- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 29, 2015, 01:13 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jun 29, 2015, 01:55 AMThe U.S. Army board of inquiry convened in the Matt Golsteyn affair has given him a general discharge under honorable conditions.
As previously noted, a transcript of Golsteyn's CIA pre-employment polygraph interrogation was admitted as evidence and includes Golsteyn's admission to murdering a prisoner.
Amanda Dolasinski reports for the Fayetteville Observer that the board of inquiry also sought video of the polygraph interrogation from the CIA, but that the CIA refused to provide it:
Denying of polygraph results has always been a key component of Agency FOI/PA policy!QuoteOnce the [polygraph] transcript was entered, the board attempted to obtain video of the polygraph exam. Goldsmith, president of the board, sent a letter to the CIA to obtain the video Saturday, and he received a denial Sunday.
Question: What legitimate reason could the CIA have for withholding this key evidence from the U.S. Army board of inquiry?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 29, 2015, 01:55 AMThe U.S. Army board of inquiry convened in the Matt Golsteyn affair has given him a general discharge under honorable conditions.
As previously noted, a transcript of Golsteyn's CIA pre-employment polygraph interrogation was admitted as evidence and includes Golsteyn's admission to murdering a prisoner.
Amanda Dolasinski reports for the Fayetteville Observer that the board of inquiry also sought video of the polygraph interrogation from the CIA, but that the CIA refused to provide it:
Question: What legitimate reason could the CIA have for withholding this key evidence from the U.S. Army board of inquiry?
As previously noted, a transcript of Golsteyn's CIA pre-employment polygraph interrogation was admitted as evidence and includes Golsteyn's admission to murdering a prisoner.
Amanda Dolasinski reports for the Fayetteville Observer that the board of inquiry also sought video of the polygraph interrogation from the CIA, but that the CIA refused to provide it:
QuoteOnce the [polygraph] transcript was entered, the board attempted to obtain video of the polygraph exam. Goldsmith, president of the board, sent a letter to the CIA to obtain the video Saturday, and he received a denial Sunday.
Question: What legitimate reason could the CIA have for withholding this key evidence from the U.S. Army board of inquiry?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 26, 2015, 02:06 PMAmanda Dolasinski reports for the Fayetteville Observer that in a reversal, the transcript of Matt Golsteyn's CIA pre-employment polygraph interrogation will be admitted into evidence in his board of inquiry hearing. Excerpt:
Quotehttp://www.fayobserver.com/military/in-surprise-twist-green-beret-s-polygraph-exam-used-against/article_069c761d-fd63-57e9-bf75-30c6cc4763ab.html
In surprise twist, Green Beret's polygraph exam used against him in Fort Bragg hearing
Posted: Friday, June 26, 2015 10:25 am | Updated: 1:31 pm, Fri Jun 26, 2015.
By Amanda Dolasinski Staff writer
The transcript of a Fort Bragg Green Beret's CIA polygraph exam will be entered into evidence against him as he fights to keep from being kicked out of the Army for shooting an Afghan bomb maker.
The lawyer for Maj. Matt Golsteyn of 3rd Special Forces Group had argued against the government's request to admit the polygraph exam into evidence. Twice this week during a board of inquiry hearing at Fort Bragg, the government was told it couldn't use the transcript, which was a pre-employment interview.
But on Friday, when it had appeared the hearing was nearing an end, the legal advisor to the three-member board of inquiry granted the government's request. The polygraph transcript hasn't been made public, but Golsteyn apparently talks about the alleged 2010 fatal shooting of an unarmed Afghan.
The decision by the legal advisor, Capt. Thomas Akacki, to enter the transcript into evidence is final.
Phil Stackhouse, Golsteyn's lawyer, argued that polygraph exams have never been acceptable in court, and a board of inquiry should be no different. He told the board that if the transcript was admitted, he'd have to consider recalling about a dozen witnesses who have already testified this week.
The board recessed around 11:30 a.m. so it could review an email from the Department of the Army G1 that said the board must adhere to Akacki's decision.
The board will ultimately decide whether Golsteyn will remain on active duty. He is accused of committing acts unbecoming of an officer and violating the law of armed conflict, and the Army has already revoked his Silver Star. Golsteyn has never been charged with a crime.
...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 25, 2015, 02:01 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Feb 12, 2015, 08:57 AMCertainly, the exaggeration, embellishment, and even in some cases, the fabrication of admissions by polygraph operators is a problem. Fortunately, unlike the FBI, the CIA polygraph division routinely records polygraph examinations, so there should be an objective record of what was (and wasn't) said in the polygraph suite.
