posted 01-27-2006 10:46 AM            

my first question is, who are you testing? From what you describe, there are no specific suspects. Are you doing this for a PD or as an EPPA test? Remember, no fishing trips allowed...

In any case a SKY won't work, since everone, by now knows the guard was involved, somehow. An MGQT is very broad in nature and scope and will work, but, will provide more Inc's or even false/positives since most everyone who works at a store like that has probably stolen something and will be very significant to them and harder to separate from the crime.

I would suggest a ZCT w/ Did you steal any of that money from that vault (safe)? Did you help (or agree) with anyone to steal any of that money from that vault (safe)? Or even maybe, Did you provide any information to someone in order to steal...? Or something on those lines. Just my thoughts.

Good luck.

posted 01-27-2006 12:39 PM            

As an examiner I would (first) want to know answers to some investigative questions that might help narrow down the field of suspects. Who decided to turn the alarm off? Who selected the guard?

You've stated " - there were many employees and only 4 new how to open everything -." Also, you report "All items used were left in place (keys)." I'm guessing I've read too much into your statements and my question is too simplistic, but, did the 4 employees you refer to have keys (and combination) needed to access the vault and locked drawer? If so, which employee is missing their keys?

Even though there may be 20 employees, by your statements we're down to 4 employees right away as it doesn't appear anything can be done without 1 of the 4.

After your statement regarding EPPA to "sackett" & seeing your profile it appears you are outside the US and not bound by the EPPA. If this is true I would still require a substantial reason to polygraph a person and I believe, based on what you've provided so far, the 4 employees you referred to could be a start.

I would hope the persons I examine relative to this crime have stolen "something - significant" and I don't agree it would/should be "harder to separate from the crime."

Using either the AFMGQT/ZOC we need solid control questions. Denial of past theft is preferred and I would look for denials of theft from former employers. In my opinion this would not be "harder" to separate from this crime as it should be relative to a former employer or incident prior to the crime in question. Whether or not this CQ may be a probable lie is dependent on the work history of the examinee and their statements. We would obviously have to search other areas if there was no past employment!

If I were to use a ZOC I might ask:

#5. Did you, in any way, participate in
the (burglary, theft, etc)?
#7. Did you, in any way, participate in
the (burglary, theft, etc)involving
(name the business)?
#10. Did you benefit, in any way, from
the burglary, theft, etc) at (name
the business)?

In pre-test, aside from everything elese, I would ensure the examinee knows and understands the specific crime involved regarding this incident. Not specifics involving the crime, only that it is a burglary, robbery, theft, etc. I would also define "participate;" and the many ways a person could participate in this crime. I'd do the same for "benefit" and the many ways a person might benefit from this crime. I'd also try to elicit from the examinee some ways, other than what we agree upon, a person could "participate" and "benefit" relative to the crime.

END.....

posted 01-27-2006 01:49 PM            

Have you considered any CKTs (or GKT, CIT, or whatever you call it)? If you have info that would only be known to the suspect, e.g., the items found, their colors, location, etc., then you should be able to formulate a few good concealed knowledge tests and narrow down the playing field rather quickly (and you won't get much resistance from the polygraph naysayers as they agree those tests are scientific). If the investigators leaked too much info, you're going to have to search for some good tests, but it sounds like the perfect opportunity for you to use some.

posted 01-27-2006 03:06 PM            

Stick to things that the suspect would have to have taken notice of, but restrict the items to only those things that he claims to have no knowledge of. You can use info that's been leaked IF the examinee claims not to have any knowledge. After all, it's possible to leak info without everybody knowing about it.

I get the most out of any GKT when I do them. What I mean is this: I'll ask about an item in a list, and then I'll ask particulars about the item, etc. For example, I'll do something like, "If you're the one who stole those items, then you know what was stolen. Repeat each item after I say it." Then go through your list. Say the key item was a pocketbook, I'd then ask,"If you're the one who took the pocketbook... you know what color it was....." You can get in to the items location when taken. First use the room from which it was taken, then the area, e.g., microwave, kitchen table, counter, etc.

If you find the person truthful, you've got to get him to keep his mouth shut because you gave away some of the items. If you've got enough that you don't have to give anything away, then don't, but if you've only got a few items, you can create more tests than you might think by starting wide and getting more narrow.

posted 01-27-2006 06:14 PM            

It still seems, at a minimum, 1 of 4 employees were involved as they are the only employees to "have all that it takes to gain access." Access to the vault, safe & locked drawer, is this correct?

