- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Nate
- May 16, 2001, 01:28 PMFYI, this survey was done on www.IWON.com
Survey for May 15, 2001
FBI Under Fire
1.
Timothy McVeigh, found guilty for the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building that left 168 people dead, last week had his May 16 execution postponed until June 11 by Attorney General John Ashcroft when it was discovered that the FBI mistakenly withheld over 3,000 pages of investigation reports during McVeigh's trial.
Do you agree with Ashcroft's decision to delay Timothy McVeigh's execution?
53% Yes
35% No
11% I'm not sure/I don't know enough about the case
2.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, has called upon President Bush to conduct a "top-to-bottom review" of the FBI due to a number of recent concerns such as the McVeigh documents and agent Robert Hanssen's arrest on charges of spying. Do you agree with Senator Schumer's request?
72% Yes
12% No
14% I'm not sure/I do not know enough about the case
3.
Assuming the misplaced FBI documents cast no doubt on McVeigh's 1997 guilty verdict, do you support his execution?
78% Yes
13% No
8% I'm not sure/I do not know enough about the case
Survey for May 15, 2001
FBI Under Fire
1.
Timothy McVeigh, found guilty for the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building that left 168 people dead, last week had his May 16 execution postponed until June 11 by Attorney General John Ashcroft when it was discovered that the FBI mistakenly withheld over 3,000 pages of investigation reports during McVeigh's trial.
Do you agree with Ashcroft's decision to delay Timothy McVeigh's execution?
53% Yes
35% No
11% I'm not sure/I don't know enough about the case
2.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, has called upon President Bush to conduct a "top-to-bottom review" of the FBI due to a number of recent concerns such as the McVeigh documents and agent Robert Hanssen's arrest on charges of spying. Do you agree with Senator Schumer's request?
72% Yes
12% No
14% I'm not sure/I do not know enough about the case
3.
Assuming the misplaced FBI documents cast no doubt on McVeigh's 1997 guilty verdict, do you support his execution?
78% Yes
13% No
8% I'm not sure/I do not know enough about the case
Posted by G Scalabr
- Apr 16, 2001, 05:17 PMLike Mark, I have received information suggesting that for current government employees, it might not be the best idea to follow our original advice and skip any "post-test" interrogation.
In certain situations (DOE, DoD), statistics appear to indicate that those who make no-significant admissions during the polygraph are "passed" regardless of how their charts should be scored in polygraph doctrine. Therefore, current employees at these agencies might be better off not bolting from a "post-test interview," as this may be reported as "failure to submit to the polygraph" by the examiner. Still, those who remain for the "post-test interview" should be extremely careful.
More info on what type of behavior that polygraphers view as truthful can be found in the DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook . We also plan to cover this area in the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which we anticipate will be available some time this summer.
In pre-employment processes, it appears that applicants (at least for most federal agencies) are not being permitted to "explain away" a deceptive chart. Once an examinee's chart is scored as "deceptive," the employment application is nearly always terminated. One wonders why "post-test" interrogations are still conducted even when those who participate and make no admissions are still rejected.
In this situation, there is nothing to gain by remaining. Still, if we had advised in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to immediately bolt from the room upon being called deceptive, polygraphers could find out who has read the book by simply announcing everyone deceptive and looking to see who leaves.
Therefore, one must be extremely tactful in this situation. I suggest staying for at least the start of the post-test "interview." Be sure to remember one thing. Any attempt to explain a reaction to a relevant question may be shaped by the polygrapher into a false admission. If the polygrapher backs you into a corner of the room and begins to rephrase and repeat the same questions ad nauseam, one should not "take any bait" by responding to individual questions. Instead, counter him with general denials (i.e. "At no time have I ever used or sold illegal drugs"). If he keeps at you, try to get him to bring the interrogation to an end (perhaps by commenting "I've already told you that I have never used or sold illegal drugs--I have nothing else to say"). If he still keeps at you, politely end the interview. Whatever you do, do not get into a conversation with him and attempt to explain the "deceptive" chart.
