posted 05-08-2005 04:40 AM            

I am interested in finding out how you guy's deal with the use of countermeasures once you suspect them being used during a test. As a bit of background I am an examiner working in the UK in the private sector.

I recently started using the Lafayette Piezo sensor (which is excellent) and recently tested a subject who was obviously moving on the first two charts. As it happened his reactions to the RQ's were so great he failed the test anyway but after the second chart I stopped the test and showed him the charts. He did stop moving during the last two charts.

At the end of the test I scored the charts as DI, the subject now say's the fact that I accused him of movement during the test as evidence that: A, I am incompetent? and B, because I accused him during the test of moving this made him nervous.

I realise that what he say's or thinks is not really relevant however my question is:

If you detect CM's during a test and the charts are still DI do you think it is better to carry to the end and let the subject fail or do you feel it better to stop and challenge during a test?

I would be grateful for your thoughts?

posted 05-08-2005 10:01 AM            

I'm glad to see you're using the piezzo pad. I think it is probably the best money for the physical CM detetcion.

If during the exam I detect physical movements relative to CQ's or presumed CQ's, I will finish that particular chart and in a non-accusatory tone remind the examinee of the "rules" for the test, i.e. sitting still, breathing normally and as relaxed as posisble and answering Q's normally, like during the pre-test interview. I might even raise an eyebrow at the part about movements, just the emphasize to them, I know what they're doing. Remember, just because they're moving doesn't automatically means CM, but you have to observe enough to know if they're trying or simply very nervous.

If the movements persist, then no call of NDI can (ever) be made. The report reflects N/O due to my inability to evaluate the charts based on the examinee's purposeful non-cooperation (PNC) through physical movements despite repeated instructions to the contrary, then they are interrogated as if they DI'd.

If the charts are DI anyway, complete the testing protocol as you learned it, then interrogate. If you stop the testing prematurely, you have not completed the exam, as you were taught, and you can be accused of not following procedures and "fixing" the exam against the examinee.

To stop and show them their charts simply allows them to see if their efforts are working or not and where to "fix" the CM effort. I never show examinee's their charts.

Hope this helps,

posted 05-08-2005 04:28 PM         

Do you audio or video record your exams? If you don't, when push comes to shove (or words turn into a law suit) it is your word against the examinee's.

One of the most vicious and completely fabricated complaints I ever received came on the heels of a successful polygraph exam. When the video was played back for the bad guys attorney, everything was dropped faster than an ugly girlfriend. Without the video, I would still be defending myself today.

In answer to CMs, I never tell the examinee that I suspect attempts at CMs. It does nothing more than tell him/her to try something different. I will give VERY clear instructions such as MI or BI but that is it! After two charts with attempted CMs, the exam is over and at that point, I do tell the examinee why the test has ended.

People who use CMs do so for one reason and we all know what that reason is.

Ted

PS: I am an Axciton user and I SWEAR by their sensor! Nobody should be testing without one!

posted 05-08-2005 11:56 PM            

I have had the (un)enviable task of polygraphing psychologists, sex offender treatment providers and one polygraph examiner (who was also a psychologist and a bio-feedback teacher), so I can commiserate about countermeasures.

I was deathly afraid that the psychologist examiner would use countermeasures. He flew to my city from a nearby state and arrived at my office accompanied by his attorney. We were met there by an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a Special Agent or two (quite a crowd).

Anyway, I told the examiner (and the assembled audience) that I believed that the risk of countermeasures was very high in this case. Therefore, I was going to administer a series of R&I tests in addition to the usual CQT testing.

The psychologist-examiner asked for a couple of minutes "alone time" with his attorney.

When they emerged from an adjacent room, the examiner gave me a statement confessing his participation in the alleged crime. He admitted that he had been planning to use countermeasures, but changed his mind when I said I was going to use an R&I test.

They went into a huddle with the AUSA and I never heard about the case again, but it goes to show you that even countermeasures can't beat an R&I.

