- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 17, 2004, 04:17 AMJanice,
I can well understand your resentment at being asked to submit to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test" regarding your report of childhood sexual molestation. But I think your confrontational demeanor was counterproductive. Observations follow:
Polygraphers are taught that "normal" breathing should be within the range of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. It is a widely-held belief in the polygraph community that if a person breathes substantially more slowly than this, he/she is consciously controlling their breathing in a deliberate attempt to thwart the "test."
The typical polygrapher response to a subject who breathes "too slowly" is to tell him/her to breathe "normally." As a registered nurse, you are no doubt aware that this is an impossible task. Once you call attention to someone's breathing, he/she is most certainly conscious of it. As you know, if you want to measure someone's breathing rate, you pretend to be measuring his/her pulse. But the polygraph profession is seemingly oblivious to this.
Polygraphers are trained to interpret complaints about pain or discomfort caused by the polygraph equipment as a potential sign of deception. As John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau explain in their classic textbook, Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique in a section titled "Symptoms of Lying":
But the claim that deceptive subjects are more likely than non-deceptive ones to complain of pain or discomfort from the polygraph instrument is unsupported by any research.
Polygraphers are also trained to interpret a subject's expressed lack of belief in the polygraphy as a potential sign of deception. Your candor in expressing your disbelief in polygraphy would not have been conducive to a favorable outcome.
When Ms. Erwin asked you, "How do you think you did?" she was using a common lead-in to a post-test interrogation. If a subject expresses doubt or uncertainty as to how he/she did, that is considered as a possible sign of deception.
Normally, if a person "fails" a polygraph, they are subjected to a post-test interrogation in an attempt to get an admission/confession. That is why Ms. Erwin asked you to wait. It seems likely that the detective, having observed your demeanor, concluded that a post-test interrogation would be futile.
As for why you were polygraphed by an examiner with little experience in polygraphing victims of sexual abuse, you may have been assigned to the BCI's only female polygrapher on the rationale that it would be less intimidating for you to be polygraphed by a member of the same sex. If by the end of the examination Ms. Erwin was visibly "pissed off," it would seem to me that it was because you spared no effort to make her so.
Given the obvious lack of rapport, your expressed complete lack of belief in the polygraph procedure, and the dispute over your breathing, I think it would have been more appropriate for the BCI to have rendered no opinion regarding the result of your polygraph "test."
By rendering an opinion despite stated concerns about your breathing, Ms. Erwin may have violated Section 4.3 of the American Polygraph Association's Code of Ethics:
Also, by failing to notify you of the results of your polygraph examination at the time, Ms. Erwin seems to have violated Section 4.3. None of the exceptions would seem to apply here:
It doesn't take twelve days to score a polygraph chart. Ms. Erwin should have known the result right then and there. And if she was going to score the charts as indicative of deception, she should have told you at the time.
I can well understand your resentment at being asked to submit to a pseudoscientific polygraph "test" regarding your report of childhood sexual molestation. But I think your confrontational demeanor was counterproductive. Observations follow:
Polygraphers are taught that "normal" breathing should be within the range of 15-30 breaths (in and out) per minute. It is a widely-held belief in the polygraph community that if a person breathes substantially more slowly than this, he/she is consciously controlling their breathing in a deliberate attempt to thwart the "test."
The typical polygrapher response to a subject who breathes "too slowly" is to tell him/her to breathe "normally." As a registered nurse, you are no doubt aware that this is an impossible task. Once you call attention to someone's breathing, he/she is most certainly conscious of it. As you know, if you want to measure someone's breathing rate, you pretend to be measuring his/her pulse. But the polygraph profession is seemingly oblivious to this.
Polygraphers are trained to interpret complaints about pain or discomfort caused by the polygraph equipment as a potential sign of deception. As John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau explain in their classic textbook, Truth and Deception: The Polygraph (Lie-Detector) Technique in a section titled "Symptoms of Lying":
QuoteLying subjects sometimes claimed that the apparatus was causing them physical pain. They did this for at least one of several reasons. First, they hoped that the examiner would turn off the instrument, remove the apparatus, apologize for the pain that was caused, and then report to the investigators that the subject could not be examined because of pain sensitivity. Second, the complaint of pain provided them with an excuse for not sitting still, a behavior that prevented the examiner from obtaining a suitable recording. Third, they hoped that the examiner, when interpreting responses, would erroneously decide that their lie responses were pain responses and would thus turn in a favorable report.
