posted 06-07-2004 08:15 AM            

The private examiner asked the following (in a DoDPI Bi-zone):

Did you ever fondle X's vagina for your own sexual gratification?

Did you fondle X's vagina for your own sexual gratification while she was alone in your care?

The police examiner asked the following (in a ZCT with the old "knowledge module"):

Did you ever touch X's genitals for any sexual purpose?

Have you ever touched X's genitals for a sexual reason?

Other than what you told me, have you ever touched X's genitals?

Do you know for sure who touched X? (Knowledge module)

(It's not listed in the report, but he must have asked the "YOU" portion of the knowledge module as well.)

I have not attended the PCSOT training, but have studied sex offense testing in basic polygraph school. I've also had training in investigating sex offenses, and I know that not all sex offenders offend for "sexual gratification." If this examinee is one of those who offended (if he really did it) for some other reason - or has at least rationalized he did so for another reason - he might have considered himself truthful in his denials. Am I reading too much into this, or am I right to be skeptical?

I haven't seen any charts yet, but I want to take a look at both of them (old and new) to see if the examinee has "studied" one of the CM sites since it was a few years between tests.

posted 06-07-2004 10:08 AM         

In my opinion, the private examiner's questions left the door wide open for rationalization. IE: "Hell no we were not alone-my wife was downstairs" or "I didn't do it for sexual gratification-I did it so I could masturbate late and get gratification". Looking at the private examiner's charts may tell you something but I would want to see the video! Did he down play the allegation and jack up the controlls?

Take care,

posted 06-07-2004 11:42 AM            

your answer may be in the testing techniques used. It appears the police examiner ran an MGQT and the private guy used a Bi-Zone.

There are a lot of opinions out there, but I would suggest that the Bi-Zone affords every chance for the examinee to pass, while the MGQT is a lot harder to do so. One reason, bracketing controls versus 2 CQ for 4 RQ's.

I woud not opine further on the "why" of this testing; however, I do not think the word fondling, versus touching, with rationale, allows for that much rationalization.

Another issue... what of the CQ's used at both. Were they appropriate? This is a big possible reason.

Further, on a specific accusation, why would anyone ask a do you know for sure question?

I do not think the answer is deeply rooted in the problem with proper PCSOT training, but somewhere above.

Lastly you wrote, "I know that not all sex offenders offend for "sexual gratification."

I disagree. It IS about the sex and sexual gratification (power through sex and all that...), otherwise abuse would manifest itself in other forms/manners. That's like saying rape is a crime of violence, not sex... Huh? If this was the case, why not just beat the crap out of her...? Sorry for the political incorrectness.

Looking at the charts would be a start. Also, the CQ's (refer to above).

Normally, on non-PCSOT testing, sex and sex- lie CQ's are what I have used sucessfully. I do not do PCSOT, but recall there is a special consideration of CQ's for them.

Good Luck,

posted 06-07-2004 12:03 PM            

In question 10, which is usually an evidence-connecting question, the examiner used another strong relevant instead of a weak relevant. Why I don't know. I just started watching the video.

In regard to the "sexual gratification" issue (and I agree it is about sex, but it doesn't matter what I think), some rationalize they were only "educating" the victim at the time, etc.

(Yes, I caught the "while she was alone in your care" phrase, but I was more curious about what people thought of the "sexual gratification" phrase.)

posted 06-07-2004 12:10 PM            

As far as the "Other than what you told me..." question goes, the examiner was talking about those things you mentioned (bathing, etc), which the examinee had disclosed. (I like your version better, but I don't see much difference - unless I'm missing something.)

Once I watch the entire video I might have more to add (or maybe more questions).

posted 06-07-2004 06:38 PM            

Remember, sometimes a private examiner has to let the subject know that the results can have consequences, regardless of what their attorney says.

Jack

posted 06-08-2004 07:47 AM            

I don't necessarily care why he did it (presuming the given examinee is guilty), but I do want to know (based on polygraph) he did do it. Once he comes to grips with performing the offense, then we can discuss the whys - if he knows.

I have a hard time believing a situational offender who loses control (for whatever reason I can't understand) is going to be willing to admit to himself - let alone me or anybody else - he did something like this for "sexual" gratification. What if he felt no "gratification" at all, but rather intense guilt and remorse? Did he then do it for that purpose? Again, the issue is intent, and if he didn't achieve his initial goal I would expect him to have to rationalize and minimize his acts in order to live with himself. (Reasoning, "I wasn't gratified. I was miserable, angry, etc. Therefore, the answer is 'no.'")

