- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Nov 03, 2003, 08:06 AMQuote from: furedy on Nov 03, 2003, 03:13 AMSorry, I'mn still operating from dififcult Sydney email, and cannot reply directly to message (and many typos). This message refers to a Nov 1 claim that the onloy interrogatory component of the CQT is the process of choosing the "control" questions, which were also said to be "orthogonal" to the relevant questions. Regarding the term "orthogonoal", iI have not come across this term before, but it seems to me to be the sort of meaningless jargon that the Roman entrails reading priests also probably employed.
But to return to my header, the CQT (in contrast to the CIT which, like many other detection devices, may form the basis of the decision to interrogate, but does not contain interrogation as part of its detection function) contains many interrogational comkponents other than the process of choosing "control" quesionts. To take just one example, the attempt to convince the examinee of the 100% accuracy of the polygraph in detecting *all* lies (e.g., "the machine will detect if you're not 100% honest") is both a lie (i.e., the examiner, even if he is fool enough to think that the polygraph is over 90% accurate, still does not think it is 100% accurate) and an interrogational component (i.e., setting up a scenario that increases the probability that the exminee will confess--note that the CIT does not have this component).
Again, and stilll before the "post test interview", the pretest will often contain quesionts that will be used durin ghte "post test interview". For example (a real one), in the pretest interview the examiner finds ouit that the examinee's mother has recently died. IN the "post test interview" interrogation, "Your poor dead mother would have wanted you to confess your guilt".
There are many other interrogatory aspects, but especially on this primitive emaill, I've said enough. All the best, John
John,
Sorry about the posting problems, I had a keyboard that produced similar effects some months ago.
As for the term "orthogonal", I wasn't trying to be cryptic just descriptive. The use in this context was to say that the controls were ideally picked from the pretest that are distinct, and unrelated to the relevants and thus minimize any impact (positive or negative) on the subject's responsiveness to the relevants. The term is widely used in the sciences in similar ways so I assumed the meaning would be obvious.
I am not a fan of the CQT in screening contexts but believe it valuable in criminal, specific incident situations though mostly because it is effective for interrogation. Admissions of guilt are not always true, but they most often are.
-Marty
Posted by Marty
- Nov 03, 2003, 07:42 AMQuote from: J.B. McCloughan on Nov 03, 2003, 12:23 AMAgreed, so long as the investigator doesn't inadvertantly convey information, for instance by body language, to the examinee. I also agree it is best to determine in advance possible exposure to CI.
Asking the subject what knowledge they have prior to the examination, without introducing the questions of the tests to be administered, will give them no more knowledge than that which they already possess.
As for the issue of interrogation components, I think post test interrogation (in the usual sense) is frequently, though by no means always, done just to cover bases when there is a lot at stake. Again, the Smart's are a good example.
QuoteYes they are costly but so is failed justice. However, scientific techniques can be used to determine suceptibility to such biases and provide a basis establishing proper safeguards if and where needed for day to day use of these tools just like it is used elsewhere.
Although blind and double blind studies are worthy of use in scientific studies within a controlled setting, the actual practice of such things in the field of forensics are rare.
Forensic sciences are costly methods of investigation that are, for the most part and for most disciplines, not available for use in most investigations. In a perfect society with unlimited resources, your method would be plausible. In this ideal society, there would be plenty of qualified investigators to conduct thorough investigations on any crime and unlimited resources at their disposal, to include forensic scientists. However, this has not been the case in even the best of economic times. In today's even more taxed economy, there are even less of those resources to achieve such a goal. Unnecessary steps are eliminated in the field to help reduce the manpower and cost needed to adequately complete any investigative method, with the integrity of the investigation and the excepted level of the given investigating agency being the standard of measurement.
-Marty
Posted by furedy
- Nov 03, 2003, 03:13 AMSorry, I'mn still operating from dififcult Sydney email, and cannot reply directly to message (and many typos). This message refers to a Nov 1 claim that the onloy interrogatory component of the CQT is the process of choosing the "control" questions, which were also said to be "orthogonal" to the relevant questions. Regarding the term "orthogonoal", iI have not come across this term before, but it seems to me to be the sort of meaningless jargon that the Roman entrails reading priests also probably employed.