There was indeed a video recording of Major Golsteyn's CIA polygraph interrogation. This was confirmed in an army board of inquiry hearing, where the question of whether a transcript of the CIA polygraph session could be considered as evidence arose. The transcript was ultimately excluded, as Amanda Dolasinski reports for the Fayetteville Observer. Excerpt:
Quote
The opening statements began about 4 p.m. [on Tuesday, 23 June 2015] - hours after both sides argued over whether a document of a transcript should be entered as evidence.
The board eventually ruled that the document - a transcript of Golsteyn's polygraph interview for a job with the CIA - would not be admitted.
All three board members - Col. Stuart Goldsmith, Lt. Col. Angela Greenewald and Lt. Col. James Bekurs - agreed that the document reads like a polygraph and barred it from evidence exhibits.
Two witnessed were called by the recorders Tuesday.
The first witness, Chief Warrant Officer 2 David Saggio, testified to his memory from watching a video recording of the CIA interview, then creating the transcript.
Stackhouse objected to Saggio's testimony, saying it was a way for the recorders to "bootstrap" the inadmissible transcript. The objection was overruled.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 07, 2015, 01:38 AMThe Intercept has published internal U.S. Army documents indicating that the criminal investigation of Major Matthew L. Golsteyn was based not on any interpretation of his polygraph charts, but on an admission he made to premeditated murder. According to the documents:
See The Intercept's reporting on this here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/06/golsteyn/
Based on the available information, it seems to me that it was entirely appropriate for the CIA to inform the Army of Golsteyn's admission, and for the Army to open a criminal investigation.
QuoteIn an interview conducted at the CIA, then-CPT Golsteyn claimed to have captured and shot and buried a suspected IED bomb maker. He further went to comment that he went back out with two others to cremate the body and dispose of the remains. In the transcript, CPT Golsteyn stated that he knew it was illegal but was not remorseful as he had solid intelligence and his actions protected the safety of his fellow teammates.
See The Intercept's reporting on this here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/06/golsteyn/
Based on the available information, it seems to me that it was entirely appropriate for the CIA to inform the Army of Golsteyn's admission, and for the Army to open a criminal investigation.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 12, 2015, 08:57 AMCertainly, the exaggeration, embellishment, and even in some cases, the fabrication of admissions by polygraph operators is a problem. Fortunately, unlike the FBI, the CIA polygraph division routinely records polygraph examinations, so there should be an objective record of what was (and wasn't) said in the polygraph suite.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Feb 12, 2015, 08:50 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Feb 12, 2015, 04:46 AMU.S. Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) in an article co-authored with former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Bing West accuses the U.S. Army of wrongly relying on records of a CIA preemployment polygraph examination to criminally investigate Special Forces Major Mathew L. Golsteyn and strip him of a medal and his Special Forces tab:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398388/why-army-brass-punishing-special-forces-hero-duncan-d-hunter-bing-west
Golsteyn was criminally investigated regarding an alleged undisclosed violation of military rules of engagement in Afghanistan in 2010 that reportedly "resulted in the death of a known enemy fighter and bombmaker..." Ultimately, no charges were filed.
Unfortunately, Hunter and Bing don't say whether the Army's investigation of Golsteyn was predicated on polygraph chart readings or some admission made by Golsteyn. I see how the former would be inappropriate, but not the latter.
Even if the "admission" was the basis for this investigation, it is very likely that this so-called admission was highly exaggerated or embellished by the polygraph operator. They often make a mountain out of a mole hill so as to justify their positions and make themselves look important. I have heard many stories about polygraph operators exaggerating and even out right lying about what an applicant said during the polygraph interrogation.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 12, 2015, 04:46 AMU.S. Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) in an article co-authored with former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Bing West accuses the U.S. Army of wrongly relying on records of a CIA preemployment polygraph examination to criminally investigate Special Forces Major Mathew L. Golsteyn and strip him of a medal and his Special Forces tab:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398388/why-army-brass-punishing-special-forces-hero-duncan-d-hunter-bing-west
Golsteyn was criminally investigated regarding an alleged undisclosed violation of military rules of engagement in Afghanistan in 2010 that reportedly "resulted in the death of a known enemy fighter and bombmaker..." Ultimately, no charges were filed.
Unfortunately, Hunter and Bing don't say whether the Army's investigation of Golsteyn was predicated on polygraph chart readings or some admission made by Golsteyn. I see how the former would be inappropriate, but not the latter.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398388/why-army-brass-punishing-special-forces-hero-duncan-d-hunter-bing-west
Golsteyn was criminally investigated regarding an alleged undisclosed violation of military rules of engagement in Afghanistan in 2010 that reportedly "resulted in the death of a known enemy fighter and bombmaker..." Ultimately, no charges were filed.
Unfortunately, Hunter and Bing don't say whether the Army's investigation of Golsteyn was predicated on polygraph chart readings or some admission made by Golsteyn. I see how the former would be inappropriate, but not the latter.