posted 11-06-2005 10:33 PM         

My (own) opinion is that the use of CMs taints the entire data collection process and thus, invalidates the entire test. I report the findings as No Opinion due to "purposeful non-cooperation/countermeasures". I also know some examiners make the DI call and note the countermeasures. What are your thoughts?

posted 11-07-2005 08:43 AM            

I have included in my reports that the decision is INC and that the data contained tracings consistent with CMs, or something along those lines. After all, unless the person admits it, we are usually confident of what's going on but limited in conclusive evidence. Nobody can argue the charts don't "look like" CM charts.

posted 11-07-2005 11:14 AM            

I agree with Barry. For a call to be DI, you must have the physiological data to support it. Otherwise, with CM's, it must be No Oinion due to noted and observed Purposeful Non-Cooperation (PNC). Even if you obtain a confession or admission, N/O with PNC and post-test explanation of information obtained (i.e. still can't be DI even if they later confess).

I don't know where the PNC term came from, but I heard Dr. Barland use it once years ago, and have used it ever since.

Best to all,

posted 11-08-2005 06:38 PM            

I agree as Barry indicates "the data must be stable and interpretable" but don't agree with his statement that "a DI call is not appropriate."

CM's often do not necessarily distort more than the component involved, i.e. examinee may move their arm w/the cuff & there is a distortion in the cardio tracing. But, what if the GSR and pneumos do not show evidence of distortion?

Other sufficient physiological data may be recorded by the components not affected.

If a CM is observed/detected in one component of a question, are we now automatically excluding all data from the remaining components that do not show evidence of contamination?

posted 11-08-2005 08:33 PM            

I've scored charts that were DI even with CMs, but they were clearly DI even with the CM enhanced CQs. Let's face it, if a guy moves on a CQ that should (theoretically)help him pass. After all, it should enhance at least some of the channels on that question, depending on what the movement is. If it doesn't "help" him, then he's banging the RQs hard because he is DI.

posted 11-08-2005 11:31 PM            

When I score any question in which there has been deliberate distortion, I like to double-check to ensure the indices I use as a basis for the score can't be attributed to the deliberate act.

END.....

posted 11-09-2005 09:08 AM            

I agree; but, only if enough "genuine" gradeable physiological criteria is present. If known and observable CM attempts are present at a majority of CQ's (usually a result of CM overkill) and the charts are NDI (ignoring the CM's), then it must be N/O, due to PNC.

But, we must all be careful. Many examinees are not intelligent enough to employ CM's selectively and many will either attempt them at the CQ's and IR's or, as I have sometime seen, at all questions on the test, trying to distort the entire process. So just because there are CM's at CQ's, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't present elswhere on the test, thereby invalidating the entire process.

If, on the other hand, there is sufficient pure physiology to make a legitimate comparison and grade the charts and they are scored DI, then a DI call is appropriate (as Barry put it, in spite of CM attempts), and I think it should be noted by qualification in the report that the call is made "despite PNC" efforts.

posted 11-09-2005 05:06 PM            

Is anyone interested in on-line review of some CM charts (I'm fairly certain), but it would be interesting to take quick poll - yeah or nay on the presence of CM's???

I could email to Ralph or post a link to my domain, and people could poll in another thread here.

r

posted 11-09-2005 08:43 PM            

Melson - I'd like to review charts you can share. Email me or let me know how I can get to the charts.

END.....

posted 11-09-2005 10:53 PM         

------------------
John 8:32

posted 11-10-2005 08:06 AM            

Jack

posted 11-10-2005 08:09 AM            

only I just got home at about 10 PM, and I'm not going to upload all the graphics on a dial-up

I put them up. I have some more - some are not so obvious.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/111105_1.html

It loaded properly in IE and Firefox, but I've not tried a Mac browser.

r

If you have trouble viewing the images, try

username: polybabble
password: exam

posted 11-10-2005 03:40 PM            

I have a number of thoughts about these charts, and this case as a whole.