But to return to my header, the CQT (in contrast to the CIT which, like many other detection devices, may form the basis of the decision to interrogate, but does not contain interrogation as part of its detection function) contains many interrogational comkponents other than the process of choosing "control" quesionts. To take just one example, the attempt to convince the examinee of the 100% accuracy of the polygraph in detecting *all* lies (e.g., "the machine will detect if you're not 100% honest") is both a lie (i.e., the examiner, even if he is fool enough to think that the polygraph is over 90% accurate, still does not think it is 100% accurate) and an interrogational component (i.e., setting up a scenario that increases the probability that the exminee will confess--note that the CIT does not have this component).
Again, and stilll before the "post test interview", the pretest will often contain quesionts that will be used durin ghte "post test interview". For example (a real one), in the pretest interview the examiner finds ouit that the examinee's mother has recently died. IN the "post test interview" interrogation, "Your poor dead mother would have wanted you to confess your guilt".
There are many other interrogatory aspects, but especially on this primitive emaill, I've said enough. All the best, John
But to return to my header, the CQT (in contrast to the CIT which, like many other detection devices, may form the basis of the decision to interrogate, but does not contain interrogation as part of its detection function) contains many interrogational comkponents other than the process of choosing "control" quesionts. To take just one example, the attempt to convince the examinee of the 100% accuracy of the polygraph in detecting *all* lies (e.g., "the machine will detect if you're not 100% honest") is both a lie (i.e., the examiner, even if he is fool enough to think that the polygraph is over 90% accurate, still does not think it is 100% accurate) and an interrogational component (i.e., setting up a scenario that increases the probability that the exminee will confess--note that the CIT does not have this component).
Again, and stilll before the "post test interview", the pretest will often contain quesionts that will be used durin ghte "post test interview". For example (a real one), in the pretest interview the examiner finds ouit that the examinee's mother has recently died. IN the "post test interview" interrogation, "Your poor dead mother would have wanted you to confess your guilt".
There are many other interrogatory aspects, but especially on this primitive emaill, I've said enough. All the best, John
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Nov 03, 2003, 12:23 AMMarty,
As far as the following:
Asking the subject what knowledge they have prior to the examination, without introducing the questions of the tests to be administered, will give them no more knowledge than that which they already possess. If there is predetermined knowledge indicated, those tests that are tainted by such knowledge would be eliminated. I also think that introducing the question, absent revealing the various alternative and correct answers, as suggested by Lykken, prior to the start of each test can help clear up any inadvertent knowledge. Tests should be sequenced as to not expose the subject to the correct answer anyway, if not absent even with sequence. If the fingerprints of a suspect of a breaking and entering were to be compared to latent lifts obtained from the scene of a crime and it was known that the suspect had legally accessed that area prior to the commission of such crime, the need for such a comparison may not be necessary.
My response regarding the lack of presumed guilt was in response to your agreeing with John's notion of:
To which you replied:
Again, I think this is potentially present in both procedures.
Although blind and double blind studies are worthy of use in scientific studies within a controlled setting, the actual practice of such things in the field of forensics are rare.
Forensic sciences are costly methods of investigation that are, for the most part and for most disciplines, not available for use in most investigations. In a perfect society with unlimited resources, your method would be plausible. In this ideal society, there would be plenty of qualified investigators to conduct thorough investigations on any crime and unlimited resources at their disposal, to include forensic scientists. However, this has not been the case in even the best of economic times. In today's even more taxed economy, there are even less of those resources to achieve such a goal. Unnecessary steps are eliminated in the field to help reduce the manpower and cost needed to adequately complete any investigative method, with the integrity of the investigation and the excepted level of the given investigating agency being the standard of measurement.
As far as the following:
Quote
My understanding is that in Japan, where CIT's are actually the most common forensic polygraph type administered, such issues are often cleared up after the CIT is given rather than before. Determining suspect exposure to CI can inadvertantly inform them. Areas where they have come in contact with CI are more apparent post test.
Asking the subject what knowledge they have prior to the examination, without introducing the questions of the tests to be administered, will give them no more knowledge than that which they already possess. If there is predetermined knowledge indicated, those tests that are tainted by such knowledge would be eliminated. I also think that introducing the question, absent revealing the various alternative and correct answers, as suggested by Lykken, prior to the start of each test can help clear up any inadvertent knowledge. Tests should be sequenced as to not expose the subject to the correct answer anyway, if not absent even with sequence. If the fingerprints of a suspect of a breaking and entering were to be compared to latent lifts obtained from the scene of a crime and it was known that the suspect had legally accessed that area prior to the commission of such crime, the need for such a comparison may not be necessary.