But the claim that deceptive subjects are more likely than non-deceptive ones to complain of pain or discomfort from the polygraph instrument is unsupported by any research.
Polygraphers are also trained to interpret a subject's expressed lack of belief in the polygraphy as a potential sign of deception. Your candor in expressing your disbelief in polygraphy would not have been conducive to a favorable outcome.
When Ms. Erwin asked you, "How do you think you did?" she was using a common lead-in to a post-test interrogation. If a subject expresses doubt or uncertainty as to how he/she did, that is considered as a possible sign of deception.
Normally, if a person "fails" a polygraph, they are subjected to a post-test interrogation in an attempt to get an admission/confession. That is why Ms. Erwin asked you to wait. It seems likely that the detective, having observed your demeanor, concluded that a post-test interrogation would be futile.
As for why you were polygraphed by an examiner with little experience in polygraphing victims of sexual abuse, you may have been assigned to the BCI's only female polygrapher on the rationale that it would be less intimidating for you to be polygraphed by a member of the same sex. If by the end of the examination Ms. Erwin was visibly "pissed off," it would seem to me that it was because you spared no effort to make her so.
Given the obvious lack of rapport, your expressed complete lack of belief in the polygraph procedure, and the dispute over your breathing, I think it would have been more appropriate for the BCI to have rendered no opinion regarding the result of your polygraph "test."
By rendering an opinion despite stated concerns about your breathing, Ms. Erwin may have violated Section 4.3 of the American Polygraph Association's Code of Ethics:
Quote4.2 Standards for Rendering Polygraph Decisions
4.2.1 A member shall not render a conclusive diagnosis when the physiological records lack sufficient quality and clarity. This may include, but is not limited to, excessively distorted recordings possibly due to manipulations by the examinee, recordings with insufficient responsivity, or recordings with tracing amplitudes less than that generally accepted by the profession.
Also, by failing to notify you of the results of your polygraph examination at the time, Ms. Erwin seems to have violated Section 4.3. None of the exceptions would seem to apply here:
Quote4.3 Post-Examination Notification of Results
4.3.1 A member shall afford each examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings. There are three exceptions:
4.3.1.1 When the examinee is represented by an attorney who requests that no post-examination interview be conducted, and that the results of the examination be released only to the attorney.
4.3.1.2 When the examination is being conducted by court order which stipulates that no post-examination interview is to be conducted.
4.3.1.3 Instances of operational necessity.
It doesn't take twelve days to score a polygraph chart. Ms. Erwin should have known the result right then and there. And if she was going to score the charts as indicative of deception, she should have told you at the time.
Posted by jan56ice
- Dec 17, 2004, 02:20 AMYou would have failed me too triple x, not based on scientific knowledge, but just because I was a b****
Stop acting like you wouldn't!
Stop acting like you wouldn't!
Posted by triple x
- Dec 17, 2004, 01:28 AMjan56ice,
You're absolutely correct with your analysis in that poor demeanor characteristics may have served against you adversely. Having said that, simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam. With respect to me "fearing" the polygraph, or, giving it power... I think not.
[You wrote]
"I think you are another uninformed person on sexual abuse victims."
You thought correct, where did I post or imply otherwise?
[You wrote]
"You do some reading before putting your ignorance on display for John Q Public."
Based on the issues addressed within the context of my posts, I speak from actual experience relating to polygraph testing. Additionally, I've done lots of reading, and also, I have thoroughly researched that in which I argue. We are openly discussing and debating polygraph testing; not the specifics for which you were tested.
Again, I suggest that it would be in your personal best interest, to read "TLBTLD", and do some independent research on polygraph testing, and then return to this message board to debate with others, and post your opinions. Obviously, based on the merits of your own post, you are the one that lacks relevant knowledge in that which you argue.
triple x
You're absolutely correct with your analysis in that poor demeanor characteristics may have served against you adversely. Having said that, simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam. With respect to me "fearing" the polygraph, or, giving it power... I think not.