(the paul harvey version of this one is coming later)

r

posted 11-11-2005 12:28 PM            

r

posted 11-11-2005 03:28 PM            

The second one I scanned even more briefly as they don't come close to passing the straight face test. The cardio reactions alone - never mind the breathing mess - are way too strong to be an involuntary response. If I spent time on it I doubt I could find data to support a DI call, so this one would get an INC with an explaination of what I suspected.

posted 11-11-2005 04:58 PM            

I have not used a computerized instrument or a CM component so I offer my opinion with this information known. I am not familiar with "pw" noted on the chart (01:22).

I would, if possible, center the GSR tracing between the cardio and lower pneumo. A 4-stage supressed breathing cycle & change in baseline begins in the upper pneumo of SR3 (00:50).

I don't see any valid GSR indices relative to SR3.

The significant change in the cardio baseline (00:51) was probably due to movement, deliberate or otherwise. In my opinion (IMO)the indices observed in the upper pneumo were not caused by movement noted in the cardio component.

Very little distortion is noted (00:49) with the CM CHANNEL at the bottom of the chart, none apparent at the cardio movement (00:51). Should the movement that created the cardio distortion at this location have been identified by the bottom (CM) component?

I would score a -2 based based on the suppression of upper pneumo at SR3, no indices observed at control (C4). I would not score anything else in this spot.

posted 11-11-2005 05:59 PM            

I completely overlooked the arrow, manual adjustment by examiner.

Makes the point moot about the CM channel not having much distortion.

posted 11-11-2005 06:01 PM            

This subject has an extensive knowlege of polygraph countermeasures, and is quite upset with me because I wrote a scathing recommendation that his judge sanction his wife for assisting him to interfere with a process intended to assure his compliance with his court-ordered supervision rules and safety in the community.

I have another subject (intelligent and well-versed in CMs) with a very interesting set of test data I'll put up soon.

posted 11-11-2005 08:09 PM            

In the end - the CM channel has reinforced for me that the data either looks good or there is something wrong.

What is getting really difficult is getting admissions. I have some thoughts on local policy that makes this easier (we have to exploit the subject's narcissistic self-interest) - make it worth it to him to tell us what he knows. This is very difficult when severe consequences are guaranteed in the context of an admission, but not guaranteed as long as CM's can't be proved - and that's a conversation that FOGs would love to observe in the public record.

r

posted 11-12-2005 12:28 AM         

First, I too would like to say thanks for taking the time and effort to post these charts for all to see and comment on. It’s very interesting to hear how others explain what they ‘see’ and how they ‘interpreted’ the polygrams for scoring.

For curiosity and before adding my two cents on the first set of charts;

1] Is there a particular reason that C-6 on chart 1 is a significantly ‘shorter’ question than on Chart 2 and 3? (At the moment I’m thinking the onset of C-6 is actually before the question bar is keyed, and is the reason for the EDR response about 4 secs before the question bar starts)

2] What type of movement sensor are you using, and its placement ? Is it piezo or air bladder style (it has the appearance of air bladder, is that correct) ? And are you using just a butt pad or do you have the arms or feet connected as well ?

posted 11-12-2005 10:33 PM            

You are right about C6 on chart 1 - I recall watching the client closely and hit the n or m key instead of the space to start the question, it was a few seconds before I checked the screen and noticed.

I'm using the pneumatic sensor. I prefer the way the pneumatic models data, compared with the piezzo (I tried both), as it more accurately represents low-frequency (muscle/PNS) data. The piezzo doesn't make sense to me as it reacts much more quickly then resets quickly - unlike voluntary/discrete behavior. Also, I like to seen the respiration in the tracing, both because I can see it working and because breathing is a form of movement. I also noticed I could move my arms slowly without disrupting the piezzo. I'm using only the chair pad right now, and it runs on residual air pressure just like the pneumograph sensors (i.e., without a pump bulb).

In general, I prefer to score to deception whenever possible. However, I recently advocated for some local policies allowing for retest before the imposition of sanctions or consequences when an examinee is willing to discuss his/her knowlege and use of CMs - there has to be some incentive to admit.