My response regarding the lack of presumed guilt was in response to your agreeing with John's notion of:
Quote
More generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions. The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.
To which you replied:
Quote
Pretty much true I think, even where the polygrapher doesn't think of themselves as hostile. Otherwise we would see CQT's given by examiners that are uninformed about the case and subsequent interrogations being done by others. Something most easily and properly done with a CIT.
Again, I think this is potentially present in both procedures.
Quote
Perhaps I am overly cautious. First, I believe the vast majority of examiners are in fact trying to get to the truth on relevants. The reason for not briefing the examiner is to prevent inadvertant bias by well meaning human beings. After following some of the consequences of "Facilitated Communication", a fad that once was believed near infallible and has been proven to be unconcious, self-deception by well meaning people, I want to see objectivity (blind and double blind processes) inserted whereever possible.
Although blind and double blind studies are worthy of use in scientific studies within a controlled setting, the actual practice of such things in the field of forensics are rare.
Forensic sciences are costly methods of investigation that are, for the most part and for most disciplines, not available for use in most investigations. In a perfect society with unlimited resources, your method would be plausible. In this ideal society, there would be plenty of qualified investigators to conduct thorough investigations on any crime and unlimited resources at their disposal, to include forensic scientists. However, this has not been the case in even the best of economic times. In today's even more taxed economy, there are even less of those resources to achieve such a goal. Unnecessary steps are eliminated in the field to help reduce the manpower and cost needed to adequately complete any investigative method, with the integrity of the investigation and the excepted level of the given investigating agency being the standard of measurement.
Posted by Marty
- Nov 02, 2003, 03:32 AMQuote from: J.B. McCloughan on Nov 02, 2003, 12:56 AMI disagree that polygraph is more often used for the guilty. I think that statistics would show that the innocent are cleared by polygraph equally as the guilty are discovered.I agree. My comment to Furedy was that an interrogation phase was often a component, even where the likelihood favors innocence. The Smarts and their relatives are a case in point. I didn't mean to suggest an interrogation phase assumed guilt though of course that is the normal usage of the term aside from the polygraph.
QuoteA CIT cannot be given without first assuring that the subject is absent the concealed information from plausible sources. This dispels any initial argument that the subject was knowledgeable of the concealed case facts. Further investigation may be needed to confirm the source of the leaked knowledge.My understanding is that in Japan, where CIT's are actually the most common forensic polygraph type administered, such issues are often cleared up after the CIT is given rather than before. Determining suspect exposure to CI can inadvertantly inform them. Areas where they have come in contact with CI are more apparent post test.
QuoteI also disagree that a CQT is given with the notion of presumed guilt. As I stated earlier, close to half of the subjects tested are opined non-deceptive and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing by the investigation.Did I suggest otherwise or was this meant as a response to another?
QuoteI would agree that the CQT, CIT, or any test, when placed in the hands of a person of questionable integrity, has the potential to be biased. There have been recent news articles of other scientific procedures that were confounded with such.
The notion that an examiner must be absent the knowledge of the facts of the investigation I find plausible but not necessary. After all, many forensic sciences, to include the brain fingerprint, involve investigation into case facts and documentation of the crime scene by the examiner.
J.B.
Perhaps I am overly cautious. First, I believe the vast majority of examiners are in fact trying to get to the truth on relevants. The reason for not briefing the examiner is to prevent inadvertant bias by well meaning human beings. After following some of the consequences of "Facilitated Communication", a fad that once was believed near infallible and has been proven to be unconcious, self-deception by well meaning people, I want to see objectivity (blind and double blind processes) inserted whereever possible.
-Marty
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Nov 02, 2003, 12:56 AMMarty,
My definition is more common then not. I think that blood draws, whether for DNA or BAC, are more along the line of seize and search procedures.
I disagree that polygraph is more often used for the guilty. I think that statistics would show that the innocent are cleared by polygraph equally as the guilty are discovered.
A CIT cannot be given without first assuring that the subject is absent the concealed information from plausible sources. This dispels any initial argument that the subject was knowledgeable of the concealed case facts. Further investigation may be needed to confirm the source of the leaked knowledge.
I also disagree that a CQT is given with the notion of presumed guilt. As I stated earlier, close to half of the subjects tested are opined non-deceptive and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing by the investigation.
