posted 05-28-2009 06:27 PM            

Here is a general overview. Victim (female) states she was “partying” with two men. She passes out and comes to with one suspect having sex with her. The other suspect kisses her. This was all non-consensual with her.

Suspect 1 is interviewed and suspect says sex occurred but was consensual.

Suspect 2 is interviewed denies kissing, but was present when #1 was having sex w/victim. S-2 states victim “seemed to be into it”.

posted 05-28-2009 09:24 PM            

Suspect #2: Did you kiss that woman?

------------------
"Truth Seekers"

posted 05-28-2009 10:04 PM            

are there any more specific details or actions in which S1 denied committing in which V could not of performed, i.e. removing clothing, bra, panties, etc?

Theory: if she did not give consent and her pants and clothes were removed and he says she did it, etc... You don't always have to go for the jugular in a test to find the truth.

With S2, (and the non-consent issue), consent with the lack of her statement of saying "no" or "stop", you'd simply be targeting his belief and if you deal with any "players" or "ladies man", you'll find no woman denies him and would never tell him no, therefore they all agree/consent, etc.

Was she awake/conscious when you had sex with her questions could allow for him to be questioning that if at anytime in the sex episode, she closed her eyes for any period (which I hear happens sometimes).

S2: Did you kiss _____ (anytime) that night? If she denies kissing him anytime while partying.

If she admits to kissing, but not at the crime scene, then perhaps, in that (crime scene), i.e. bedroom, barn, car, etc...

My .02

Jim

P.S. Dang Barry, you beat me to the post...

posted 05-29-2009 08:43 AM            

Consent issues of course are difficult when there is "Partying" going on and although the victim maybe projecting "No" the suspect may not be receiving "No". So the belief by the suspect may truly be "She didn't say no"

From my end I would want to know if the suspect (either 1 or 2) is just telling the truth as to what he already stated, then go from there.

posted 05-29-2009 09:04 AM            

from my experience of a couple of days, I have found that almost all sexual assault victims lie and so do the accused. This occurs for one reason or another. Anything from trying to sound more victimized (i.e. credible), avoid a particularly nasty or "gross" portion of the incident due to embarrassment or omit consensual actions which looks condemning, a suspect trying to look more credible by avoiding certain portions of the incident, or embellishment of the facts of consent which are only perceptions, like the first five times she said "no", then gave in, did she really say "no"?

The test you're suggesting in your last post is not like a "statement test", where for reasons to avoid certain emotional aspects of a crime, you direct specific parts of test be written then you test on the truthfulness of the statement which address the elements of proof for the crime.

In this type of case, we want the truth. My suggestion is go after a very specific part of the act alleged by the victim and specifically denied by the suspect. Then go from there...

Again, my $.02

Jim

posted 05-29-2009 10:26 AM            

S-1 is a tough one. You don't want to ask him the victims frame of mind...like did you 'think' she was unconscious. I bet you will get more when you start the pretest w/ S-1 to help develop your questions.

How about... DYH sex with V when she was passed out? hell, we all know what passed out means - just pretest it well.

If she is passed out she couldn't have taken off her own clothes....DY 'begin' to have sex with V while she was unresponsive?

If the V wakes up and objects you may have more...DY penis touch V's vajaja w/o her consent? DYH sex with V against her will...or...DYE hear V tell you to stop the sexual act?

Did S1 say that while having sex - S2 kissed her. If he denys that portion (as S2 did) you will have another avenue. Did you participate in a sexual act on the V while S2 was kissing her?

S-2 is easy. DY kiss V or go for the 3-some questions DY kiss V while S1 was having SI her? While S1 was having SI with V DY kiss her? For all we know S2 could have already had sex with her and they changed positions before she woke up.

You also have the posibility of GHB

posted 05-29-2009 12:19 PM            

Was V asleep when you had sex with her?

Was V asleep at any time during sex?

Did you have sex with V while she was asleep?

Is V telling the truth about you having sex with her while she was asleep?

S2

Did you kiss V?

Did you kiss V while S1 was having sex with her.

Are you the person who kissed V while S1 was having sex with her?

posted 05-29-2009 12:55 PM            

Is V lying?
Did S1 have sexy with V?