With the first case I posted I first busted his use of CMs a couple years ago - and he's been mad at me ever since. I practically yelled at me about getting his wife in trouble at his recent test, though he calmed down when I offered to to have leave. He had previously discussed with me all kinds of reading about he polygraph. (He's a massively depressed and cinical internet child-solicitor, in a dead/joyless marriage) - now 3 1/2 years into a 4 year deferred sentence. He's had approximately eight polygraphs, and failed most. Personally, I hope he loses the deferred judgment, as he would thereby be far less eligible to gain the courts order to end SO registration. In my view he's not a good candidate to disappear from our supervision radar. He appears to have met most of his treatment and supervision requirements - with the exception of satisfactorily resolved polygraph examination results. oI'm not sure how tenacious his PO is going to be in court, but I think think some fights are worth fighting even if we don't like the outcome.

All of the data I'm posting are examples of admitted CM's.

Here is a severe PTSD and chronic pain patient who seems to have studied the polygraph.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/050204.html

And here is a very combative female (bipolar and pregnant) who also studies CMs.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/040305.html
Here is another CM Savy Subject who made admissions
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/111304.html

I'll post a pic of some really good. sphincter CMs in a bit.

I had a recent admission on some very subtle CM's - I'll find it.

I'd like to take the time to mark-up the charts as I see 'em - but for now I'm just putting them up.

As far as I know the directory is fairly secure, and only people in this forum should be able to access it using the supplied login. I don't want these reposted or disseminated outside this forum.

r

posted 11-13-2005 02:42 AM         

After reviewing the charts you posted, my final decision (and two cents) on those charts would have been Inconclusive (No opinion). I would add however, I was ‘close’ to rendering a Deceptive finding, as I numerically scored RQ-R at -2 after 3 polygrams (with -3 being the threshold). (Out of curiosity and for kicks- did you use a computer algorithm, if so which one and what was the computer analysis outcome ?) Barry, am I understanding your final call on this exam set was DI?

No disagreement with ya’ll that CM’s are ‘highly’ suspected on the CQ’s relating to respiraton-cardio, which may have been induced by his covert movements. - I also noticed significant answer response delays to both RQ’s and CQ’s particularly n Chart 2 and 3. This I find rather interesting, because if he was really knowlegeable in using countermeasures, I wouldn’t have expected him to play ‘mind games’ on the RQ’s too. Ray, I noticed CQ 6 and CQ 8 were particulary longer in duration then the RQ’s: I’m curious as to your reasoning ? I would have been more comfortable with a more balanced question duration Could they have been ‘too hot’ or ‘too thought provoking’ causing him to ‘stir some’ in the chair?

In the end, -- I would have been reluctant to make a definitive statement in my report that he ‘did in fact’ use countermeasures without a specific statement from him that he “knowingly and intentionally” engaged in a designed and specific countermeasure effort because he was lying to one or more of the RQ’s. However I would have articulated CM’s were being ‘highly suspected.’ and ‘why’ to give the reader a better ‘picture’.

I probably would have used an Analysis Statement similar to:

“After careful qualitative-quantitative analysis and numerical computation of the psychophysiological data, it is the professional opinion of the examiner that Mr John Does’ polygrams contained significant, specific, but inconsistent responses to relevant questions being posed. Therefore, Mr Does’ polygrams are Inconclusive and no opinion can be rendered in regards to his truthfulness of the matter under inquiry. Qualitative evaluation of the test data revealed periodic unusual psychophysiological activity, and the unusal activity severly impacted the numerical evaluation of the test data. The periodic unusual physiological activity was in the form of abnormal respiration, unusual blood volume-pressure arousal, the appearance of secretive and covert movements. Furthermore significant answer response delays to questions posed were also noted. This unusual phsyiological activity is suggestive of a countermeasure effort. Please be aware that examinees who engage in countermeasure efforts are attempting to control, induce, or manipulate physiological responses in an effort to affect the test data outcome and examiner decision.”

In my Post Test Review Statement, I would have included a line that he denied the use of countermeasures to effect test data analysis- if that be the case.
I too have used both pneumatics and peizo senors- and utilizing both under the arms, legs and buttocks. With both systems I have been able to make deliberate, secretive, and covert movements which were not detected.

