Post reply

Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
Log in
Sign up

May 04, 2026, 09:46 PM

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board
► Polygraph and CVSA Forums
► Polygraph Policy
► Post reply ( Re: Doug Williams Polygraph Trial Discussion Thread )

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

[quote author=Drew Richardson link=msg=39141 date=1430922897]
Doug,

One of the central themes of the indictment charging you is that you encouraged applicants to lie regarding various issues.  Because deception or encouraging others to deceive is a central issue here, I thought I would dredge up some old writing (a 2001 blog post of mine) describing examiner deception in lie detection and then comment on same.  Please take a minute to read/review the following quote...

[quote author=Drew_Richardson link=topic=0.0 date=999890547]Examiner:

You say in part:

“…Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here…”

You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.

(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?

For a number of years I have called for the abolition of polygraph screening.  I have done so for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is what I believe to be the large scale victimization of people, many of whom have presented their relevant testimony on this web site and message board.  I am also offended by any negative impact that pseudoscience has on legitimate science and in particular on meaningful and legitimate forensic science as practiced in the crime laboratory.

Although I hope my expanded ability to opine as a recently retired employee of the FBI will augment the voices of those already carrying the torch and lead to the aforementioned abolition, let me begin by suggesting an intermediate step.  Although I do not believe for a minute that all of the deception, lack of due process, etc. that accompanies  polygraph screening is justified (even when practiced by law enforcement and/or intelligence officers), for the sake of immediate conversation, let’s assume that it is.  If in fact it is proper practice and the realm of the law enforcement officer, then it resides within the realm of an advocate, i.e., those who would investigate and prosecute crime.  As such it is clearly not a role for a neutral party and in the realm of the amicus curiae expert of the forensic science community.  Aside from clearly falling within the role of an adversary and not a neutral forensic expert, I would further maintain, that in the numerous disciplines and sub-disciplines now recognized as being a part of forensic science (my background has largely revolved around the practices of forensic chemistry and toxicology), there is no accepted role for deception in any of these disciplines.  Far from being accepted, any such deception would likely be (and has been) the subject of administrative or criminal inquiry.

Let me summarize what I have just said…the deceptions such as are used in polygraphy, if they are to be accepted, belong in the realm of advocates, like police interrogators and prosecutors and not with parties that are supposed to be neutral, like forensic laboratories.  Before we examine further whether polygraph screening merits continuation in any setting based on the complexities of validity, utility, and deterrence, let’s begin by removing it from that setting where it clearly has no role—the forensic crime laboratory and related professional scientific bodies…  Although there is a clear role for scientific inquiry into polygraph practices, there is no basis for polygraphy being a part of the forensic family or the forensic crime laboratory. 
[/quote]

Clearly, as you are aware, there is much deception in the routine practice of lie detection, and as I have discussed, although there is some precedent for legally accepted limited deception on the part of law enforcement in dealing with criminal defendants, I believe the plethora of lies in each and every lie detection exam is unprecedented and unwarranted.

But more specifically as it applies to your situation,  one of the aforementioned lies relates to the nature of control/comparison questions.  These are misrepresented as relevant questions and the examiner further encourages the examinee to either minimize the nature (lie) regarding what he (the examinee) has been misled to believe is relevant material or at a minimum to be concerned that he/she is doing so.

I would argue that this last type of lie detection deception concerning control questions parallels that which you are accused of, that it occurs with each and every probable lie control question test administered, and that you very broadly need to introduce polygraph practice in order to reveal these parallels and adequately defend yourself...

In fact, I believe that instructions given to examiner trainees as contained in the various handbooks and manuals linked to on this site are both germane and relevant to your defense.  If your attorneys are not yet aware of these materials, I would, at a minimum, discuss with them those portions which have to do with the "setting" of control questions.

I believe that your trial is a watershed moment, not only for you personally, but for first amendment rights in general, and for shining a very bright light on that practice which has been entrusted with the national security, the most important criminal matters of our time, and most significantly, the fates of thousands of individual polygraph examinees on an annual basis.  Accordingly, I hope that this trial will draw the media coverage that it deserves.

Good Luck...
[/quote]

Attachments: (Clear attachments)

Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB

Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached

Click or drag files here to attach them.

Insert width (px):

Insert height (px):

(Clear attachments)

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Jul 27, 2020, 09:32 AM

As noted on the blog, Doug Williams' court-ordered three-year period of supervised release, which forbade him from participating in any "polygraph-related activity," expired on Sunday, 26 July 2020.

Williams is again free to teach people how to pass or beat a polygraph "test" and plans to resume doing so.

It is hard to see what public interest was served by his entrapment and imprisonment.

Posted by John M.

- Jul 26, 2017, 01:26 PM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Jul 26, 2017, 11:59 AMDoug Williams left the federal prison camp at Florence, Colorado this morning and is on his way home:

Hell Yeah! Congratulations Doug! I am confident that you will receive the justice that you seek.

Let's roll.

Posted by Wandersmann

- Jul 26, 2017, 01:08 PM

Quote from: George_Maschke on Jul 25, 2017, 02:01 AMI have been in touch with Doug via the CorrLinks email service while he has been in prison, where he has not had access to websites. I sent him selected message threads and blog posts and posted his replies on his behalf. The court has not yet ruled on Doug's motion for modification of the terms of his supervised release.

Happy day for truth, justice, and the real American Way ! As far as the court, the judge has, in my opinion, proven herself to be too weak to contemplate government fallibility. I'm not crossing my fingers for a favorable ruling but hope the Doug can find a way forward regardless of the decision.

Posted by Aunty Agony

- Jul 26, 2017, 12:34 PM

Doug looks stronger and happier than ever.