In certain situations (DOE, DoD), statistics appear to indicate that those who make no-significant admissions during the polygraph are "passed" regardless of how their charts should be scored in polygraph doctrine. Therefore, current employees at these agencies might be better off not bolting from a "post-test interview," as this may be reported as "failure to submit to the polygraph" by the examiner. Still, those who remain for the "post-test interview" should be extremely careful.
More info on what type of behavior that polygraphers view as truthful can be found in the DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook . We also plan to cover this area in the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which we anticipate will be available some time this summer.
In pre-employment processes, it appears that applicants (at least for most federal agencies) are not being permitted to "explain away" a deceptive chart. Once an examinee's chart is scored as "deceptive," the employment application is nearly always terminated. One wonders why "post-test" interrogations are still conducted even when those who participate and make no admissions are still rejected.
In this situation, there is nothing to gain by remaining. Still, if we had advised in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to immediately bolt from the room upon being called deceptive, polygraphers could find out who has read the book by simply announcing everyone deceptive and looking to see who leaves.
Therefore, one must be extremely tactful in this situation. I suggest staying for at least the start of the post-test "interview." Be sure to remember one thing. Any attempt to explain a reaction to a relevant question may be shaped by the polygrapher into a false admission. If the polygrapher backs you into a corner of the room and begins to rephrase and repeat the same questions ad nauseam, one should not "take any bait" by responding to individual questions. Instead, counter him with general denials (i.e. "At no time have I ever used or sold illegal drugs"). If he keeps at you, try to get him to bring the interrogation to an end (perhaps by commenting "I've already told you that I have never used or sold illegal drugs--I have nothing else to say"). If he still keeps at you, politely end the interview. Whatever you do, do not get into a conversation with him and attempt to explain the "deceptive" chart.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 09, 2001, 12:50 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Apr 06, 2001, 06:22 PM
Your site does not have sufficient memory allocation for the number of zeros that would precede the first significant number in the decimal representation of such a probability
That memory constraint might also preclude posting of the negative exponent that would be required if scientific notation were to be used instead.
(Posts to this message board are limited to 5,000 characters including spaces).
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 06, 2001, 11:01 PMYou can be assured by the "professional FP's" as those who do polygraphs love to annoint themselves, will be completely "unbiased and without prejudice when Director Freeh is "hooked up". If that is to be believed then Aldrich Ames should be the next person to receive a Presidential Pardon. Director Freeh knows that the chances of him being failed are nill. Jane Doe III nailed it perfectly, He is insulting his subordinates with this fallacy and Let's see him defend one of his "best" when they cant pass.
I can see SA's sweeping pencil shavings off the carpet while they are investigated and have their careers ruined, just ask Mark Mallah.
The Cheesy Smiley tells it all.
I can see SA's sweeping pencil shavings off the carpet while they are investigated and have their careers ruined, just ask Mark Mallah.
The Cheesy Smiley tells it all.
Posted by Jane Doe III
- Apr 06, 2001, 07:40 PM Come on.....Does he really think that he is going to dupe his entire organization into believing that he was given an unbiased polygraph examination? I presume that the majority of Special Agents have enough common sense to believe otherwise. How can you have one of your own Agents give the Director a polygraph? This makes no sense at all! I hope the media brings this farce into light.
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 06, 2001, 06:22 PMQuoteYour site does not have sufficient memory allocation for the number of zeros that would precede the first significant number in the decimal representation of such a probability
Anyone care to estimate the odds of Judge Freeh flunking?
Posted by Nate
- Apr 06, 2001, 06:18 PMYou got to be kidin right? We all know the examiner will pass Freeh before he even steps into the room. I would assume this might be the case in all the exams they do "internally". This will be a tactic to "falsely ease" the feelings of the American people about their safety.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 06, 2001, 04:08 PMThe Associated Press reports today that FBI Director Louis J.Freeh will submit to polygraph screening, too. Isn't that special? 
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010406/11/fbi-lie-detector
Anyone care to estimate the odds of Judge Freeh flunking?
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010406/11/fbi-lie-detector
Anyone care to estimate the odds of Judge Freeh flunking?