Did S say ___ ?

I am inclined to NOT utilize these type of questions.

------------------
Ben

posted 05-29-2009 02:28 PM            

FYI: in my post I had a question for apb739 asking if S1 said S2 kissed her while he had SI w/V(but I left off the ?) I didn't mean that as a question for the Suspect.

Regardless it boils down to the pretest and how you define everything from unconscious, sleeping, passed out, incompacitated...

posted 05-29-2009 03:25 PM            

------------------
Ben

posted 05-29-2009 05:48 PM            

I have S1 coming on Monday and S2 on Tuesday. I'll see if I can get it cleared to post the carts for some feedback.

posted 05-29-2009 07:29 PM            

Regarding #2, He has made a statement that the while #1 was having intercourse, the Victim appeared "into it". Sounds like he may have entered into a conspiracy with #1 to conceal the truth about what happened.

If he goes DI on conspiracy, it shouldn't be too hard to get the at the truth, post test, if you down play his "Kiss" against the "Big Bad Rapist". Especially since if he sticks to his story, he may end up on the hook for the rape as well.

If you are going to go with a conspiracy test, try to test #2 first followed immediatly by #1 before they can compare notes.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 05-29-2009 08:07 PM         

I think the wording should be "Did you have sex with her after she passed out?"

posted 05-29-2009 10:47 PM            

Suspect #1 is complicated. It seems like rather suspiscious science to attach polygraph components to one person's body (the examinee) to investigate the victim's (intoxicated) state of mind - whether stated in terms of consciousness or consent. It is similarly complicated to ask whether she said 'no' or 'stop.' Victim's advocates and courts have agreed that victims do not need to say 'no' or 'stop' for a violation of consent or an assault to occur.

This is, in part, a toxicology problem.

Toxicologists will tell us that some people can be in a psychological or psychiatric "black-out" due to their level of toxicity, while still at times appearing semi-interactive or semi-responsive to others. they may have no memory of non-immediate events, due to some interference with their working memory or other memory functions. At some point, their memory structures resume operation and they realize they have no idea what had been occurring while "blacked-out." To them it will be as if they were asleep, and have now awaken.

Evidence of these intoxicated fugue states abound, and a lot of people know someone who's had, at some time, to engage in those "who are you," "where am I," or "where's the car" type of discussions.

What this means is that a severely intoxicated and unconscious person can at times undress oneself. This still might be a good question - just know the limitations ahead of time.

It is possible that she could have appeared responsive or semi-responsive at the time while still blacked-out and unconscious. Whether or not that equates consent is a legal matter, but it's also a matter of ethics and morality (whether a severely intoxicated person can consent - in the context of whatever type of relationships the involved persons have). Who knows; some couples may like to play the fireman-comes-home-from-a-long-day-at-work-and-wakes-up-his-wife-game. Relationship context is sometimes important, not just legally, but also clinically.

Despite these complications, it may still be highly useful to test the person. An effective pretest can develop the contextual information in much greater detail.

The polygraph test, like every other good test, whether medical or psychological - is a simple matter of stimulus and response. A good polygraph question will engage multiple robust psychological mechanisms: emotion, cognition, and behavior.

Behavioral learning is best understood in terms of conditioning. For example: "did you eat the meat powder after that bell rang," or "do you have any behavioral experience that would cause you to respond to this particular stimulus," or more simply "is you body gonna salivate when I ring this-here polygraph question/bell." The obvious problem in this case is that he says he did have sex with her and she was intoxicated.

Emotional attributions for polygraph responses are typically in the form of FFF and fear-of-detection. However, these don't adequately explain the effectiveness of either DLCs or why the polygraph continues to work just as well with psychopaths (who have low levels of fear-conditioning) as with non-psychopaths. While, these don't adequately account for polygraph accuracy or polygraph responses by themselves, it would be a mistake to completely discount the role of emotion during polygraph testing. Any version of "did you do it" or "are you lying about it," attempt to stimulate an emotional response. The obvious complication - and argument of polygraph opponents - is that there may be other causes for fear or emotional response to a stimulus/question, besides fear of detection. So, while there is some theory and evidence that emotions may play a role in polygraph responses, there is no credible theory or evidence that the polygraph can differentiate various emotions or causes of emotion. In the case of a person accused of sexually assaulting an unconscious female. We don't really worry that it is possible that a a low-fear psychopathic type could underrespond, because they would underrespond to everything. We still might want to wonder whether it possible that an innocent person could react emotionally, in the form of fear, anger, disgust, etc., to the accusation itself.