Even though all employees had access to the keys needed to help open the safe, only 4 had access to the keys & also knew the "code" needed to use with the key that would open the safe.

Barry - In order to ensure I'm on the same page as everyone else please spell out "CKT, GKT & CIT."

If tests are to be conducted pertaining to this crime why not get right to a specific test and a "did you" question? Without forced entry being identified, in my opinion the field has already been narrowed down to the "final four." The only 4 persons that reportedly had total access.

posted 01-27-2006 07:16 PM            

CKT = Concealed Knowledge Test

CIT = Concealed Information Test

They are all the same test.

For those not familiar with them, here goes:

David Lykken came up with GKT, but many didn't like it because "knowledge" can't be "guilty."

They are similar to POTs (Peak of Tension), but the order of the items is random. They are accepted by even the most ardent opponents of the CQT (who don't get excited about the POT tests). What's nice about them is you can determine what the chances are of a person responding to the key item by chance alone. (And, you can compute error rates, etc., and provide all that is desired under the Daubert tests.)

If you present a five item CIT (one key and the four other plausible alternatives (plus a sixth buffer as the first item as all will react to that rather strongly)), then the examinee has a 20% chance of reacting to the key item by chance alone. If he hits on both of two tests, the chances are 20% of 20%, which is 4%. Three tests, 0.008% (yes, less than 1%). Four, .0016%, and so on. You do enough, and you've got DNA probabilities based on unquestionably sound science.

David Lykken developed the scoring system I use (and taught by Krapohl at APA seminars): You only score the EDA (GSR). If the key has the largest reation, the score is a 2. If it's the second largest reaction, the score is a 1. The cut-offs for determining if the guy is concealing knowledge equals the number of tests. (His book has the probability tables in it if you want know the odds.) So, if you run five CITs, then anybody scoring five or more is considered to have knowledge he claims not to have.

posted 01-27-2006 10:17 PM            

In my opinion a DI to either exam could simply relate to "knowledge". I don't agree knowledge of concealed information and the content of what is concealed can be inferred as guilt (pg. 258, para 3). I do believe a DI could relate to knowledge that might possibly be guilt, i.e., the examinee knew a hammer was used to kill the victim as the examinee did the killing. In the following example I cite, it is only knowledge (information known about the crime) that creates a problem on the exam.

Example: A girlfriend (S-2) of a male arrested for a homicide is suspected of involvement in the homicide. In fact, S-2 was not involved but knows specifics of the crime as they were related to her by the boyfriend prior to his arrest. S-2 has no substantiated alibi as she was home alone. If S-2, for whatever reason, chooses not to disclose crime facts known to her prior to a GKT/CIT she would likely test "DI."

I understand each test question may be prefaced with the statement "Did you kill/cause the death of Joe with a knife, gun, hammer, etc. But, I believe a strong emotional attachment to the arrestee and/or other reasons, in addition to specific knowledge relative to the weapon used, may create a false-negative in this type of exam. The problem for S-2 should not be "Did you kill/cause," but this phrase included with the weapon known to have caused this death could create a problem.

I know S-2 would only be reported as "DI" but as indicated in the article would be seen as involved (guilty).

The mathmatical computations are out the window in this example.

Theoretically, a follow-up CQT should resolve the issue. Although the emotional attachment I describe is still present I would only deal with questions that ask S-2 "did you." I'd make it clear to S-2 I'm not interested in what they may or may not know. I'd make certain S-2 understood I was asking questions to determine if they were involved in the death of the victim.

In looking at obtaining the best results by reducing "chart time," what test do you choose to run first. Using my theory, by running a GKT/CIT first, the best I'll learn is that the examinee may have knowledge of a crime. I'm more interested in determining who is responsible for the crime so I'd likely run a CQ test first.

END.....

[This message has been edited by Poly761 (edited 01-27-2006).]

posted 01-28-2006 09:34 AM            

Think about it: every time you ask the did you kill question, she's thinking she didn't but she knows who did and she lied about it. It's vvery possible -and it happens in the research literature, which is where the debate comes from - those questions are still more threatening than the CQs.