[You wrote]
"I think you are another uninformed person on sexual abuse victims."
You thought correct, where did I post or imply otherwise?
[You wrote]
"You do some reading before putting your ignorance on display for John Q Public."
Based on the issues addressed within the context of my posts, I speak from actual experience relating to polygraph testing. Additionally, I've done lots of reading, and also, I have thoroughly researched that in which I argue. We are openly discussing and debating polygraph testing; not the specifics for which you were tested.
Again, I suggest that it would be in your personal best interest, to read "TLBTLD", and do some independent research on polygraph testing, and then return to this message board to debate with others, and post your opinions. Obviously, based on the merits of your own post, you are the one that lacks relevant knowledge in that which you argue.
triple x
Posted by jan56ice
- Dec 16, 2004, 10:34 PMYou do seem to agree my demeanor and not my answers failed me. If I was telling the truth my demeanor shouldn't matter. Also you seem to fear the polygraph thus giving it power. I think you are another uninformed person on sexual abuse victims. You do some reading before putting your ignorance on display for John Q Public.
Posted by triple x
- Dec 16, 2004, 10:06 PMjan56ice,
I hate to be the one to rain on your parade; but it sounds to me as though you were intentionally difficult throughout the entire polygraph process. This being the case, do I understand you correctly in that you're actually surprised and angered that your polygraph results failed to meet with your expectations?
Any prudent person would know better than to voluntarily go into a polygraph exam, regardless of the consequences involved, and intentionally conduct themselves in such an adverse manner with the polygraph examiner, [whether male or female] and demonstrate such blatant disregard, as did you.
Based strictly on the merits of your own posts, I don't feel sorry for you at all. Conducting yourself in the manner in which you described, I for one, would have been surprised had you actually passed... If you're going to point-out to all, and claim to be highly educated and intelligent, then act like it. Your personal demeanor and lack of self-control reflect otherwise.
Last but not least, you repeatedly point out that "you" controlled the polygraph exam; I beg to differ. In retrospect, if in fact you had controlled the polygraph exam as so you claim... then by virtue, you should have produced truthful charts. In the event no one has told you yet, the whole point in being in-control of a polygraph exam is to pass, not fail... If one successfully controls the physiological responses as described within TLBTLD during a polygraph exam, truthful charts would be the result.
You proved nothing by behaving in the difficult manner in which you self-described, and as a result, you should not be surprised by the outcome. In the event you have not already done so, I would suggest that you read "TLBTLD" at your earliest convenience. As the educated and intelligent individual that you are, I'm confidant you will find it interesting that difficult behavior such as you described, is ill advised.
No sympathy here, sorry.
Triple x
I hate to be the one to rain on your parade; but it sounds to me as though you were intentionally difficult throughout the entire polygraph process. This being the case, do I understand you correctly in that you're actually surprised and angered that your polygraph results failed to meet with your expectations?
Any prudent person would know better than to voluntarily go into a polygraph exam, regardless of the consequences involved, and intentionally conduct themselves in such an adverse manner with the polygraph examiner, [whether male or female] and demonstrate such blatant disregard, as did you.
Based strictly on the merits of your own posts, I don't feel sorry for you at all. Conducting yourself in the manner in which you described, I for one, would have been surprised had you actually passed... If you're going to point-out to all, and claim to be highly educated and intelligent, then act like it. Your personal demeanor and lack of self-control reflect otherwise.
Last but not least, you repeatedly point out that "you" controlled the polygraph exam; I beg to differ. In retrospect, if in fact you had controlled the polygraph exam as so you claim... then by virtue, you should have produced truthful charts. In the event no one has told you yet, the whole point in being in-control of a polygraph exam is to pass, not fail... If one successfully controls the physiological responses as described within TLBTLD during a polygraph exam, truthful charts would be the result.
You proved nothing by behaving in the difficult manner in which you self-described, and as a result, you should not be surprised by the outcome. In the event you have not already done so, I would suggest that you read "TLBTLD" at your earliest convenience. As the educated and intelligent individual that you are, I'm confidant you will find it interesting that difficult behavior such as you described, is ill advised.