I would agree that the CQT, CIT, or any test, when placed in the hands of a person of questionable integrity, has the potential to be biased. There have been recent news articles of other scientific procedures that were confounded with such.
The notion that an examiner must be absent the knowledge of the facts of the investigation I find plausible but not necessary. After all, many forensic sciences, to include the brain fingerprint, involve investigation into case facts and documentation of the crime scene by the examiner.
J.B.
My definition is more common then not. I think that blood draws, whether for DNA or BAC, are more along the line of seize and search procedures.
I disagree that polygraph is more often used for the guilty. I think that statistics would show that the innocent are cleared by polygraph equally as the guilty are discovered.
A CIT cannot be given without first assuring that the subject is absent the concealed information from plausible sources. This dispels any initial argument that the subject was knowledgeable of the concealed case facts. Further investigation may be needed to confirm the source of the leaked knowledge.
I also disagree that a CQT is given with the notion of presumed guilt. As I stated earlier, close to half of the subjects tested are opined non-deceptive and subsequently cleared of any wrong doing by the investigation.
I would agree that the CQT, CIT, or any test, when placed in the hands of a person of questionable integrity, has the potential to be biased. There have been recent news articles of other scientific procedures that were confounded with such.
The notion that an examiner must be absent the knowledge of the facts of the investigation I find plausible but not necessary. After all, many forensic sciences, to include the brain fingerprint, involve investigation into case facts and documentation of the crime scene by the examiner.
J.B.
Posted by Marty
- Nov 01, 2003, 02:18 PMQuote from: furedy on Nov 01, 2003, 05:51 AMMy header should be distinction between detection and interrogation, and refers to this distinction in the "specific issues" polygraph onctext. The detection of the polygraph refers to th eclassfication of individuals as guilty ("deceptive") vs innocent ("innocent"). The claim of the polygraph as a piece of applied psychpohysiology is that the inforamtion provided by the recordings improves the examiner's accuracy in making this discrimination.The only interrogatory components to the CQT is in selecting the controls and those are ideally orthagonal to the relevants. That said, from the reading I have done it appears standard practice in CQTs is to typically include an interrogation phase. Further, it seems examiners consider it important to fully brief on a case in advance. This impairs the examiner's ability to conduct an "impartial" examination regardless of intentions otherwise. However, it is required if the examiner is to conduct an interrogation with any degree of skill. As for the CIT, which really should be more widely used for the reasons you cite, could also serve as a basis for subsequent interrogation. It might even be more effective for it has the potential of admissibility in court and this would quickly become known were it in common use.
In the case of the most coommon "hostile" polygrapher case used by such agencies as the police, the motivation of the CIT examiner may interrogation function of the polygraph is to elicit a confession. Note that while the motivation of the examiner may be to find the suspect guilty, the CIT procedure, in contrast to the CQT procedure, contains no interrogatory components.
This is an important distinction between the CQT and the CIT.
QuoteMore generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions. The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.Pretty much true I think, even where the polygrapher doesn't think of themselves as hostile. Otherwise we would see CQT's given by examiners that are uninformed about the case and subsequent interrogations being done by others. Something most easily and properly done with a CIT.
-Marty
Posted by furedy
- Nov 01, 2003, 05:51 AMMy header should be distinction between detection and interrogation, and refers to this distinction in the "specific issues" polygraph onctext. The detection of the polygraph refers to th eclassfication of individuals as guilty ("deceptive") vs innocent ("innocent"). The claim of the polygraph as a piece of applied psychpohysiology is that the inforamtion provided by the recordings improves the examiner's accuracy in making this discrimination.
In the case of the most coommon "hostile" polygrapher case used by such agencies as the police, the motivation of the CIT examiner may interrogation function of the polygraph is to elicit a confession. Note that while the motivation of the examiner may be to find the suspect guilty, the CIT procedure, in contrast to the CQT procedure, contains no interrogatory components.
This is an important distinction between the CQT and the CIT.
Similarly, it may be the a particular comptetent IQ tester may be motivated to find that the testee is brigher or dumber than he really is, but the IQ testing procedure does not contain a component that necessarily biases in either direction. In contrast, the interrogatory function, which is part and parcel of the (very subjective and unsttandardized) CQT, will provide a systematic bias for the guilty classification conclusion.
More generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions. The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.