Think about it....no matter how skilled at c/m's you are, it's impossible to make yourself NOT respond, so it's a perfect test if you suspect c/m's.

Since that day, whenever I'm administering a CQT test series, if I see countermeasures, I finish the series without confronting the examinee. I then administer a series of R&I charts and make the call.

Chip Morgan

------------------
A Half Truth is a Whole Lie

posted 05-09-2005 02:35 AM            

Thanks for sharing your comments and experience. Looking back I agree I made a mistake showing the subject the charts mid way thru the test, I think it just made the interrogation harder and agree that it showed the guy how his efforts were doing.

Ted, in answer to your question I audio my exams for self protection, your experience highlights the importance of having a record.

Once again thanks for your help, In the UK we are very limited on resource for advice and I find this site an excellent information point.

Thanks
Guy

posted 05-09-2005 07:49 AM            

I think I can speak for Chip, Ted and Ralph(and most others), that is what this board is for. I encourage any examiner to post questions here for consideration. I especially encourage new examiners who may want to remain anonymous to their peers for fear of embarassment, as this is a place to go when help is not close by or otherwise available.

Best regards,

posted 05-11-2005 01:50 PM            

A while back I had a guy using CM's. After the first chart I told him that "for some reason I was not getting a clear picture". I told him I needed to get a better look at his normal physiology as well as a look at some possible anolmalies.

I then ran a chart where I asked him to do some things. I tried to get him to reproduce what I thought he was doing intentionally, ie holding his breath. After having him do several things like swallow, hold his breath, gently flex his arm etc.. I told him that was great. I said "I now have a clear picture of what is normal for you and what is not". I then told him that I would not expect to see anything abnormal on the charts.

Guess what, no more CM's. Very clear DI charts. We have used this a few times with the same results each time. I will keep you up to date.

Its just mind games and we are, in most cases, going to win.

Jack

posted 05-11-2005 01:53 PM            

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com

posted 05-12-2005 07:35 AM            

that is a great idea! I wish I came up with it. Keep us all posted, as the only thing we would have to lose is a little time in the chart collection.

One thing, do you tell the examinee before the chart what actions you'll ask him to perform or just tell him you will ask them to perform some acts, then apply it during the chart without prior warning? What's working with you?

posted 05-12-2005 02:20 PM            

As a thought has anyone ever considered running a question set with the issue as attempted countermeasure's.

what do you think about adding questions on the end of a ZCT on two of the charts in the same way as the SKY series?, of course they would have to be reviewed. On one hand they could be considerd as mixing issues on the other they directly relate to the test process in the same way as symptomatics do?

posted 05-12-2005 02:40 PM            

I tell them that I will be asking them to do some slight movements and some internal things (I give them a couple of examples but not what I think they actually did). I tell them that when the chart begins I want them to just sit as I instructed them for the regular test, trying not to move until instructed. I tell them that I will give an instruction but not to do it until I say "now", then follow the instructions and return to normal.

When running the chart I hit the space bar (Layfayette) when I say "now" Just like that is the question. I then let things settle to homeostasis again and proceed with the next instruction.

We found out very quickly that you have to be careful how you word the instructions. If you ask them to take two deep breaths, they take HUGE breaths that take along time to recover. I say take two breaths slightly, or a little, deeper than normal. The same thing with movements. I tell them to flex their arm gently.

If you are going to have them hold their breath remember to tell them "take a breath and hold it" or "let your breath out and hold it", you might want to do both.

I may have mislead you a little with my last post. Not all of them end up DI. We have a couple that were NDI and trying to help themselves. Everyone did stop trying the counter measures with the exception of two guys who continued but subdued their attempt at CM's so much the charts were clearly DI.

Hope this helps and if anyone tries it let me know how it worked for you. We never could come up with what we thought was an appropriate way to ask someone to clench their spincter so didn't. If you think of a good way let me know but try it on your motion sensor first to see if it looks like like the real thing.

Jack

posted 05-12-2005 02:54 PM            

If they fail the questions they will just deny it and your back to square one. Of course they could just continue the CM's on that sequence too.