Aunty is only an imaginary avatar but if she were real she would want to have Doug's babies.

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Jul 26, 2017, 11:59 AM

Doug Williams left the federal prison camp at Florence, Colorado this morning and is on his way home:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/07/26/polygraph-critic-doug-williams-freed-from-prison/

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Jul 25, 2017, 02:01 AM

QuoteGlad Doug is getting out. Can he go back to running his website, polygraph consultation business, and selling his book? How was doug able to have access to comment on this forum while he was in jail, or did he talk to George by phone? When I was in jail, I had no computer access and phone calls were monitored.

I have been in touch with Doug via the CorrLinks email service while he has been in prison, where he has not had access to websites. I sent him selected message threads and blog posts and posted his replies on his behalf. The court has not yet ruled on Doug's motion for modification of the terms of his supervised release.

Posted by Go Doug

- Jul 24, 2017, 11:08 PM

Glad Doug is getting out. Can he go back to running his website, polygraph consultation business, and selling his book? How was doug able to have access to comment on this forum while he was in jail, or did he talk to George by phone? When I was in jail, I had no computer access and phone calls were monitored.

Jail makes you a better criminal, I have no respect for law or national security any more. I hope Doug and others will continue to teach people how the poly works as just an interrogation game of chance. I have been teaching people about it myself and opening their eyes to how it is all a psych game, but just in casual talk. I would like to see everyone prepared for the interrogation and accusations that are routine with a poly, so less and less confessions are given, and polygraphers start getting more pissed off because their secret has been outed.

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Jul 24, 2017, 08:15 AM

Doug Williams is scheduled to be released from the federal prison camp in Florence, Colorado this Wednesday morning, 26 July 2017.

The court has not yet ruled on his November 2016 motion for amendment of the terms of his upcoming three-year period of supervised release.

Posted by Joe McCarthy

- Feb 24, 2017, 03:31 AM

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 22, 2017, 01:24 PM
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 21, 2017, 05:45 AM
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.

Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.

Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.

Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.

You are quite correct Joe, they don't ALWAYS pass - not because they didn't produce a perfect "truthful" chart, but because polygraph operators often disregard the fact that the person did in fact produce a chart that should be scored as "NO DECEPTION INDICATED". It is an unfortunate fact that all too often polygraph operators call a person deceptive and "fail" them even though it is obvious from the chart tracings that they had told the truth - or at least what passes for the truth on the polygraph. But I can teach a person to do what they need to do to ALWAYS produce a "truthful" chart. It is very simple to teach a person to produce a reaction on the control questions and show no reaction on the relevant questions, but you are right, I cannot guarantee them that the polygraph operator will accurately report what he/she sees on the chart. I have taught thousands of people to "pass" the test and for the past 10 years I have used the AXCITON computerized polygraph instrument and in the last several years have used the scoring software which ALWAYS shows a reading of NO DECEPTION INDICATED.

Thanks for the classy (being sincere) response. Again, I am happy to see you well and heathy. With all sincerity

Posted by Joe McCarthy

- Feb 24, 2017, 03:29 AM

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 21, 2017, 11:51 PM
Quote from: Wandersmann on Feb 20, 2017, 01:25 PMYou are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.

Yes, greed and corruption are at the root of the problem with the polygraph. Perhaps a phone call and letter writing campaign to Pres. Trump would be effective. I cannot believe he would allow this to continue if he was made aware of the waste, fraud and abuse in the government polygraph program.

Don't even get me started with greed and corruption in the polygraph industry. I been fighting it for 10 years now

Posted by Doug Williams

- Feb 22, 2017, 01:24 PM

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 21, 2017, 05:45 AM
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.

Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.

Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.

Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.

You are quite correct Joe, they don't ALWAYS pass - not because they didn't produce a perfect "truthful" chart, but because polygraph operators often disregard the fact that the person did in fact produce a chart that should be scored as "NO DECEPTION INDICATED". It is an unfortunate fact that all too often polygraph operators call a person deceptive and "fail" them even though it is obvious from the chart tracings that they had told the truth - or at least what passes for the truth on the polygraph. But I can teach a person to do what they need to do to ALWAYS produce a "truthful" chart. It is very simple to teach a person to produce a reaction on the control questions and show no reaction on the relevant questions, but you are right, I cannot guarantee them that the polygraph operator will accurately report what he/she sees on the chart. I have taught thousands of people to "pass" the test and for the past 10 years I have used the AXCITON computerized polygraph instrument and in the last several years have used the scoring software which ALWAYS shows a reading of NO DECEPTION INDICATED.

Posted by George W. Maschke

- Feb 22, 2017, 08:48 AM

On 21 February 2017, Doug Williams filed a reply to the U.S. government's opposition to his motion that he be allowed to engage in polygraph-related activities during his upcoming period of supervised release:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-reply-to-governments-opposition.pdf

As noted on the blog, Williams argues forcefully (and, I hope, effectively) why his freedom of speech should not be curtailed.

Posted by Doug Williams

- Feb 21, 2017, 11:51 PM

Quote from: Wandersmann on Feb 20, 2017, 01:25 PMYou are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.

Yes, greed and corruption are at the root of the problem with the polygraph. Perhaps a phone call and letter writing campaign to Pres. Trump would be effective. I cannot believe he would allow this to continue if he was made aware of the waste, fraud and abuse in the government polygraph program.

Posted by Joe McCarthy

- Feb 21, 2017, 05:45 AM

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.

Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.

Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.

Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.

Posted by Wandersmann

- Feb 20, 2017, 01:25 PM

Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMIt defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless.

You are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.