Anyhow, with that aside, your example gives some of the reasoning why many prefer to avoid using the word "guilt" or "guilty" as we only know the person has knowledge he denied having. Guilt is inferred from that, but as you point out, what is the examinee guilty of? In your case, she's guilty of lying about what info she has in her head. A CIT is a recognition test - not a deception test, and different parts of the brain are involved. You throw the fragile psychological set right out the window.

The thinking is similar to a screening exam. You run a multi-issue test on issues A, B, C and D. The examinee reacts the greatest to B. Is B the problem issue? We don't know. We presume it is, but we know the issue could be A, yet the examinee hits on B. Why? Nobody knows. We just know it happens. That's why we use successive hurdles. Pull B out and run a single issue test. If NDI, re-run your screening exam with issues A, C and D, and see what you get. Keep going until you get no SRs. (A lot of people don't go beyond running the single issue test, but DoDPI's handbook outlines what I've just given you.)

You can always run both a CQT and a CIT. The benefit of the CIT is that it requires almost no pre-test, and the examinee needs only to be capable of responding. I did an attempted murder / arson case in which the suspect was on drugs and slept perhaps 3 hours in the past 36. There was no way a CQT was going to happen, but I pulled off about 10 CITs. (She confessed to the arson, and she's doing time now.)

I don't think a boyfriend could ever tell all the details of a good CIT. For example, he could say he killed so and so, but what color were the victim's clothes? What room did it happen in? Would she know the particular knive or gun used (as you can show pictures in a CIT)? How di he gain entry into the victim's home? What color was the home, etc.? If the vicitm admits to knowing it all, you're done. If not you run charts and interrogate, just like you would in a ZCT.

posted 01-28-2006 02:38 PM            

In my opinion, in order to minimize, if not eliminate a false-positive (guilt) wouldn't it be better, if not best, to eliminate fuel for the anti-polygraph supporters to state a DI may simply infer knowledge? I don't believe guilt (alone) can be the reason for a DI to either test, knowledge must be considered. Because of this, once an examinee is DI to either the GKT/CIT consideration should be given to only reporting the examinee may have knowledge relative to a crime. A CQ test will hopefully clarify the (reason) for the knowledge & whether or not the examinee is involved in any way.

I did list the wording "did you kill" as a preface to questions in my example that could be asked. I always prefer to eliminate what could be emotion provoking ("less threatening") words as best I can. I would not use "did you kill," I would probably choose "did you cause the death of" or other wording depending on how I perceive the examinee. I use words that will hopefully not create an emotional response to the word(s) alone. I doubt a life-long criminal would get too concerned about a "did you kill" question but I'd probably still consider another approach to the question.

As I believe DI after a GKT/CIT only indicates possible knowledge, I may choose to preface the questions in the following manner:

Do you know if the weapon used to cause the death of "Joe" was a knife? Continuing each add'l question with a different type weapon that could have been used. If DI, the inferrence is the examinee may have knowledge (not necessarily guilt due to involvement) relative to the crime. As I understand the GKT/CIT the possible weapons are the CQ's, thee weapon is the RQ.

I understand the flexibility offered by the CIT (minimal pre-test, etc.) but if there is reason to suspect an individual I'm not sure I would use "chart time" on anything other than a CQ test. If I run a GKT/CIT and return DI all I know is the examinee may have knowledge, not that they are necessarily guilty of involvement in the crime. If they are not capable of further testing (CQ); decline further tests or are not able to be detained, I/we may not have another opportunity to conduct any exam. For this reason I'd probably go first with a CQ exam and then a GKT/CIT.

I'd use the GKT/CIT as a "recognition" or "confirmatory" exam.

I understand an examinee's knowledge may create a DI opinion. My position is that concealing knowledge should not be identified as guilt, inferred or otherwise. By doing this we talk ourselves right into a potential false-positive situation and we give our opponents reason to question the validity of the polygraph process.

END.

posted 01-28-2006 08:27 PM            

In Japan, the CQT is almost never used. They only use the CIT, and they report great success. Use both, or use either, whatever works for you.

Keep in mind if a person goes DI on a CQT based on undisclosed knowledge (but he didn't do it), then a CIT wouldn't confirm anything. It might, however, lead you to wonder why he'd go DI on the CQT, but not seem to have any knowledge of any of the more intimate details.