Cognition involves both memory, and attention (and perhaps more) during the exam. "Did you do it," is just a simple version of "do you have any memory of the details of that event," and/or "what happens to the level of sympathetic activity in your cerebral cortex when I stimulate the event details with this question." Conscious activity or mental effort for a truthful person is simple: there is only one story and it has been told correctly. For the deceptive person, they'll want to avoid conscious contact with the event details, and that will require attentional effort. Avoid attending to the event details, attend to something else instead (different version of the event, sing-songs, picture scenes of Hawaii, whatever), along with monitoring one's body more closely to maintain a normal behavioral and physiological appearance and avoid revealing the deceit. Additional effort requires fuel - oxygen, ATP, and glycogen for those hungry cells in the cerebral cortex and that will reveal itself in cardiovascular activity. Oxygen consumption will produce changes in blood oxygen levels and carbon-dioxide levels. Changes in respiration may occur in response to both behavioral attention to a stimuli or threat and changes in oxygen demands, carbon-dioxide loads. Electrodermal changes, driven by the action of acetylcholine in the post-ganglionic sympathetic neurons in the skin, may be a reflection of the general action of acetylcholine in they sympathetic nervous system. It is, after all, acetylcholine that enervates activity in the cerebral cortex and the prefrontal area involved in all this cognition. All of which can account for why DLCs work and why the polygraph works with low-emotion psychopaths. In the case of an intoxicated female rape victim, these mechanism may or may not be able to diferentiate

I'm comfortable with both "did you remove her clothing/undergarments," and "did she appear (to you) to be asleep/unconscious when you began to have sex with her." Of course, adjust the language to your liking.

If he doesn't pass, then you have something to talk about. If he does pass, you have to understand that it is still possible that she was in an unconscious black-out, until she became conscious, though still may have appeared semi-responsive.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-30-2009 12:56 AM         

You initiated the post with: the “Victim (female) states she was “partying” with two men. She passes out and comes to with one suspect having sex with her. The other suspect kisses her. This was all non-consensual with her.”

This is an interesting case scenario Apb739, - and lot of good ideas for relevant questions have been already posted by others.

She most certainly could have been so severely incapacitated to point of being unable to give adequate consent as in a ‘semi- conscious state’ which the suspect interprets as being ‘awake’ during her “in and out’ phases of semi-consciousness (I’ve been there a few times in my life, the semi-conscious state that is- like in the back seat of a taxi cab in Japan. I could have gotten robbed that night and I would have had a smile on my face with my eyes closed as the robber was going thru my front pockets. Hence I was semi-awake, I just wouldn’t have cared- and the robber would have thought I was willingly giving my money cause I was smiling). I think Sackett was on track with his comment that sex victims lie too, it’s easier for the victim to save face and say she ‘passed out’ as opposed to being so ‘damn drunk I know not what I do- - or remember.’ With this, I would say be cautious with the use of ‘passed out’ or ‘asleep’ in the relevant questions.

Some other ideas for S1:
Did you start to have sexual acts (or intercourse) with V1 when she was not fully awake? (just to take advantage of her)?

Did you start to have sexual acts (or intercourse) with V1 when she was not fully awake enough to be a willing person (or participant)? (or not fully awake enough to take advantage of an unwilling person\participant? (or give her consent)?

Did you remove any part of V1 clothing before she was fully awake to have sex with her without her knowledge? (or without her knowing?)

(I admit you would have to pretest what ‘fully awake’ means, and it doesn’t mean going in and out of a state of semi-consciousness; although a person who is merely drunk can be fully awake and be aware of what is going on. Part of the pretest could include referring to S1's own prior experiences with intoxication and semi-consciousness and ‘having blank spots- or black outs’ and then relate it to the state of intoxication of V1 that night )

Is V1 saying S1 was having intercourse with her and S2 was kissing her at the same time? Or did the kissing come later at some other point in time?