When finished with a test that I am convinced CM's were used I tell them I feel they were attempting to manipulate the test and try to get an admission. I do not tell them they were clenching or flexing or using Doug Williams number three because if you are wrong you have just told them you aren't sure. Just tell them they are using counter measures and ask them why.

The test results will be N.O. but when someone does what we call "purposeful non compliance" we don't re-test until they admit it or give us a solid reason for unreadable charts.

Jack

posted 10-15-2005 01:45 AM         

Some examiners ask their clients to ‘keep their eyes open,’ some examiners say ‘close the eyes’- pros and cons with both. I personally instruct examinees to ‘keep open-eyes,’ and to look straight ahead, which is directed toward a 6' tall by 8' wide sound panels of plain grey soft cloth. The problem- clients seem to frequently ‘look up and down’ the panel board in ‘search of something’, or fixate on God knows what. [Had a client one day tell me he found a race car, a smiley face, and a palm tree- all in one test; one complained of seeing different colors; one offender saw a ‘male angel’- go figure.] Obviously, mental countermeasures were high on my list.

So, I thought I’d give the client something to look at- and I put up a small video cam which I connected to the laptop and asked the client to look at the camera as if he was talking directly to me. The first experience with the cam, I ran a chart, and post chart asked him if he felt comfortable with each question and whether or not anything interfered or distracted him. His answer: the video cam looked like a little robot with a little black hat and one red eye- and thought it was funny– possibly back to mental mind games again.

Possible remedy- and as a possible anti-countermeasure; I was thinking if a monitor was place in front of the client so he sees only his face and upper shoulders- (1) it gives him something to look at- which is not ‘new or novel’ because he sees himself in the mirror everyday, and (2) the liar will have to ‘body monitor’ his facial expressions to lie effectively and therefore should heighten his anxiety as he looks at himself when he lies (as they say- its hard to lie to yourself).

Interestingly, I recently asked two offenders- if they could look at a monitor of their face taking the test would they feel comfortable with it by giving them something to look at- both said ‘yes’- I then asked, Did they think it would make lying more difficult if they had to look at own face when they lied- again both said ‘yes.’ Based on these two guys- I figure its worth asking others to see if their response trend continues.

Another advantage- if the face is being recorded, it can be replayed for a pattern of ‘gaze aversion’ at the moment of answer as well.

posted 10-15-2005 02:44 AM         

I’ve been using your idea for an ‘acquaintance test’ for a while now- combination CVOS and perfomance of CM’s and I like it. Comes in handy during post test reviews and confrontations with the use of Cms by direct comparison which they can’t deny.

I’ve been using the following question sequence in this order as the first chart, and is reviewed in advance with the client-

1] Irrelvant

2] Irrelvant

3] Within the past 8 hours, have you taken any medications or drugs you have not told me about?

4] Unreviewed Question, but examinee told a simple math question will be asked and that it will show what it looks like when they have to mentally focus and dwell on something (then during the test I ask 12/3 X 5= )

5] Regarding your test today, Are you going to give me your full and complete cooperation ?

6] When instructed, take three breaths just slighty smaller than normal (emphasizing just slightly- and just enough to make a slight difference)

7] When instructed, take three breaths just slightly slower than normal (emphasizing just slightly- and just enough to make a slight difference)

8] When instructed, take three breaths just slightly deeper than normal (emphasizing just slightly- and just enough to make a slight difference)

9] Trying not to be seen by your examiner- gently tighten and move your left arm and then your other arm (emphasizing to do it in a secret and covert manner with the intent of not being caught– note: I use peizo sensors under both hands\arms)

10] Trying not to be seen by your examiner- gently tighten and move your left leg and then your other leg (emphasizing to do it in a secret and covert manner with the intent of not being caught– note: I use peizo sensors under both legs)

Post Chart I tell them they have provided a template of what it will look like when they engage in controlled breathing, or trying to manipulate their test with deliberate and unessary movements. If they take distinct tiny shallow breaths or huge deep breaths instead of ‘a slight difference as instructed’, I tell them they were not following instructions and if they want to perform well on their test it is imperative they follow my instructions carefully.

