against making the polygraph the revocation issue.) He'll fight, as he's got nothing to gain by admitting the violation. Plus, he hates the polygraph and has told me he'd like to litigate the use of the polygraph. His attorney is claiming he can't be expected to pass polygraphs because he's read too much.

We, may have a problem if offenders can negate the unreasonable or unrealistic requirement to pass polygraphs... unless of course they could pass.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 04-20-2006 04:57 PM            

... bunch of overly serious polygraph examiners can figure out when each other is joking...

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)