No sympathy here, sorry.
Triple x
Posted by jan56ice
- Dec 16, 2004, 04:13 PMLet me clarify something before I explain my opinion.
I am a Registered Nurse. I read people, that is a part of my job. I have practiced this profession for 27 years. I can read facial expressions, body language voice timber, etc. I have life experience and education on my side. I am very good at what I do!
I first pissed off the examiner when I told her I did not see her name in a book she gave me to read before the verbal interview before the test. There were three men listed and their qualifications but not her. She then went into a lengthy description of her qualifications. I was unimpressed being an educated woman myself and my facial expression showed her that I couldn't give a damn about her qualifications. I saw she was aware of this by the look on her face!
The second time I pissed her off was during the pretest interview when she asked me "on a scale of 1-10, one being yes it works and ten meaning no polygraphs don't work?" I said "ten. I do not believe the test works. I believe the machine is going to tell you my vital signs and show you the rise and fall of those vital signs which they do normally." She repeated "Ten!" as if she was surprised that I didn't believe the test worked. I guess she thought being an educated woman would make me believe the test worked.
Wrong!
The third time I pissed her off was after the first set of questions. Cindy said, "Deep breathing reduces your heart rate." I replied, "I am slightly claustrophobic and if I hyperventilate it will really mess up your test." She was pissed off because I had apparently noticeably lowered my pulse, my respirations and probably my blood pressure too although I have hypertension so the BP might not have gone down. I have anxiety attacks but I have learned to calm them by deep breathing. I do not take antianxiety medication. She couldn't tell me to stop deep breathing, she couldn't make me breath the way she wanted, she knew I knew she was aware of what I was doing and I was not going to change it for her dumb ass! My attitude(unspoken but still noticeable by my facial expression) was "Fuck YOU- I'm going to do what I want". And after my response to her which implied take your pick-either hyperventilation or deep breathing-she realized she was not in control of my reaction, responses or physioloigy. So then she tried to assign my claustrophobia to the door being closed and offered to open the door. I told her the door was not bothering me it was the straps on my chest. (Being a sexual abuse survivor I don't like anything touching my breasts but me and that was information that was none of her business so I did not explain this to her.) She was again pissed off because I took all control away from her. She pretended to losen the two straps but she did not loosen them. I made her angry again when she started the third and final set of tests. I was bored, the test was stupid and I was ready to go so I started sighing to show my impatience, drawing deep breaths and audibly letting out the air. My attitude again was "Fuck you!" And her facial expression was worth a thousand words, but to simplify it, she was pissed!The last time I pissed her off was at the conclusion of the test. I did not ask how I did on the test, did I pass
the test or anything else. I got up from my chair and was exiting her office when she asked me"How do you think you did?" My response was"fine" and I looked at her like she was crazy! She saw that expression on my face. I was confident I had passed because I told the truth on every single question so why should I ask if I passed or failed? Cindy tried to regain some control by telling me to "wait" as I was about to exit her office. Since I volunteered and I am the victim I saw no reason why I should wait-the test was concluded. Cindy goes to get the Detective who was watching and listening to the whole interview(that took about 10 seconds) she returns to the door of her office and says "You can go." I could have left the first time couldn't I?
I didn't recognize or acknowledge her credentials, I didn't think the test worked and said so, I deep breathed to calm an anxiety attack and thus effected my vital signs and my demeanor towards her continued to be, "You are NOT superior to me"! I was condescending in my demeanor to her because that is my personality. I found her to be deceptively friendly and ignorant about sexual abuse. She even made the mistake to tell me at the beginning of the verbal interview that she did not have much experience testing victims of sexual abuse! Right then I became condescending because if she has no experience, what the hell is she doing testing me?
If anyone thinks that narcistic bitch wasn't pissed off and if anyone thinks she was objective in her interpretation of that test, think again! She knew more
about me from my behavior than that machine would ever tell her and the only control she had was her subjective interpretation of the test.
When laymen try to play psychological games with one who is better at it or more educated in that field than they, this is what happens.