Since S2 denies it, RQ’s are straight forward: DY kiss V1 at any time? DY kiss V1 at any time that night (or while at—) ? (If she says S2 was kissing her as S1 was having intercourse) an RQ potential: Did S1 see you kissing V1? (who cares about consent at this point, he says he didn’t do it).

I am a little concerned with the type of “partying” that was going on. Was it just booze ? were other drugs involved? What’s the potential for use of the so-called memory lapsing date-rape drugs ? Any other witnesses or consenting sex happening at the ‘party’ ? Or was this just a ‘party’ of three ? How ‘solid’ is the victim’s statement and her recall of the chain of events before she ‘passed out’ and her memory of things immediately following the sexual act- ‘how and when did she get off the bed, couch, or floor’ ? I think if she was that intoxicated, there out to be some ‘blank spots’ in her statement with a ‘I don’t remember.’

Bob

posted 05-30-2009 12:57 AM            

if there is no specific information provided, we would be making an assumption about S1's knowledge of V1's mental and physical state.

That bothers me, especially when dealing with a narcissistic personality type....

My opinions are posted above.

Jim

posted 05-30-2009 05:26 AM            

By definition, a narcissist will have substantial deficits in noticing or appreciating someone else's perspective.

It would be best to ask him about his own perspective regarding her state of allertness/unconsciouness/passed-outness.

That is why I like "did you begin to have sex with V while she appeared to be asleep" or something similar. The question is not about whether she was asleep, or simply trying to go to sleep, or pretending to be asleep - it's about the Ss perception of her allertness, and helps us understand whether he is a simple narcissist who lacks sensitivity towards vulnerability, or an opportunistic aggressor who preys on vulnerability. Would would it matter otherwise? The facts, as provided, are that it happened and that she didn't like it.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 05-30-2009 06:59 PM            

S#2 admits to being present when S#1 and V had sexual intercourse. He also admits to kissing the Victim but says it was consensual.He also said it appeared that the victim was "in to it" Viewed in the best possible light he is either telling the truth about the kiss or is guilty of a sexual battery. In the worst possible light, He is guilty of Sexual Battery and is an accessory to the rape.

If S#2 is D.I. then he has to decide whether he is going to be a witness for the prosecution on the rape case, which might be worth some consideration on the sexual battery charge OR He can be a co-defendant in the Rape Case and possibly end up with a prison cell next to his buddy.

I think that with proper technique he would jump at the chance to be a witness rather than a co-defendant. If so then he is now corroberating the victim's statement and you may not even need any of those great S#1 RQs to clear this case.

If he is NDI then you will need to pursue some good RQs for S#1.

Sometimes it is not sbout asking the perfect question, it is about properly applying polygraph in such a manner that it helps us resolve the case.

Even if you still have to polygraph S#1, Him knowing that his buddy has rolled on him won't exactly help him on HIS exam

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 05-31-2009 05:38 AM            

I try to approach this type of situation by getting the suspect to admit they were drinking, the alcohol affected their judgment, and the victim was drinking and the drinking affected her judgment. And, if they had both been sober, or if she would have been sober, would this situation have even occurred.

posted 06-02-2009 08:40 AM            

Asking the suspect "Was that woman asleep when you initiated sexual intercourse?" creates the same problem. She could have been "awake" when they began the touchy-feely, grope portion of the act and passed out and/or fell asleep just after the National Anthem but just prior to the first pitch.

If you don't think this can happen, See the research entitled "The effect of George Dickel Sour Mash Whiskey on Webb's love making ability, by Mrs. Webb - Unpublished, thank God).

The removal of those two avenues of approach leaves us with testing the suspect on his own statement, not hers. We end up with questions like "Did you lie about that woman removing her own clothes? or “Did you lie about that woman being on top during sex that night? Or “Did you lie about that woman fondling your penis"?, all in an effort to show that she was actively participating and therefore a willing partner to the event. Unfortunately, she could have done those things at 1205 am and then passed out at 1206 am and still be a victim of rape at 1207 am, being unable to give consent to the act of sexual intercourse.

