posted 08-27-2004 12:08 PM            

We always try to get them to admit they attempted counter measures and occasionaly do but of course the books are adamant about telling subjects never to admit counter measures under any circumstances.

How do the rest of you deal with this? I'd like to have a discussion about ways of getting admissions from subjects using counter measures. I actually have better luck getting them to admit their crime than I do to admit counter measures. How do the rest of you approach this?

Jack

posted 08-27-2004 01:38 PM            

trying to get them to admit CM's is, as you implied, like pulling teeth from a loose angry lion. I don't want to sound like a defeatist, but why worry about it? When you see them you know. Give them the opportunity to straighten out their cooperative gene or bounce them out of the suite.

I approach the PE CM problem like an examinee who takes his POST test with a cheat sheet up his/her sleeve. Cheating is cheating and getting them to admit they acidentally strapped on a cheat sheet or wrote the answers on their arm ain't gunna happen, so, why get overly concerned about it.

If, on the other hand, I feel I have a little raport with the examinee, I will tell them the need to be honest and not attempt to alter the results, because only the honest need apply and we have a long line waiting, then, when I see better and cleaner charts, I know they are listening. To get them to admit trying to cheat the test is almost impossible. I'm not going to wrap myself so tight as to worry about it.

Besides, what end will it serve to ask and they admit, other than confirm what you already know...

Any other opinions out there..?

posted 08-27-2004 01:51 PM            

It's more of a big picture thing, but if we can make this more and more public that people DO get caught each and every day, it could make your job a little easier in the long run.

As it stands right now, there is nobody but our bulletin board telling people that the countermeasures won't work.

So I guess I'm saying, if for nothing else...do it for the guy who didn't intend to do countermeasures until he was convinced by Maschke that he MUST USE CM's to pass even if he plans to be honest. And lets be honest, Maschke is a great spin doctor and easy to believe if you don't know any better.

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

posted 08-27-2004 02:17 PM            

I think if we can get more admissions and get them to elaborate on exactly what they were doing and how we will be better prepared for the more subtle subjects that I think can occasionaly slide by an examiner.

Our best weapons against counter measures are information and experience. The more information we have and the more experience we get, the better we become at detecting all types of counter measures. Remember some of what we believe to be counter measures are very subtle and we can't be 100% sure unless we get an admission.

Its the same reason we interrogate a D.I. subject. We can't be 100% certain if we don't get that confession.

Maybe its just me but I want that admission to confirm what I believe is happening on those charts. If I don't get it I'll live with it but I still want it. In our profession staying one step ahead of the game is important and I think getting all possible information from subjects relating to counter measures can only help me the next time around.

Jack

posted 08-27-2004 02:27 PM            

I understand your intentions; however, while not disagreeing want to present my own "realism" approach to this issue.

George and all F.O.G.'s out there are reading and believing that there is no scientific proof that his efforts and CM's are not working. Quite the opposite, he has story after story reflecting how his minions have "beaten" the evil polygraph...While we all know this is not necessarily true, people believe what they read when it opposes what they can not understand.

Further, he says, we, the polygraph community have not demonstrated any reliable and reasonable ability to detetc CM's. For this reason, just like in politics, he got his shot out first and people want to believe the sexy, anti stuff rather than anything we put out. Remember, it's more advantageous to be against what you do not understand or control and what George is giving his readers is, in their opinion, a little more control over what they fear and can not comprehend.

For these reasons, no matter what we collectively put in your open discussion board concerning the catching of CM users, they will simply announce our stories are all hooey and that we are simply making up propaganda to scare those needing protecting from the evil false positive, etc, etc.

I personally don't need reinforcement that we catch CM's. I know we do, cuz I catch them almost daily. They are well versed in the diatribe presented by George and thus present quite an impossible challenge to get them to admit using CM's.

