- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 24, 2008, 01:53 AMQuote from: Gmosley on Jan 23, 2008, 12:01 PMI know that law enforcement can tell accused persons lies when trying to obtain a confession, but can polygraphers?
Yes. In fact, polygraph procedure depends in fundamental ways on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." These deceptions are documented in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Moreover, law enforcement agencies often use the polygraph "test" as a ruse to get a suspect in a criminal case into an interrogation booth without a lawyer present. The suspect is misled into believing that he is merely agreeing to submit to a scientific test for truth, rather than an interrogation. If investigators strongly believe that the suspect is guilty, his "failing" the "test" and being subjected to a harsh interrogation may be foreordained.
QuoteWhat tricks do they use to obtain a deceptive reading?
A polygraph "test" can be rigged against a suspect by, among other things:
1) interrogating the suspect about the relevant issue(s) before the examination. This will have the effect of sensitizing the suspect to the relevant questions, increasing the likelihood that he will react strongly when they are asked;
2) asking the relevant questions in a harsh or accusatory tone of voice (again, with a view to increasing reactions to them);
3) failing to properly (by polygrapher standards) "set" the so-called "control" questions, in an effort to minimize the suspect's reactions to them.
If you have an audio- or video-recording of the polygraph interrogation, I would be happy to review it for potential polygrapher misconduct (for free, of course). If the polygraph examination was not recorded in its entirety, it may be an indication that the agency involved had something to hide: the agency had the ability to make an objective record of the circumstances leading to the confession but failed to do so.
QuoteAnd does anyone know someone who is trained in this area whom I could hire to to evaluate the procedures used and testify as an expert in my case?
I'll send you some references by private message. Although there are, as Eric Johnson pointed out, polygraph operators who are willing to testify against other polygraph operators, I think you may be better off going with someone who does not derive income from the administration of polygraph "tests" and has no vested interest in the perpetuation of this pseudoscience. Keep in mind that even a "properly-administered" polygraph examination still has no scientific basis and is not to be relied upon.
With regard to polygraph-induced false confessions, in addition to the notorious case of Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, see also the cases of Dr. Thomas Butler, Abdallah Higazy, Byron Halsey, and Daniel M. King (documented in Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector).
For an overview of some of the interrogation techniques used by polygraphers, see the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Interview & Interrogation handbook:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-interrogation.pdf
and also Julia Layton's excellent overview of police interrogation on HowStuffWorks.com:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation.htm
Posted by meangino
- Jan 23, 2008, 08:07 PMgmos, George has documented several cases of polygraph-induced false confessions on this website. For example, the case of Jeffrey Mark Deskovic is particularly distressing.
You can search the message board for threads on several similar instances.
I believe such false confessions happen more often than one would suspect.
You can search the message board for threads on several similar instances.
I believe such false confessions happen more often than one would suspect.
Posted by yankeedog
- Jan 23, 2008, 07:57 PMgmos - check your private messages
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 23, 2008, 05:37 PMQuote from: Gmosley on Jan 23, 2008, 03:16 PMbefore a triar of fact every year.
it's trier of fact, not triar.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 23, 2008, 03:16 PMQuote from: Gmosley on Jan 23, 2008, 02:59 PMVery good. The additional information clears up many questions. It is going to be difficult for you to find a current polygrapher who will assist, but I expect there will be several people along, (along with the owner of this site, George Maschke) to lend some knowledge. Also, check your private mail.
That is complete rubbish. There are hundreds of examiners who testifiy against one another before a triar of fact every year. Gmos, nopolycop is very much against polygraph, and I am afraid his advice is rather skewed against the profession due to his own anecdotal experience. To be blunt, a polygraph examiner could save his child from drowning and he would accuse him of stealing a kiss. Go to Polygraph Place. An examiner by the name of Barry C. has an impressive base of knowledge on false confessions and ethics (as well as many other thoughtful professionals). Again, there any number of highly credible examiners who will testifiy for a defense.
EJ
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 23, 2008, 02:59 PMVery good. The additional information clears up many questions. It is going to be difficult for you to find a current polygrapher who will assist, but I expect there will be several people along, (along with the owner of this site, George Maschke) to lend some knowledge. Also, check your private mail.
Posted by gmos
- Jan 23, 2008, 02:33 PMFirst of all, thank you for responding to my post and the references to other sites you provided. I appreciate the information.