However, I tend to think the piezo’s are little more sensitive to movement/pressure changes then the pneumatics- But- I agree the automatic recentering of the piezo’s do not reflect duration of the movement/pressure change like the pneumatics. Close inspection of the piezo spikes, one going above the centerline- followed a few seconds later by a spike going below the centerline will give a good clue as to duration, and the height of the spike gives a good clue as to the amount of pressure change. With the piezo I boost the sensitivity level high enough that it produces a “pnuemo-trace-like” refletion of one chart division (very much like on you displayed on your charts with the pnuematic). Look for anything that does not correspond to the pnuemo trace.

“Proving” the use of mental countermeasures, without admission, we will probably never be able to do beyond doubt. However, proving ‘physical’ countermeasures- we should be able to do very accurately-definitively, and beyond doubt in view of todays sensor technology. I just don’t think the polygraph manufacturers are using the right sensor technology yet- or possibly a combination of ‘different’ senors, which in some manner can truely and accurately monitor the entire body and limbs for minute movements.

Bob

posted 11-13-2005 08:22 AM            

I just got the piezo arm sensors for the Lafayette, and they pick up anything and everything (on its own channel too, if you like). You're right that the butt pad itself will miss things. I think Lafayette has feet pads too.

posted 11-13-2005 10:32 AM            

Thanks for the suggestion - those are fake case numbers.

This gentleman refuses to admit countermeasures, though he has discussed his extensive knowlege/reading of the polygraph and countermeasures a couple of years ago - after I found him using countermeasures then.

quote:

---

“After careful qualitative-quantitative analysis and numerical computation of the psychophysiological data, it is the professional opinion of the examiner that Mr John Does’ polygrams contained significant, specific, but inconsistent responses to relevant questions being posed. Therefore, Mr Does’ polygrams are Inconclusive and no opinion can be rendered in regards to his truthfulness of the matter under inquiry. Qualitative evaluation of the test data revealed periodic unusual psychophysiological activity, and the unusal activity severly impacted the numerical evaluation of the test data. The periodic unusual physiological activity was in the form of abnormal respiration, unusual blood volume-pressure arousal, the appearance of secretive and covert movements. Furthermore significant answer response delays to questions posed were also noted. This unusual phsyiological activity is suggestive of a countermeasure effort. Please be aware that examinees who engage in countermeasure efforts are attempting to control, induce, or manipulate physiological responses in an effort to affect the test data outcome and examiner decision.”

---

This is similar to what I tend to write...

Careful inspection and analysis of Mr. Moe Lester's examination data revealed test data of inadequate interpretable quality, due to the recurrence of erratic and inconsistent physiological distortions through the examination data. Mr. Lester's erratic and inconsistent responses represent a substantial deviation from test data which is normally observed among truthful polygraph examination subjects, and bear a concerning resemblance to strategies intended to defeat the polygraph technique or consciously alter one's physiological responses through somatic or mental activity that is independent of normal and authentic autonomic responses monitored by the polygraph instrument.

It is the opinion of this examiner that there were inconclusive reactions to the examination questions, and no opinion of Mr. Lester's truthfulness or deception can be rendered based upon these examination data.

I don't use the words relevant, control/comparison, or countermeasure in the report, or with the examinee (except sometimes when I mutter to myself about control questions while setting neutral questions)

see http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/011105_1.html

After hearing Gordan Barland a couple of years ago, I've tried to never use the "C" word with subjects. (I also never use the "B" word - breathing.) I never show the examinee the charts - or the computer score - as that is simply coaching the examinee about how much is too much or too little.

I used to describe the countermeasure attempts, but don't anymore - I've found it just invites argument and provides "education" to other subjects when well-intended therapists give copies of the examination report to the subject or have the subject read the report alound in the treatment group (it happens). Also, probation, parole, and prison records are discoverable in the event of a court filing, and some juridictions will simply provide the subject or attorney with copies of the file upon request and without a subpoena.

quote:

---

In my Post Test Review Statement, I would have included a line that he denied the use of countermeasures to effect test data analysis- if that be the case.