As an aside. I like "Did you kill...." Dick Arther's been using it for 50 years, but I see your point. (Just use good comparisons.)

posted 01-29-2006 01:23 PM            

I question the statement indicating the "act of concealment" and "the content of what is concealed" infers guilt. When using a CQ Test there should be no doubt the examinee knows they are being asked whether or not they were (involved) in an issue.

I don't agree with para 3 of your last post. If we believe a GKT/CIT, based on the structure of the questions, infers more knowledge than guilt, a GKT/CIT (may) confirm why an examinee was DI on a CQT but not involved in an issue.

When all is said and done, aside from the examiners ability to structure/conduct a proper examination, what remains? If indicated, the skill/ability to interview and interrogate.

I understand the "rationale" of the CIT and that it is reportedly used successfully in Japan. I'd like to know how their success is measured. Is the percentage identified of (confirmed) "guilty" after DI is indicated by use of the CIT?

I'm EDITING this post after recalling the footnote (5) on pg. 259. "The fact that a procedure is a scientifically based test is no guarantee of its accurary or validity."

"The accuracy of the CIT - while well above chance levels, it is not sufficiently high to encourage application to individuals, especially when it is employed as a determinative source of evidence for guilt versus innocence."

What's everyone's take on this statement.

END.....

posted 01-29-2006 05:29 PM            

I don't know what you mean by you disagree with paragraph three as you went on to make the point I thought I made.

I'm just curious. Do you know how well you identify the NDI verses the DI? Without such knowledge, it makes such a discussion purely academic.

If your goal is an interrogation, then what difference does it make what type of test you infer guilt from anyhow? You should be able to work that out during your interrogation. If, however, you plan on using your test for some other purpose (e.g., part of your PC for a search warrant, which is allowed in some states) - in addition to your interrogation - then having some science and numbers behind your data will be of great help.

posted 01-29-2006 08:24 PM            

"Keep in mind if a person goes DI on a CQT based on undisclosed knowledge (but he didn't do it), then a CIT wouldn't confirm anything. It might, however, lead you to wonder why he'd go DI on the CQT, but not seem to have any knowledge of any of the more intimate details."

The part I don't agree with is where you state " - a CIT wouldn't confirm anything." I believe a CIT should confirm the examinee has knowledge of the crime & may have been the cause of a DI on the CQT.

I think the question you ask about "how well" DI/NDI are identified can't be fully answered. Wrong calls may have been made for either. The only accurate call that answers this question in small part is likely a DI with an admission/confession.

For myself, when I kept handwritten records I had a good idea. Along comes the two-headed computer and I can't say. "Crashes" led to lost information, floppies would not work on upgraded systems and on and on, not the least of which included my lack of enough knowledge of the systems to keep from messing up data/programs.

I'd agree all discussions such as this are purely academic.

For myself, it's not so much the type of test to use as when to use each type. With a DI exam the goal is usually interrogation. As I indicated earlier, I probably won't spend initial time with a test that may only indicate knowledge as I will with the CQT that will indicate/infer/imply, more than just knowledge.

I believe it matters from a "utility standpoint" (and at all times) on what type of test is administered as we might only have one opportunity with the examinee. I want to use the opportunity to my advantage.

I appreciate the feedback. As earlier indicated I'll probably use the GKT/CIT as a confirmatory/recognition test.

posted 01-30-2006 08:55 AM            

What now is referred to as a CIT is exactly what Barry has stated, a recognition examination. In a recognition examination, we are assuming the key information that we are testing on is both concealed and memorable to the person who is involved in the crime. If it is memorable, then in theory the correct item (key) will produce a greater orienting response on the examination than the alternate incorrect answers (controls) for the subject who possesses the proposed concealed knowledge/information. If the subject does give his/her strongest orienting response to the correct item, all this tells us is that the subject recognized the correct answer and from the number of controls and tests run what the probability is of a false positive.

Guilt is decided by the judge (bench trial) or jury (jury trial).

Because we are looking for the most memorable events, I would suggest that for the most part one should stay away from some specific details that may not be memorable (i.e. colors, brand names, etc.). Both analog and field research studies have shown that choosing memorable items is not always elementary.