Secondly, that is My choice of words. I should have made it more clear that he repeatedly denied having anything to do with the death of his child until after the failed polygraph, when agents interrogated him for two more hours claiming they knew he was lying and would let him go home when he confessed. The polygraph, but not the confession, was recorded auditorily-no video. Polygraphs are not admissible in court in my state, but I think have a claim that my client's confession after the polygraph is false. I think that law enforcement in this case used the polygraph as an interrogation tool to compel an incriminating statement. I also suspect that there is law enforcement training on exactly how to use polygraphs for that purpose and I am interested in finding out about that. I need to understand if and how a law enforcement polygrapher can manipulate an examination to meet the needs of law enforcement when trying to obtain a confession.
You are correct that I may have a legal claim that his confession was not voluntary. But more likely, I would have to persuade a jury that his confession is not reliable because of a number of factors including the polygraph interrogation tactic.
Secondly, that is My choice of words. I should have made it more clear that he repeatedly denied having anything to do with the death of his child until after the failed polygraph, when agents interrogated him for two more hours claiming they knew he was lying and would let him go home when he confessed. The polygraph, but not the confession, was recorded auditorily-no video. Polygraphs are not admissible in court in my state, but I think have a claim that my client's confession after the polygraph is false. I think that law enforcement in this case used the polygraph as an interrogation tool to compel an incriminating statement. I also suspect that there is law enforcement training on exactly how to use polygraphs for that purpose and I am interested in finding out about that. I need to understand if and how a law enforcement polygrapher can manipulate an examination to meet the needs of law enforcement when trying to obtain a confession.
You are correct that I may have a legal claim that his confession was not voluntary. But more likely, I would have to persuade a jury that his confession is not reliable because of a number of factors including the polygraph interrogation tactic.
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 23, 2008, 02:09 PMQuote from: Gmosley on Jan 23, 2008, 12:01 PM He voluntarily met with law enforcement and told them for about an hour how he had not been present when the baby was discovered by his ex not breathing.
As an experienced police investigator, the choice of words you used tells me that he may have done it, unless that is YOUR choice of words and he actually told them he didn't do it too. Assuming the latter is true, then the next question is did he stipulate to the results of the polygraph being used in court? If not, then the results cannot likely be used, but states vary.
Third, did he waive his rights? Assuming he did, and that he confessed to murdering his child, then the confession needs to be attacked as made under duress and not voluntarily. Presuming that is the case, what you need is to do your research on what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior when adminstering polygraphs, and if what you say is true, then you may have a tainted confession. Was the polygraph video-taped? If it was, it will help dramatically, (if what you say is true).
Also, check out the American Association of Police Polygraphers standards, you will see many of these standards violated:
http://www.policepolygraph.org/standards.htm
If you don't get satisfactory answers to your questions, then you might also check on www.polygraphplace.com as they have many more polygraphers there than here. The polygraphers here for the most part, simply come here to attempt to discredit this site, and not engage in useful discussion.
Also, there is a plethora of polygraph related caselaw, you might find what you need in your own state caselaw history.
Posted by gmos
- Jan 23, 2008, 12:01 PMI am a capital criminal defense attorney and have a client who is somewhat cognitively impaired. He had an infant child who died as a result of SIDS according to the medical examiner. About a year after the child's death, my client's ex starting telling people that he deliberately smothered the child. My client heard rumors that his child's death was being investigated and approached local law enforcement about it. He voluntarily met with law enforcement and told them for about an hour how he had not been present when the baby was discovered by his ex not breathing. They asked him to submit to a polygraph. He agreed. The morning of the scheduled polygraph, he called to reschedule because he had been up most of the night before helping a friend repair his car. The agents insisted that he come that day. He went in and they spent about an hour with him prior to the examination going over his story and preparing him for the examination. After the initial interview, they left him alone for at least half an hour before the test. He took the polygraph (I have no results at this point) during which they asked him dozens of questions. After the test, agents informed him that he had failed, angrily interrogated him for two more hours, promised him they would let him go once he confessed (they did), and told him repeatedly what he had done until he agreed. I want to know if polygraphers are trained in law enforcement contexts to set up an accused to fail when they have a suspect from whom they want a confession. I know that law enforcement can tell accused persons lies when trying to obtain a confession, but can polygraphers? What tricks do they use to obtain a deceptive reading? And does anyone know someone who is trained in this area whom I could hire to to evaluate the procedures used and testify as an expert in my case?