The solution is getting ALL examiners on the same, or at least a similar sheet of music and get educated on the issue. I have yet to read anyone on the anti sites tell of getting caught; probably out of embarrassment, but nonetheless, they are out there and talking to their friends, which is in some ways even better.

Jim

Jack,

we were posting at the same time. I agree, I would love to have them fess up to trying to beat me, but that is not realistic.

We are human and will make mistakes. Not every swallow is a CM or tightened jaw a tongue bite. If someone is using CM's during the exam, missing one is not as important as catching one and being alert to their presence.

Education and knowledge is the key. Come on, how many "old timers" are still out there staring intently at the charts during testing, component chasing and ignoring the examinee. They need to be brought in from the cold...or put out to pasture!

posted 08-27-2004 04:48 PM         

I agree with Jack. If I see countermeasures...I want that admission! I have found that IF they CONFESS to the evil deed, and I have their trust, they are much more likely to admit the use of CMs.

Ralph,
I agree too that we need to spread the word but anything posted in the open forums is subject to a (personal) attack by Georgie and the FOG's. I would like to see an (annonymous) thread started on George's site about people who have been caught using CMs. Once that thread gets started, I think you will see tons of responses unless George edits it(which he claims he does not).

posted 08-27-2004 05:06 PM            

It gets under my skin when someone tells me I can't get something done I want to do. Like get subjects to admit CM's, no offense Jim, it's a personal thing.

What I want to do here is to get some ideas about how to get the admissions we are not getting. I have tried several different things. I even told one subject that I knew he was using CM's and that I knew he had read the books telling him never to admit it. I told him it was not up for discussion but he needed to understand that if he didn't write a letter explaining what he did and why he felt he needed to, he had no chance to work here.

He sent a letter about a week later telling the background investigator that he had an appendix attack during the test and that was what I was seeing. Unfortunately his appendix attack only occurred on neutral questions. I even put an extra one on the end of each chart to see if he would continue. He did. I am afraid I am not buying his story.

Lets discuss ways to get admissions from these people.

Jack

posted 08-27-2004 10:23 PM            

I like the idea of posting on George's site, the "I got cot" stories. Remember, he checks and back tracks ALL e-mails that are pro poly and tries (usually sucessfully) to discredit them by establishing a link to a local examiner or poly school, or the like.

Personally, I do not want to post anything without crediting my name. It's personal, but if I'm going to say something, everyone will know where it comes from instead of some entry named "anonymous..." This is why I do not post on George's site. Unlike Ted and Ralph (HA!), I do not wish to have my handsome mug plastered on the I-net for all to see.

Jack, I too, take it personally when someone tries to beat me. But, when I tell them the page number they got the attempted CM from and see their face, that's usually all I need to prove it and satisfy my intuition.

Good luck to us all in getting them to confess. But as long as my department allows me to use my judgement in making that call, it is good enough for me...

posted 08-27-2004 10:46 PM         

You posed: “I'd like to have a discussion about ways of getting admissions from subjects using countermeasures.” In my view point, obtaining admissions from examinees using countermeasures is no different than obtaining an admission/ confession from a ‘suspect’ being interviewed about a reported crime. One could apply the Reid Interrogation approach or other approaches (such as Chuck Yescke’s, et al). May I suggest you closely evaluate your own ‘confession rate’ as a ‘beat detective’ of a criminal suspect when you had no witness to the crime, no supportive evidence, and without the use of polygraph- but based solely on the ‘suspects’ behavior, and your persistence to ‘persuade’ (motivate) the criminal suspect to make admissions against his interest. If your ‘confession rate’ was high without ‘supportive evidence’, then so should it be for the examinee using countermeasures- and if you had a good 'confession rate', then what are you doing differently?

As criminal investigators interviewing a suspect- haven’t we all ran with a bluff occasionally ? Such as telling the suspect that fingerprints were lifted and can be matched to his when there are none, or saying a witness saw him when there is no witness- or given the Reid ‘baiting’ question? Sometimes the ‘bluff’ worked, sometimes it did not.