Also useful to compare the response of the ‘unreviewed surprise type math question,’ against drugs- cooperation question

A couple of things I have noticed by doing this- to my dismay. Although very good- the piezo sensors are not as great as you might think. I’ve found Clients moving the BP arm secretively and covertly have not been showing ‘movements’ on the sensor line- even though they will create a BP artifact that will blow off the chart- but the effort they expend at trying not to be caught, they forget to breathe with apneas that can last 10 seconds and they don’t realize it.

Also, if the piezo sensitivity is set high enough to reflect and mirror ‘respiration’ - watch when it deviates in some way or ‘flattens’ out. It may seem as if the examinee is not moving- but I’m finding he is in reality either tensing the body significantly causing a downward pressure or trying to ‘float’ the arms or legs. You may see a movement ‘spike’ in the chart at some point, but the auto re-center feature fails to show the movement is, in fact, continuing.

posted 10-15-2005 10:54 AM            

Why do you leave out the "Do you intend to answer each question on the exam truthfully?" question (referring to the exam you just set up and reviewed)? It should show a good reaction as the examinee will be lying to the RQs, CQs or both depending on whether he's DI or NDI. I like it because it tells me he's focused and has established a "psychological set." Just curious.

Very creative by the way. I only added a "Do you intend to do anything to TRY to defeat this exam" question, which I pre-test as meaning is the person going to cooperate or not. I always talk about CMs and how they don't work but give away the liars.

How many of you have seen CM tests in which an examiner who's been paying attention (i.e., one who really cares about doing a good job) got fooled (at least in you're opinion? I take lots of precautions, but the data doesn't seem to support CMs are all that effective unless a person gets trained on an instrument by an examiner (unlikely, unless a spy), and even then the examinee is gambling with poor odds.

I have seen one test in which a guy failed a police test, and years later "passed" a private exam. Those new charts were clearly CM charts (confirmed - as best as can be - by the guru, Dr. Barland). However, I, another examiner and Dr. Barland, among others scored the tests DI - even with the CM attemps.

I've talked to some here as well and it seems we catch a lot of CM attempts (of course we wouldn't know of those we miss, which is why we have to look to the scientific studies), but still make easy DI calls despite those attempts.

posted 10-17-2005 09:19 AM         

I too always talk about CMs in the pretest, and how they can be detected, adding only deceptive people use CMs.

posted 10-18-2005 04:42 PM            

We have been so buried here that I haven't had time to do much besides run tests. That is why you haven't heard much from me here lately. I haven't even been able to send Ralph the ASTM updates I promised.

I know the chart I run when I suspect CM's works to stop alot of the attempts but need more input.

If any one else is doing this, as Bob is or the way I presented it at the APA please let me know. Maybe I can put some real numbers together.

Jack

posted 10-18-2005 08:40 PM         

I have been using your tricknique since about May. I do it before the Stim Test. Guess what? I have not had any attempted CMs since then. Also note that Boy George does not know about this or he would have posted it! Keep up the good work!

posted 10-19-2005 10:28 AM         

You asked “Have I kept track of those who stopped using CM's after I instructed them in what to do?”- Not an easy question to answer- and I’m going to give a long-winded response.
I am attempting to ‘establish some kind of tabulation’ but collecting ‘verifiable data’ is still very elusive for me- so ‘monitoring’ in my head so to speak is more prevelant. I must admit my ‘deceptive confession rate’ is not as good as I would like- and I’m sure it is linked to the fact I do not “interrogate clients as I did when I was a law enforcement officer ,” Presently as a private examiner I now merely attempt to ‘persuade’ a client during a 45-60 minute post test- the net result is a denial of the relevant issue with qualifications - I call it the the “I didn’t do it, but- syndrome” When I do get feed-back confirmation from therapists it is too far removed to engage the client in a CM debriefing.