---

I used to do this but had an experience testifying, during which a defense attorney (who would not allow me to use the word polygraph in court) had me read only my statement regarding the subjects denial - in front of the case. It was a child sex abuse case, the subject failed the polygraph, made some admissions, and my controlled testimony as a hostile witness actually helped the defense. I had also written that the subject "fully denied" involvement in the alleged offense, which provided additional emphasis when taken out of context. I have since written only "denied" - without emphasis. (Even I can learn to keep things simple somtimes.) That case was later hung jury, and the subject pled to non-sexual child abuse charges before the re-trial.

So, these days I try not to write anything I'm not willing to read - in fragments - in court.

I'm increasingly reluctant to report a deceptive opinion on CM data - and I believe Barry is right about the ASTM standars. I'll check. As PCSOT test are screening test, by definition, the practical meaning of inconclusive and deceptive (and PNC) results is similar. The subject didn't pass.

I've seen reports from some examiners who write something about a known correlation between subjects who employ CMs and the later confirmation of deception. I used to do this, but don't anymore because that research is 20+ years old (about 1982). I'm not sure what the correlation between CMs and confirmed deception would be in the age of the Internet - when anyone with a computer can get information - and when we look online before doing even trivial things like buying shoes or Bronco's memorabilia.

One local regulation that I've advocated is the differential response and consideration for subjects who become more forthcoming about their use of CMs vs those who stand their ground and deny. So, these days I report "inconclusive/no opinion" when the subject admits and discusses CMs - that way they get fewer consequences from the supervision and treatment team. I report PNC for those who do not admit - then recommend the test be QC'd to confirm CMs - then consequence and sanction the bejeezus out of 'em.

Here is the segement from my recommendation on the 111105 subject about two years ago.

I further recommend that before his next polygraph examination, Mr.Lester, along with his spouse, Mrs. Lester, be required to thoroughly debrief, with his supervision and treatment team members, his efforts to access and utilize information regarding how to defeat or alter the polygraph test results. (NOTE: that debriefing should be completed in individual sessions, as such information may be detrimental to the behavior or test results of others in Mr.Lester's treatment group by inadvertently couraging similarly disruptive behaviors in response to their polygraph examination requirements.) Mr. Lester should also be advised to attend all future polygraph examinations prepared to review and debrief his history of accessing and utilized information or strategies intended to alter or defeat the polygraph test results.

Finally, I recommend that Mr.Lester be admonished, and possibly sanctioned, for taking deliberate action that is intended to interfere with his court ordered supervision and treatment in the community, including his progress in treatment, and compliance and safety in the community. Efforts to interfere with one’s supervision and monitoring are generally demonstrated by individuals who are attempting to manipulate their way through treatment without accurately accounting for the issues related to their history of sexual offenses against others and sexual behavior patterns, or who are attempting to preserve their ability to get away with dangerous, unlawful, and abusive sexual behavior.

Probably over stated and belabored - but I've never been accused of being brief, or of not being redundant.

Here is a quote from a draft of some local standards revisions.

quote:

---

Discussion Point: Consideration should be extended to examinees who are forthcoming in discussing their manipulative efforts, with adjusted sanctions and/or consequential responses to be imposed after an opportunity for re-examination.

---

That way they have something to gain by telling us what they know and what they are doing.

Here is the Identifi score of 111105.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/111105_ID.html

I just found a good example of a a complete knucklehead sitting on the motion sensor.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/c/090805.html

He knows he's sitting on the motion sensor and waits for the last control on every chart. He had something he felt he needed to hide - a girlfriend his team didn't know about.

More later.

Its about time for Ralph to move this to a separate discussion thread.

Anyone else have any CM example data to share?

r

posted 11-13-2005 09:53 PM            

Controlled breathing (CB) begins at response to C6; changes in rhythm, regularity and volume. It appears the volume recorded in the pneumos accounts for the increased BP and baseline change in the cardio.

IMO the pneumos and cardio of C6 should not be scored due to the distortion created by the CB.

The GSR could be scored as the CB occurred at a time when it could not have impacted the GSR.