I would not recommend the conducting of an examination that gives away the key item from a previous exam. If you are conducting the same examination on multiple subjects, conducting successive exams that reveal the key information adds another source of potential leak of concealed information, as the subject tested might now leak the information to future examinees, which could negate the ability to conduct future examinations on that case.

If I understand the original post correctly, there was privileged information needed to commit this crime and it is now thought to be leaked to a person or group that committed the crime. This information should be memorable to the subject(s) and could be used to conduct a CIT.

I would be glad to help in anyway and if you so desire, you may contact me via my contact information listed here.

posted 01-30-2006 01:46 PM            

Wasn't there a study (or perhaps the Japanese touted it) that showed that colors were one of the best items to use in a CIT as they are one of the most memorable (and therefore, most salient)? I know I read it somewhere.

posted 01-30-2006 10:08 PM            

My first exam administered of a suspect will be a CQT as I want to determine if they could be involved. I don't go into the exam with any preconceived notions the examinee is involved or knows anything relative to the issue. But, then I/we wouldn't likely be running any exam if they were not suspected of some type of involvement. I ensure, during pre-test the examinee understands questions are structured specifically to determine involvement.

If DI in a CQT I will (then) run a CIT as a "confirmatory test." If DI in a CQT (and involved), they should know specific data about a critical (not publicly identified) crime key.

Example: I run a CQT & ask a PR question (Did you rob Barry's market)& analysis shows DI. I've been told by an investigator that after receiving the cash the suspect grabbed a sandwich off the counter and then flees. During this pre-test the suspect of course denies involvement and as they were not involved they (should not) know anything about the sandwich. No comments by me (yet) about this sandwich.

In an attempt to strengthen my DI opinion on their CQT I will run a CIT. During this pre-test I want to learn if they've "heard" anything about this robbery. I want to eliminate all possible knowledge about the sandwich without identifying this item directly. In the CIT I may ask (do you know if the suspect also took (a) candy, soft drink, sandwich, power drink, bag of chips?). Of course, all questions are reviewed to ensure the suspect agrees each item can/could be at a grocery store counter and available to grab.

If I run DI on a CQT I should see a greater response to the "critical control" (sandwich) than to the other CIT "controls" (food items) asked.

Using this exam sequence (CQT,CIT) I have a fair idea, theoretically "confirmed" by the CIT the examinee was involved and they appear to have specific knowledge (sandwich) of the crime. I will then begin an interrogation.

For myself if I were to run a CIT first and ask about the sandwich, theoretically all I know is they have knowledge. I would not confront/interrogate solely on a DI to a CIT.

In any exam, especially in law enforcement, you know as well as anyone, the first question asked by police investigators is "did they do it." I can't see myself having the exam opportunity, choose to run a CIT (first), have it appear the examinee knows a (sandwich) was taken and (only) be able to report this opinion as the examinee/suspect refused further tests.

I am not (initially) concerned about what the examinee may know about a crime, I want to know if they were involved in the crime. As I've stated before, in my opinion, knowledge does not necessarily relate to guilt.

In the CQT I structure, as I said earlier, the pre-test is directed at leaving no doubt each question is seeking to determine if the examinee was involved. Knowledge relative to a crime does not always indicate involvement, this is one reason I would choose to run a CQT first.

I see the CIT as a great (additional) tool and view its results as a confirmation of the opinion rendered for the CQT.

posted 01-31-2006 10:52 AM            

Many years ago I was doing an investigation on a fast food place after someone got in the safe. During my interviews with the 10 or 12 employees I asked each one who had the combination of the safe. They all said "only the two managers". Upon further discussion, when asked if anyone else could have access each and everyone turned over the calendar on the wall and showed me the combination to the safe. Chances are alot more than four people could open that vault.

Jack

posted 01-31-2006 12:48 PM            

From Murray Kleiner's 'The handbook of polygraph testing':

quote:

---

Lykken (1998) suggested that a "good critical question" may involve the type or color of clothing. However, Yokoi (1999) pointed out that a suspect s memory in relation to color was not accurate in the experimental situation.

---

Your experience speaks for itself. Color is oftentimes perceptual to the person. Sensory recall is individual and visual items can be quite memorable. However, visual is not the forerunner in memory recall.

Jack makes a good point in that one must ensure that the information to be used is concealed information and not general knowledge to the employees. As he points out and I too have seen, sometimes what employers report as policies that are strictly followed are actually flaccidly followed by employees.