I agree the person who prefers or needs sex with a child does so for sexual gratification, among other things, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Perhaps I am thinking too much about this after all?

posted 06-09-2004 10:28 PM         

My two cents. I have conducted specific issue exams regarding molestation / indecent assault issues and have successfully used the phrase "...for sexual gratification."

If the examinee is not a relative of the alleged victim and/or had never cared for him / her, then I would simply cover the specific allegation. "Did you ever touch (rub) Sally's vagina?" "Did you ever touch (rub) Sally's vagina while in your house?" etc.

Now, if the examinee is a caregiver and mentions that he (she) has bathed the alleged victim, changed diapers, or applied medication, etc, then perhaps I'll add the phrase "...for sexual gratification." I'll pre-test it to mean your sexual gratification or Sally's sexual gratification. It is my belief that is why they molest...for sexual gratification. I'll sometimes use "education" as a post-test theme. "I imagine Bob that you only touched Sally's vagina to help teach her about sex...the proper way. After all, her parents are never there for her."

If there is enough material, I'll use an MGQT. If not, I'll go with a ZCT.

I agree with the responses above. What comparisons were used...were they relevant? (What time bars were used?) Also, I agree that the private examiner setting and/or the time that passed could help diminish any responses. Lastly, as already stated, we can't forget about possible use of CMs.

Ned

posted 06-10-2004 06:55 AM            

Use "fondle" and pretest it to include touch, rub, massage, insert, etc... for sexual gratification. No-one, not even a caregiver can "fondle" a girls vagina (or breasts, buttocks, etc) for innocent purposes or rationalize out of it.

It works for me,

posted 06-10-2004 08:03 AM            

I contacted two psychologists and Jim Morris, president of N.A.P.S, and they all agree sex offenders do NOT all offend for sexual gratification.

For reasons that are well beyond my training as a polygraph examiner (I understood her reasoning, but I couldn't do it any justice), one of the psychologists thought even it were that reason at first, it's unlikely he'd believe that to be the case today, allowing him to pass even if he did it.

posted 06-10-2004 08:27 AM            

Additionally, I, as you also indicated, am not as learned as others, but it would seem to me those who advocate "other" reasons for molesting are trying to possibly suggest that after the initial sexual gratification is over, it's all just a "bad habit?" I have a real problem with that; BUT, I ain't that learned...(LOL)

Jim

posted 06-10-2004 11:25 AM            

As for it being a "bad habit," I don't think that's the reasoning. Some offenders (and this is out of my league somewhat) blame the victims for the offenses. Over time, they internalize that bizzare reasoning until they truly believe they are the victims. (It makes more sense when the psychologist explains it. It's all very twisted to me.)

posted 06-10-2004 02:29 PM            

For the most part erotic imagery, the thoughts that accompany a sexual experience, is involved in incidents of sexual stimulation, but not always. Through this process there are a number of different things for which a person may be sexually stimulated by. Pain infliction, fear, and control are included in these things for which sexual stimulation occurs.

More importantly, the phrase “for sexual purposes” is adeptly used in the legal terminology of the crime to separate socially acceptable and deviant behaviors that have reached the status of criminal behavior. If the individual has been socially conditioned to accept the process and maybe even enjoy it as a victim and/or offender, they often will develop techniques of neutralization, which is pretty much synonymous with rationalization. In this case, such an act can be internally justified by the individual as an acceptable one.

It is my opinion that the best way to combat this problem is to stay away from the intent and focus on the action. There is most certainly an action, as Jim stated, involved in the commission of a sex act (i.e. rubbing, squeezing, licking, putting inside). To get this action, the investigators need to pay close attention to the victim’s terminology when describing the act and define that terminology so that it may be readily adapted for latter questioning of the suspect. Then we can incorporate that earlier obtained terminology from the victim into the interview with the suspect to help formulate the appropriate questions based on their definitions. If we just remember to use the K.I.S.S. principle while constructing our relevant test questions, we should have good understandable relevant questions.

Just my long winded thoughts on the issue.

posted 07-07-2004 10:55 PM            

Seems to work for me...separates out the legitimate parental touching to administer medicine, bathing, etc.

Chip Morgan