In the case of the most coommon "hostile" polygrapher case used by such agencies as the police, the motivation of the CIT examiner may interrogation function of the polygraph is to elicit a confession. Note that while the motivation of the examiner may be to find the suspect guilty, the CIT procedure, in contrast to the CQT procedure, contains no interrogatory components.
This is an important distinction between the CQT and the CIT.
Similarly, it may be the a particular comptetent IQ tester may be motivated to find that the testee is brigher or dumber than he really is, but the IQ testing procedure does not contain a component that necessarily biases in either direction. In contrast, the interrogatory function, which is part and parcel of the (very subjective and unsttandardized) CQT, will provide a systematic bias for the guilty classification conclusion.
More generally, the point about the inettoragory-prop aspect of the CQT is that interrogation already assumes guilt which any scientifically-based test is suppoed to detect, independently of the tester's opinions. The CIT, which may not be that accurate, nevertheless fulfils this elementary condition for a scientifically-based test; the CQT does not, and, in the hands of a "hostile" polygrapher, has only the function of an interrogatory prop.
Posted by Marty
- Nov 01, 2003, 01:50 AMQuote from: J.B. McCloughan on Nov 01, 2003, 01:21 AMJohn,J.B. McCloughan,
I'm aware of and have read Gershon and your paper. I am wondering what the current definition of interrogation is that you are using? My definition is that one interrogates when one tries to obtain information from an individual or a group of individuals that are not readily willing to divulge such information.
The CIT, as with most any psychological test or interview, employs methods that meet the above definition at some point.
Respectfully,
J.B.
That's a rather expansive definition of interrogation. One could argue that genetic/blood testing often meets that definition as well since guilty parties typically don't want to yield that information either.
I think the polygraph is used both in specific incident screening a number of potential suspects as well as an effective prop for interrogating one believed to be guilty.
-Marty
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Nov 01, 2003, 01:21 AMJohn,
I'm aware of and have read Gershon and your paper. I am wondering what the current definition of interrogation is that you are using? My definition is that one interrogates when one tries to obtain information from an individual or a group of individuals that are not readily willing to divulge such information.
The CIT, as with most any psychological test or interview, employs methods that meet the above definition at some point.
Respectfully,
J.B.
I'm aware of and have read Gershon and your paper. I am wondering what the current definition of interrogation is that you are using? My definition is that one interrogates when one tries to obtain information from an individual or a group of individuals that are not readily willing to divulge such information.
The CIT, as with most any psychological test or interview, employs methods that meet the above definition at some point.
Respectfully,
J.B.
Posted by furedy
- Nov 01, 2003, 12:31 AMI'm having trouble posting my reply, so this will be brief, and can elaborate later if this gets through. The idea that the North emrican polygraph employs the recordings not to detect guilt, but as an interrogatory prop was asserted by me and Gershon Ben Shakhar in the erly nineties in a pice in Contemporary Psychology. Exact refeference is in my CV on my web site. I'm in Australia with dubious email faciliteis. The distinction between detection and interrogation is one that not only polygraphers but even NAS scientists don't seem to understand, which is why this supersitition has ssuch a hold on on North American society. All the best, John
Posted by John J. Furedy
- Oct 30, 2003, 02:52 AMI'm in Sydney Australia, with unreliable email, but on the concept that the polygraph is just an interrogatory prop, see my cv on my web page, paper with G. Ben Shakhar in Contemporary Psychology, in the early nineties.
See also more recent use of polygraph by Toronto police where the examiner decides during the pre-test interview whether the examinee is guilty, and if this is what examiner decides, he goes straight onto post-test interview wihtout doing any physiological recording, i.e., using its purported detection function. I don't know how commjon this practice is, but I was involved in one case where it was used (case was videotaped). All the best, John Furedy
See also more recent use of polygraph by Toronto police where the examiner decides during the pre-test interview whether the examinee is guilty, and if this is what examiner decides, he goes straight onto post-test interview wihtout doing any physiological recording, i.e., using its purported detection function. I don't know how commjon this practice is, but I was involved in one case where it was used (case was videotaped). All the best, John Furedy
Posted by AngryinNY
- Oct 20, 2003, 11:08 PMHi Puresmoke,
Sounds a lot like my CIA polygraph interrogation. It was such a frightening experience to realize how incompetent and irrational this high-powered U.S. government agency can be. After learning about the polygraph, it seems like a practice that you would only expect to find in third world dictatorships! Anyway, it's too bad they're losing a lot of strong applicants this way... and scary to think what else they may be messing up. It's horrible enough to lose a job offer (especially in this economy), but I'm sure in other situations, the stakes are a lot higher! Yikes.