Additionally, "blackouts" resulting from ingestion of toxic amounts of any depressant drug (alcohol) can create a physically functioning person with absolutely no memory of the event that occurred during the black out. Then she becomes cognizant of her surroundings and finds that she has a man on top of her in the midst of an act to which she did not "consent".

It gets worse with the victim who reports that she woke up "with a feeling down there" and “thinks” that someone had sex with her. We then become a "forensic gynecologist" who must try, through the use of the polygraph, to determine why she "hurts down there". Most gynecologists have much better tools for making that determination than the polygraph.

I’ve come to believe, as much as I hate to admit it, that the use of a short hand written statement, made in the presence of the examiner, by the suspect in which he writes “ Susie Smith was a willing participant to the act of sexual intercourse that night. She was awake and functioning and was not unconscious when I initiated sexual intercourse with her.” Have him sign the statement, swear him to it and then test him with a bi-zone in which we ask “Did you lie in that statement you just wrote?”

If he’s able to pass that test, then so be it. If we fails, then go after the confession. I’m normally not a proponent of the statement test as a primary vehicle, but in the instant case, it might assist at getting to the truth.

I think this topic needs more discussion and opinions as it’s become at least a once a week test for many of us in law enforcement. By the way, if I determine that the suspect has a sister or his mother is divorced and therefore single, I ask him how he would feel if someone who was on a date with his sister/mother had sexual intercourse with her under the exact same conductions. I actually had one young man tell me he’d kill the SOB. A pre-test confession occurred right after that.

posted 06-02-2009 04:38 PM            

I'm perplexed and have no idea what you and Skip are referring to...

posted 06-03-2009 08:26 AM            

I'm with you on this one (earlier post) sometimes we tend to over think the issues and if you really break it down to the basics you can usually just break it down to truth vs lie and go from there.

As mentioned though in other responses, the final choice of what Relevant Questions to use by the examiner depends on how well the examiner does in locking things up in the pre-test.

posted 06-03-2009 12:11 PM         

They are referring to having your date recite the alphabet, walk a straight line-heel to toe, and count backwards from 1-10. You know, the stuff they taught you in the academy.

For God's sake Jim....try to keep up!

posted 06-03-2009 02:06 PM            

I say, one should start with a Birth Certificate, Corresponding Photo I.D. and a blood alcohol/drug test at the very least.

Of course, this should really be accompanied by a sworn waiver absolving the party of the first part from any liability or claims of liability arising out of or resulting from misinterpretation of documents, test results, permissions, wishes, or intentions that are presented, offered, implied, or suggested in any form, verbal or physical, by the party of the second part.

This document should waive any liability resulting from any undisclosed deficiency or impairment whether temporary or permanent that would render the party of the second part incapable of lawful consent as well as waiving any consequences arising from a sudden revocation of permissions, implied or given, by the party of the second part once the agreed upon activities have begun. Providing, it is supported by a affidavit by the party of the first part that immediate cessation of any such act or activity was, at the moment of revocation, impossible due to a physiological inability to terminate or discontinue the act or activity prior to a foreseeable and expected conclusion, reasonably anticipated by the party of the first part based on their interpretation of previous permissions, wishes, or intentions that were presented, offered, implied, or suggested in any form, verbal or physical, by the party of the second part.

It will also helps things run more smoothly if your wingman/wingwoman/wingperson? is also a Notary.

But that's just one man's opinion

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 06-03-2009 02:50 PM            

I believe there is a form as you describe on legalforms.net. I dont believe it gets much use though, other than in the Kentucky area when a guy wants to date his sister....seriously though, has anyone heard how the test came out, thought it was suppose to be a couple of days ago. Just curious on what RQs APB actually ended up using.

[This message has been edited by YLIE2ME (edited 06-03-2009).]

posted 06-03-2009 08:30 PM            

I got it, but I have two questions. When I do the heel to toe walk and turn, do I put my beer down, give it to the hooker in my car or ask the cop to hold it for me?

Then, do I remove my heels or keep them on...?

Jim