I am a Registered Nurse. I read people, that is a part of my job. I have practiced this profession for 27 years. I can read facial expressions, body language voice timber, etc. I have life experience and education on my side. I am very good at what I do!
I first pissed off the examiner when I told her I did not see her name in a book she gave me to read before the verbal interview before the test. There were three men listed and their qualifications but not her. She then went into a lengthy description of her qualifications. I was unimpressed being an educated woman myself and my facial expression showed her that I couldn't give a damn about her qualifications. I saw she was aware of this by the look on her face!
The second time I pissed her off was during the pretest interview when she asked me "on a scale of 1-10, one being yes it works and ten meaning no polygraphs don't work?" I said "ten. I do not believe the test works. I believe the machine is going to tell you my vital signs and show you the rise and fall of those vital signs which they do normally." She repeated "Ten!" as if she was surprised that I didn't believe the test worked. I guess she thought being an educated woman would make me believe the test worked.
Wrong!
The third time I pissed her off was after the first set of questions. Cindy said, "Deep breathing reduces your heart rate." I replied, "I am slightly claustrophobic and if I hyperventilate it will really mess up your test." She was pissed off because I had apparently noticeably lowered my pulse, my respirations and probably my blood pressure too although I have hypertension so the BP might not have gone down. I have anxiety attacks but I have learned to calm them by deep breathing. I do not take antianxiety medication. She couldn't tell me to stop deep breathing, she couldn't make me breath the way she wanted, she knew I knew she was aware of what I was doing and I was not going to change it for her dumb ass! My attitude(unspoken but still noticeable by my facial expression) was "Fuck YOU- I'm going to do what I want". And after my response to her which implied take your pick-either hyperventilation or deep breathing-she realized she was not in control of my reaction, responses or physioloigy. So then she tried to assign my claustrophobia to the door being closed and offered to open the door. I told her the door was not bothering me it was the straps on my chest. (Being a sexual abuse survivor I don't like anything touching my breasts but me and that was information that was none of her business so I did not explain this to her.) She was again pissed off because I took all control away from her. She pretended to losen the two straps but she did not loosen them. I made her angry again when she started the third and final set of tests. I was bored, the test was stupid and I was ready to go so I started sighing to show my impatience, drawing deep breaths and audibly letting out the air. My attitude again was "Fuck you!" And her facial expression was worth a thousand words, but to simplify it, she was pissed!The last time I pissed her off was at the conclusion of the test. I did not ask how I did on the test, did I pass
the test or anything else. I got up from my chair and was exiting her office when she asked me"How do you think you did?" My response was"fine" and I looked at her like she was crazy! She saw that expression on my face. I was confident I had passed because I told the truth on every single question so why should I ask if I passed or failed? Cindy tried to regain some control by telling me to "wait" as I was about to exit her office. Since I volunteered and I am the victim I saw no reason why I should wait-the test was concluded. Cindy goes to get the Detective who was watching and listening to the whole interview(that took about 10 seconds) she returns to the door of her office and says "You can go." I could have left the first time couldn't I?
I didn't recognize or acknowledge her credentials, I didn't think the test worked and said so, I deep breathed to calm an anxiety attack and thus effected my vital signs and my demeanor towards her continued to be, "You are NOT superior to me"! I was condescending in my demeanor to her because that is my personality. I found her to be deceptively friendly and ignorant about sexual abuse. She even made the mistake to tell me at the beginning of the verbal interview that she did not have much experience testing victims of sexual abuse! Right then I became condescending because if she has no experience, what the hell is she doing testing me?
If anyone thinks that narcistic bitch wasn't pissed off and if anyone thinks she was objective in her interpretation of that test, think again! She knew more
about me from my behavior than that machine would ever tell her and the only control she had was her subjective interpretation of the test.
When laymen try to play psychological games with one who is better at it or more educated in that field than they, this is what happens.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 16, 2004, 01:28 PMPerhaps the question of how a detective can dismiss a complaint on the basis of an invalid test (polygraphy) should be addressed to Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro?
What did you do to "piss off" your polygrapher? And why do you believe that she purposely interpreted the results as deceptive?