Over a year ago I began using both arm pads, both leg pads, and a butt pad, and my clients were well aware of it. As a result I don’t recall one single case since then where a client used a “Specific State Physical CM effort” that was directed to a specific question across charts, either RQ’s or CQ’s. It appears what they did do was go to a more “General State CM effort” meaning performing various movements punctuated through out the chart- and then allege they BP cuff hurt, or had a twitch, or muscle cramp, etc- etc (thereby making it unverifiable unless by ‘absolute’ admission of CM attempt) OR they switched to Mental CM’s (again difficult to verify unless by ‘absolute’ admission- case in point: a client just the other day during the pretest reported he had some paranormal experiences in the past relating to ‘seeing-hearing’ ghosts- (I have to add he has no history of mental disorders). After the Test, and during the ‘significant responses’ discussion he reported he ‘saw’ a male Angel dressed in white and complete with wings floating in my office during his test and therefore was the cause of the responses. Now he denies using mental CM’s in an effort to defeat the test - so is he psychotic and hallucinating - Or- does he have some special ability that we all have a Great tendancy to doubt :-) I frequently have clients report during the test they were merely trying to cooperate by keeping their ‘mind blank’ or trying to keep their breathing ‘normal and relaxed’ (although at 6 breaths per minute).

After reading your post Jack about giving some ‘instructions’ when to CM’s were being suspected, I began using a more CVOS-extended style with “instructions” as the first chart by instructing the client to perform controlled breathing (via taking 3 slightly shallower, then 3 slower, then 3 deeper) and just enough they realize a difference; and then instruct them to “secretively and covertly move “one arm and then the other” and “one leg and then the other.” While displaying the chart and discussing the intstructed controlled breathing and ‘showing the movements’ (if registered) on the two movement trace lines. They were then informed that they in effect provided a ‘template’ of when they ‘intentionally do things.’ During the test virtually all clients ‘appeared” to refrain from engaging in “Specific State and General State Physical CM’s” as they now realize how easy the movement was to detect. BUT- I remain highly suspicious they merely ‘switched’ to Mental CM’s same as before. I say ‘appeared to refrain’ from physical movements because- and to my dismay- the piezo sensors are ‘good’ but not as ‘great’ as you might think. I’ve found that Clients can moved the BP arm “secretively and covertly” and not show a ‘‘movement’’ on the arm sensor line- even though they will create a BP artifact that will blow off the chart- (on these occasions however the effort they expend at trying not to be caught, they forgot to breathe with apneas that can last 10 seconds and they don’’t realize it.

In relation to the breathing instructions, it ‘appears’ to stop “General State Respiratory CM’s (particularly ‘slowed and controlled’), but you will still see a ‘scoreable’ respiratory criteria such as supression, slowed and controlled rate, and apneas to questions posed (a more ‘specific state’). Recently during a post test I showed and compared the “the instructed and controlled breathing” to the “slow and controlled breathing” at an RQ in an effort the ‘persuade the client.’ He agreed they looked one-in-same, but denied ‘respiratory control’ and said it must have been involuntary (duh).

When a Client was ‘found deceptive and they made an ‘absolute’ admission to lying’- and admitted to trying to ‘beat the test,’- they all reported trying to use Mental CM’s of various kinds- particularly deliberate ‘racing thoughts’ to keep the mind occupied- or relaxtion\meditation mehthodology.

The advantage to giving a CVOS-extended style with Breathing\ Movement instructions as a first chart Sensitivity Test is really two-fold: [1] post test it allows for a direct comparison to show the client as a ‘persuasive aid’- this is what it looked like when you deliberately ‘controlled your breathing’ when instructed - and this is what it looks like on your test- So, “why” are you controlling your breathing at Q x ? Only one reason because your lying, and [2] the sensitivity chart may make ‘chart interpretaton’ a tad more defensible in stipulated Court Cases via “Show and Tell” through a direct comparison that the average juror can equate to.

A potential downside of ‘showing’ the client his ‘instructed breathing \ movement’ sensitivity polygram before giving the test - may be giving too much ‘education.’