For obvious reasons- I certainly believe confessions are ‘easier’ to obtain from the suspect when there is ‘supportive and demonstrable” evidence which can be shown to the suspect to aid in persuading the suspect to make incriminating statements against himself (such as the FBI fingerprint match report, Lab reports, witness statements etc.)

In the world of polygraph countermeasure detection -, we as profession in my opinion are ‘behind the times’, but gaining momentum through the advent of Activity sensors to detect the physical CM’s. (I would add current activity sensors are ‘good’ but not ‘great’) For the first time we now have the ability to provide the examinee with ‘supportive and demonstrable’ evidence that he engaged in physical CM’s. Lafayette also promotes a voice activated anti-countermeasure device, which purportedly is effective at detecting ‘‘mental and/or physical’’ countermeasures. (The software simply measures ‘‘the time differential’’ it takes for the examinee to ‘‘verbally respond’’ to a question being posed. The theory is based on ‘‘multi-tasking’’ research stemming from cellular phone users and reaction times while driving. As I’ve commented in other threads, the downside is the software will generate a ‘‘report’’ indicating whether or not a ‘‘countermeasure’’ was used- but cannot specify as to ‘‘what question’’ the countermeasure was being applied, relevant or comparison. Furthermore, as I understand it, there is a very small data base from which the decisions are based and very little meaningful research. )

By using both devices- we are beginning to have a distinct advantage. We can demonstrate to the examinee where he was engaging in ‘physical movements’ via the activity sensor tracing line- and- produce a ‘report’ to show the examinee which states “Countermeasures indicated due to excessive verbal response delays.’ Combined together, we have added persuasive power.

Currently Jack, I use Lafayette’s piezo sensors- under both arms, under the seat and both legs. The arms are connected together (and a specific tracing line is dedicated to just the arms) and the lower body (seat and legs) are on a separate tracing line, and I also incorporate Lafayette’s voice countermeasure detection system.

As a counter-countermeasure methodology during the pretest, I inform the examinee about what countermeasures are (physical, mental and pharmaceuticals) and provide examples. I then get them to commit that the only reason for a person to engage in CM’s is because they are ‘lying’ and cannot truthfully answer the questions.

After each chart during the test, I specifically ask the examinee “Did you feel comfortable with each question ? Do you feel anything interfered or distracted you during the test?” And “Did anything come to mind which you feel might have caused you to have a reaction? (Invariably I have found they always seem to respond with a ‘Yes to being comfortable” and No’ to the interference/distractions and anything coming to mind.)

If CM’s are detected, during the post test interview I make every effort to show the ‘physical tracing line’ to display their movement effort if applicable (or abnormal respiration tracing segments, or tracing line effected)- and begin to ‘persuade’ with whatever ‘Themes’ I can think of to motivate the examinee toward admission. If none is forthcoming, then I use the ‘unusual response delay report’ as a ‘secondary’ confrontation to show continued ‘evidence’ of non-cooperation I then would return to the ‘physical tracing line’ to display their movement again (or abnormal respiration- EDA etc). If the examinee now begins to offer excuses that he was being truthful but claims he was ‘cold’, ‘scared’, ‘nervous’ or having a appendix attack– I can 'cut him off' by reminding him of his repeated statements of being comfortable with the questions and with no interference / or distractions being noted. AND then I return to the ‘physical tracing line’ (or abnormal respiration- EDA etc) for further discussion (and more themes), and then the ‘unusual response delay report’ for further discussion (themes) to complete the ‘cycle.’ I suggest repeating the ‘cycle’ until (1) they admit; or (2) they get up and start to leave your office, as they hit the door make a comment “How you feel it’s so very important they hear everything you have to say.” If they sit back down, start the ‘cycle over again.’