What did you do to "piss off" your polygrapher? And why do you believe that she purposely interpreted the results as deceptive?
Posted by jan56ice
- Dec 16, 2004, 01:19 PMWhat I really want to know is how can a detective dismiss a complaint on the basis of an erroneous report. If I was lieing as the detedtive said, then I should be charged with filing a false police report!
I am going to pursue this. If I'm lieing, charge me!
Of course we know that is not going to happen because the detective will look stupid(which I think he is) and so is Cindy the examiner who does not like someone else being in control of her test. I believe what I originally wrote. I pissed the bitch off, she was not in control and she purposely interpreted the test as deceptive.
I am going to pursue this. If I'm lieing, charge me!
Of course we know that is not going to happen because the detective will look stupid(which I think he is) and so is Cindy the examiner who does not like someone else being in control of her test. I believe what I originally wrote. I pissed the bitch off, she was not in control and she purposely interpreted the test as deceptive.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 16, 2004, 08:44 AMJanice,
I assume your polygrapher was Cindy S. Erwin, then? Note that the problems of polygraphy go beyond the person who polygraphed you and beyond the Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation. Polygraph "testing" simply has no scientific basis. Making matters worse, it has an inherent bias against truthful persons, especially in situations where the relevant questions involve emotionally charged issues such as sexual abuse. Thus, the outcome of your polygraph "test" is not necessarily the result of any deliberate malpractice on Ms. Erwin's part. It could simply be the case that an unreliable test yielded erroneous results.
In many states, it is illegal for investigators to ask (or even suggest) that any self-described victim of a sex crime submit to a lie detector "test." Unfortunately, Ohio is not one of them. Based on news coverage, it seems that Ohio is one of the states where law enforcement relies most heavily on polygraph results.
Have you been in touch with the Ohio Coalition on Sexual Assault? They have a Statement on Polygraph & CVSA that will be of interest and might be able to provide more specific support and guidance.
I assume your polygrapher was Cindy S. Erwin, then? Note that the problems of polygraphy go beyond the person who polygraphed you and beyond the Ohio Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation. Polygraph "testing" simply has no scientific basis. Making matters worse, it has an inherent bias against truthful persons, especially in situations where the relevant questions involve emotionally charged issues such as sexual abuse. Thus, the outcome of your polygraph "test" is not necessarily the result of any deliberate malpractice on Ms. Erwin's part. It could simply be the case that an unreliable test yielded erroneous results.
In many states, it is illegal for investigators to ask (or even suggest) that any self-described victim of a sex crime submit to a lie detector "test." Unfortunately, Ohio is not one of them. Based on news coverage, it seems that Ohio is one of the states where law enforcement relies most heavily on polygraph results.
Have you been in touch with the Ohio Coalition on Sexual Assault? They have a Statement on Polygraph & CVSA that will be of interest and might be able to provide more specific support and guidance.
Posted by jan56ice
- Dec 15, 2004, 09:55 PMI took a voluntary polygraph test for a detective who was supposedly investigating my police report about being sexually molested by my two brothers from 1964 through 1968. I took the test on December 3, 2004 and got the results today December 15. I told the truth on every question. The examiner said there were ten questions but there were only seven. The examiner said I failed because I was deep breathing! I am an abuse survivor and I think I can deep breath any time I want. I told the truth on all questions and only two of the seven questions delt with sexual abuse. The other five were two control questions(do you live in Canada, do you live in the US) and two other nonsensical questions that asked if I conspired with my abuser to get on the news and to hurt my family! I haven't seen the pedophile since 1997. The seventh question asked about any significant men in my life since my husband died in 1984 (mind you) and my current boyfriend of the last 12 years. I have 13 more years to try and prosecute this pedophile but with inept detectives it does not look hopeful. The test was given at the BCI in London, Ohio by their only female examiner. I do not want to be anonymous. My name is Janice Johnson in Ohio and my advice is to never volunteer to take a test for the attorney general at the BCI in Ohio. The test does not work, then uneducated people give thier subjective, not objective opinions on the rise and fall of the testee's vital signs. It is in no way a device to tell if one is deceptive or truthful.
Thanks for listening.
Thanks for listening.