Distortion noted at C6 (02:10) of the CM channel.

I have only copied "C6" at approximately 02:07 of C1, PG2. I don't show a C6 on any other charts I viewed C1, Pgs 1-3.

Trying to access charts tonight and username and password provided aren't working.

What is "pw" referring to C1,PG1 @ 01:22?

END.....

posted 11-13-2005 10:13 PM            

I'll put it back up when I'm sure its not a FOG who gained access inappropriately.

PW is poorly worded (= Ray stutters and drools).

I wouldn't score c6 due to the CB.

I'm kind of impressed with the variety of techniques employed by this subject - he appears to have done homework and prepared thoroughly.

posted 11-14-2005 12:43 AM         

In ref Case # 111105: Chart 1 C-6: As you observed and indicated the ‘movement sensor’ detected movements (down trend) beginning at 2:10 - which we can see coincides with the significant breathing / cardio change. Following the movements sensor line to 2:39, we see another trend change-upward- which again corresponds with a respiratory change particularly in the upper pneumo- which I interpret as ‘relaxation” of the intercostal muscle groups. For this reason, I agree with you C-6 Resp-cardio should not be used for comparative purposes, although the EDR channel is available.

I would like to proffer that this person may ‘not’ be engaging in controlled breathing “intentionally (requiring awareness)” - but the significant respiratory change is occurring unconsciously (without his awareness) due to his efforts at applying a physical countermeasure secretively and covertly. Also take a look at Cht 3- C-8, at the moment of his verbal answer we can see a movement has occurred involving the BP cuff arm- and which may have extended to at least 1:25 when we see another slight movement (may be a slow rotating of the BP cuff arm?) But- look at the breathing in the upper channel- even though the movement sensor detected only a very slight baseline change.

As part of an acquaintance-sensitivity test- I instruct clients to “secretively, sneaking, and with the intent of not being seen” to move each arm and each leg which rests on a sensor pad. I have noticed since doing this, that the more “mental effort” they put into not being seen nor caught by the sensors doing the movements - the more impact it has on breathing and cardio and they are unaware of it. I also give instruction to take three breaths slightly smaller then normal; followed by an instruction to give three slightly slower then normal, and then deeper then normal. I have found by doing this “truly” controlled breathing exercise- there is no distinct drastic blood pressure trend change in the cardio.

I suggest maybe what is occurring is more the result of a ‘multi-tasking’ effort- listening to C-6 to give the appropriate answer, while summoning up the brain resources to concentrate on performing ‘fine motor’ skills to create the movement without being detected. With this in mind and as an example, if one was so focused on “slowly” rotate or lift the arm (fine motor skill) they are more apt to ‘fixate’ the shoulder area first; fixating the shoulder/s is going to be inhibitive to the intercoastals and restrictive to breathing.

Bob

posted 11-14-2005 09:40 AM            

Very interesting observations.

I'm emailing you the new login.

I've noticed a couple of things about the pneumatic sensor (only the chair sensor for now).

If the subject is slowing slipping down in the chair the sensor will trend upward or downward. This makes a slow, general trend that will be affected incidentally when the subject behaviorally adjusts to the sensation of slipping or sliding down in the chair. I don't mind seeing any of this in the data - as it represents movement, both voluntary and involuntary. With the piezzo sensor the slipping movement is unoticed until the ceramic media reacts (quickly) - which seems to me to produce data that is uncharacteristic or poorly models the movement/behavioral observances.

I have been able to reproduce this type of tracing by employing general bodily/abdominal muscular tension. It looks just like controlled breathing, but it involuntary and secondary to the voluntary muscle tension.

CM manuals advise sitting on the hand to practice anal sphincter squeezing without noticing (a little gross if you think about i), and I believe this is what the subject was doing.

r

OK, I couldn't find your email on this site.

But if you email me I'll send you the new login.

Upon reviewing the weekly access logs, I got a little worried about posting CMs and the sudden increase in access from anonymous IPs and foreign countries.

I'm happy to post the login again, but I want to be more sure about who has access and limit it to the authorized users of this forum.

r