Sounds a lot like my CIA polygraph interrogation. It was such a frightening experience to realize how incompetent and irrational this high-powered U.S. government agency can be. After learning about the polygraph, it seems like a practice that you would only expect to find in third world dictatorships! Anyway, it's too bad they're losing a lot of strong applicants this way... and scary to think what else they may be messing up. It's horrible enough to lose a job offer (especially in this economy), but I'm sure in other situations, the stakes are a lot higher! Yikes.
Posted by puresmoke
- Oct 10, 2003, 12:34 AMFirst off, George, thanks very much for putting together this site and making this information available. It's good to get some support for the STRONG suspicions I had regarding the process. As for the cord situation:
Had the interrogator been so semantically adept, it probably would have been a better experience.
So then, while the cords may indeed have been attached to a machine, with the chair being in between me and the machine, I was effectively also attached to the chair. Therefore:
I was bungie-corded to a machine, which resulted in my also being bound to a chair.
BTW -- one of the personal experiences on the site talked about "lifestyle questions" with the CIA interrogation. These are no longer part of the interrogation as such. However, because I wasn't that bright, when the interrogator repeatedly told me that I was probably committing sodomy of some sort, I started telling him about my (rather boring) sex life (which, btw, does not involve sodomy). He took this and launched into a line of questions delving further into my sex life and drew some pretty wild conclusions ("so I would say that you're probably the type of person who would want to do [anti-social sexual behavior x]"). So, while technically the "lifestyle" questions no longer seem to be part of the interrogation, this is clearly still a subject of interest to our friends in the MiniLuv.
***
Interrogator: I talked to a man last week who was sleeping with his 14-year-old step-daughter. It's fine. The CIA has no problem with someone doing that, it's not a security risk.
Me: I'm tired of you implying that I'm some sort of pediphile.
Interrogator: (suspiciously) Who said anything about pediphilia?
-ps(moke)
(BTW, I still maintain that I was accurate, even in a literal sense, in stating that I was strapped to a chair. There were cords/straps, there was a chair, the straps saw to it that I remained on the chair. I was strapped to a chair.)
Had the interrogator been so semantically adept, it probably would have been a better experience.
So then, while the cords may indeed have been attached to a machine, with the chair being in between me and the machine, I was effectively also attached to the chair. Therefore:
I was bungie-corded to a machine, which resulted in my also being bound to a chair.
BTW -- one of the personal experiences on the site talked about "lifestyle questions" with the CIA interrogation. These are no longer part of the interrogation as such. However, because I wasn't that bright, when the interrogator repeatedly told me that I was probably committing sodomy of some sort, I started telling him about my (rather boring) sex life (which, btw, does not involve sodomy). He took this and launched into a line of questions delving further into my sex life and drew some pretty wild conclusions ("so I would say that you're probably the type of person who would want to do [anti-social sexual behavior x]"). So, while technically the "lifestyle" questions no longer seem to be part of the interrogation, this is clearly still a subject of interest to our friends in the MiniLuv.
***
Interrogator: I talked to a man last week who was sleeping with his 14-year-old step-daughter. It's fine. The CIA has no problem with someone doing that, it's not a security risk.
Me: I'm tired of you implying that I'm some sort of pediphile.
Interrogator: (suspiciously) Who said anything about pediphilia?
-ps(moke)
(BTW, I still maintain that I was accurate, even in a literal sense, in stating that I was strapped to a chair. There were cords/straps, there was a chair, the straps saw to it that I remained on the chair. I was strapped to a chair.)
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 09, 2003, 11:55 PMMr. Truth,
You wrote in part:
I'm not aware of any practice of connecting the pneumo tubes to the polygraph chair. But they are connected to the polygraph instrument. Had purewind attempted to get up from the chair during his/her polygrapher's absence, he/she would have risked yanking the attachments out of the polygraph instrument.
You wrote in part:
QuoteThose would be the pneumo tubes, part of the measuring instrument suite, probably just hooked to the back of the chair for storage purposes and convenience for the polygrapher when hooking up a "client."
I'm not aware of any practice of connecting the pneumo tubes to the polygraph chair. But they are connected to the polygraph instrument. Had purewind attempted to get up from the chair during his/her polygrapher's absence, he/she would have risked yanking the attachments out of the polygraph instrument.