I suppose if nothing is of value to you in this reply, I should at least be credited with being ‘long winded’ in my response :-)

Bob Weeks

posted 08-28-2004 05:45 PM         

I'll check with my High Tech Crime guys and see how deep he can bury an annonymous post to Geroges site. If it comes out of a "black box" computer, I don't think even George will be able to trace it.

I'll have to keep it legal and legit but if it can be done.......my guys can do it!

posted 08-31-2004 08:59 AM            

Most of what you suggest we have tried but there were a couple of things I think I may work on. Can you give me some examples of possible themes you may use?

Thanks again, Jack

posted 09-03-2004 10:54 AM         

Please bear with me and let me readdress the pretest as I mentioned in a previous post. I discuss the various forms of countermeasures in the pretest. Like yourself, I present and discuss the component attachments, basic physiology and then autonomic reflexes as related to F/F/F. After addressing any questions they may have, I then ask the examinee “if a person had to take a polygraph but they really did not want to- and they did not want the examiner to be able to accurately evaluate their body’s responses or data, What could be some things they could do ?” (Most clients will respond with controlled breathing or not sitting still or moving. Now IF they say they have no idea- then I will come back with “surely you have heard stories about putting a tack in your shoe, or biting your lip or tongue, think of something relaxing.) I then explain that when a person does things in an effort to prevent an accurate evaluation, it is called a “countermeasure” and provide them with examples of physical, mental and pharmaceuticals. I try to reinforce that “dwelling on something” such as mentally relaxing or exciting thoughts, doing math in the head, or controlled breathing, etc. creates more “work” for the body, and since the person is trying to Avoid test questions by dwelling on something else the ‘fight / flight response’ is enhanced. I use the word “countermeasures” more than once and tell them “all countermeasures are done “sneaky, covertly, and the person does not want to get caught doing them.” I then get a commitment from the examinee that all countermeasures are done for one purpose only- because the person had to LIE.

If the test data ‘supports’ countermeasures- then my final call will be No Opinion or Inconclusive unless there is an admission to relevant questions of course. In reality, the examinee may very well be Truthful although in his mind he ‘feels’ he has to ‘help’ himself pass (due to his fear of an error) and therefore the Truthful person does not immediately perceive what he was doing as being a “true countermeasure.” (Remember in the pretest, I told the examinee that people who use countermeasures due so because they are lying). Therefore I never bring up the word “countermeasure” again when seeking /soliciting an admission to their use in the post-test.

Since an Interview primarily equals dialogue, and Interrogation primarily equals monologue- we have to find a way to keep talking- and keep the applicant quiet till we are reasonably assured that he is ready to make a significant admission based on his body language- head nodding- and etc. The first of which that has to occur with the examinee is some direct confrontation- your test results are showing “significant responses/ reactions” to test questions (I don’t use the word Deceptive– yet) and then I briefly review each CQ and RQ question in an effort to get some admission- a minor admission to a CQ can go a long way in the interview (by at some point asking the examinee, since he knew he was lying to the CQ– What did he do to try and make the lie ‘look’ believable and control his response?) .

Now more directly to your question Jack about themes. In a pre-employment test for LE- (after RQ/CQ review) I would relate to the examinee that most applicants are truthful and honest in their testing, but there are those who are absolutely afraid of an error and feel compelled to try and ‘help’ themselves. I then would display something that ‘supports’ test data “manipulation” (but don’t use the word countermeasure). Expressing a complete understanding of the importance of the test to the applicant and your understanding of his ‘need to pass’ the test.

Theme 1: After all, look at the expense you paid to go to college- not to mention the two to four years out of his life to go. About how hard his studies were- all the late hours of getting ready for an important test, etc etc etc... And how he had no choice but to ‘help himself’ ensure he passed his test to protect all the time and money he invested in college so it was not a waste. Present Alternate question: You were trying to be honest but you felt you had no choice to manipulate your test to protect your investment, right ? - Certainly you were not trying to manipulate your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle ? If you were manipulating your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle, then you’re a different person than I thought.

Theme 2: And how he had no choice but to ‘help himself’ because of all the ‘pressure’ and ‘stress’ his wife (mother, father, brothers- other relatives) put on him– how she bragged to others about him getting into LE. How she believed he was going to be the best officer they ever had, etc etc etc : Back to the ‘supporting’ test data and your understanding of the importance of the test to the applicant and your understanding of his ‘need to pass’ the test. Alternate question again: You were trying to be honest but you felt you had no choice to manipulate your test to keep from feeling that you let your wife down, right ? - Certainly you were not trying to manipulate your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle ? If you were manipulating your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle, then you’re a different person than I thought.

Theme 3: And how he had no choice but to ‘help himself’ because he told all his friends he was going to be a police officer (maybe one of his friends is a police officer) and What would they think of him if he couldn’t pass a test?- after all the applicant has a Ph.D in LE :-) And how he became worried and stressed over what he would tell his friends in the event he was rejected by the department- Back to the ‘supporting’ test data and your understanding of the importance of the test to the applicant and your understanding of his ‘need to pass’ the test. Alternate question again: You were trying to be honest but you felt you had no choice but to manipulate your test to keep yourself from possible embarrassment in the event he wasn't hired by the department ? - Certainly you were not trying to manipulate your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle ? If you were manipulating your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle, then you’re a different person than I thought.

Theme 4: And how he had no choice but to ‘help himself’ because of what someone told him or what he read about polygraph inaccuracies, such as antipolygraph.org and , etc etc etc. Back to the ‘supporting’ test data and your understanding of the importance of the test to the applicant and your understanding of his ‘need to pass’ the test. Alternate question again: You were trying to be honest but you felt you had no choice but to manipulate your test because antipolygraph.org (or whoever) caused you to stress and worry about high failure rates- or that polygraph testing is unreliable ? - Certainly you were not trying to manipulate your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle ? If you were manipulating your test because you were lying about your application /lifestyle, then you’re a different person than I thought.

If the applicant makes admissions to being “honest” but ‘manipulation’ to protect himself, then of course get him committed to the ‘specific’ method of manipulation and on which questions. It is then that I would remind him of the pretest “countermeasure discussion” and start using the word ‘countermeasure’ instead of ‘manipulation’ and the fact he agreed a person uses ‘countermeasures’ because they are “lying”.

Sorry for being long winded again- Obviously Jack I tend to get carried away at times.

Let me know what you think

Bob

posted 09-03-2004 05:17 PM            

You have some very good information in your post. I have tried a couple of those themes and will definetely try the others.

I also like the committment from the subject in the pre-test that counter measures are sneaky or bad.

Thanks again, when we all share, we all learn.

Jack

posted 09-05-2004 06:34 AM         

...Look, the honest person who buys into the misinformation out there regarding protecting oneself during a polygraph exam by manipulating the test, simply makes themselves look guilty and muddies the water. The NRC (2003) report by scientists reviewing polygraph not only found that specific issue polygraph was extremely accurate but they specifically cited scientific studies which indicated that when an innocent person attempted to manipulate the test, he or she frequently made themselves look guilty and in fact created the error. Look, John...I know you manipulated the test, the question is...did you do that to hide whatever... or are you really innocent and following bad advice (or something to that effect)?

Any variation is fine...the main point is that there is empirical evidence for what we're seeing and we can use science as well as George can, and hopefully, better! This has worked and is well suited for those smart applicants dying to break into LE.

posted 10-11-2004 05:27 PM            

I would like to add, during the pre-test interview, I also determine if the examinee has conducted any research on the polygraph prior to there arrival. Then I advise them of the "disinformation" that is out there and that if they came in with the intention of helping themselves pass, hey should refrain from doing so and if I were to see any "abnormalities", during the course of the exam, I would consider their actions as attempts to conduct CM and stop the test. Moreover, I also advise them that I would write my report reflecting same.