Posted by False +
- Apr 05, 2001, 11:36 PMMark,
I was working for a government contractor at the time, and not for the agency itself.
My earlier post was unclear about the handshake issue, my apologies. Here's what happened to the best of my recollection. As he was accompanying me to the door out of the main suite, we had a brief exchange of words. I was telling him how I wouldn't change my story because it was the truth. Once we got to the door, he extends his arm to shake my hand. I actually shook it, and as we're shaking, he says "It's the worst thing you can do" in reference to my not admitting to more than one experience with marijuana.
Of course, by this time, I had been in there for 5 hours, wanted nothing more than to get out, and would have done anything to be let out. He knew this full well, and took advantage of it to disparage me by, in effect, forcing me to shake his hand. What a guy. I'll bet he joked about it that night with his poly-buddies over a few beers.
Indeed, examiners are a most unprofessional bunch. I base that statement on my own experience and that of my former colleagues at my old job who endured similarly.
The one potentially useful skill I've learned from this is how to act during questioning by law enforcement if I'm wrongly suspected of a crime. Now, I'm privy to their tactics and know when they've reached the point of pounding on you till you tell them what they want to hear. You're there when they say "Ok, we're going to go over all of this again." That's when you say: "This interrogation is over, and unless you arrest me, I'm leaving immediately."
I was working for a government contractor at the time, and not for the agency itself.
My earlier post was unclear about the handshake issue, my apologies. Here's what happened to the best of my recollection. As he was accompanying me to the door out of the main suite, we had a brief exchange of words. I was telling him how I wouldn't change my story because it was the truth. Once we got to the door, he extends his arm to shake my hand. I actually shook it, and as we're shaking, he says "It's the worst thing you can do" in reference to my not admitting to more than one experience with marijuana.
Of course, by this time, I had been in there for 5 hours, wanted nothing more than to get out, and would have done anything to be let out. He knew this full well, and took advantage of it to disparage me by, in effect, forcing me to shake his hand. What a guy. I'll bet he joked about it that night with his poly-buddies over a few beers.
Indeed, examiners are a most unprofessional bunch. I base that statement on my own experience and that of my former colleagues at my old job who endured similarly.
The one potentially useful skill I've learned from this is how to act during questioning by law enforcement if I'm wrongly suspected of a crime. Now, I'm privy to their tactics and know when they've reached the point of pounding on you till you tell them what they want to hear. You're there when they say "Ok, we're going to go over all of this again." That's when you say: "This interrogation is over, and unless you arrest me, I'm leaving immediately."
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Apr 05, 2001, 10:24 PMFalse +,
Thanks for your comments. I'm sure your story resonates with quite a few people who visit this site.
Were you a government employee at the time? Also, I do not understand exactly what was meant by the examiner who shook your hand and said that it was the worst thing you could do. Did he mean shaking his hand was the worst thing you could do? Or something else was the worst thing you could do?
Finally, there seems to be a common pattern of the innocent subject, dealing in good faith and forthcoming to a fault, getting abused by the examiner, who turns the subject's honesty into a weapon against him/her.
My guess is that the "anti-polygraph movement" would not be so strong if polygraph interrogators were more professional (at least the ones I ran into, and have read about on this site). It does not seem to be enough to merely conduct a professional interrogation. It is apparently compulsory to attempt to intimidate and bewilder the subject through all sorts of contrived histrionics, ruses, and distortions. Thankfully this site and other sources are pulling back the proverbial curtain.
Posted by False +
- Apr 05, 2001, 05:53 PMMark,
I was in a post-test interrogation situation myself. After the examiner finished cycling through the questions, he got up and shouted "Things couldn't look any worse than they are." I was naive about the entire polygraph interrogation procedure at the time, and was completely dumbfounded at how I could derserve winding up in such a situation after spilling my guts. [Also, during the pre-test interview, the examiner brought me to tears regarding the death of my father due to a serious illness just 6 months prior.]
The interrogation lasted for hours afterwards, and I would continue to say I was telling the truth all to be rebutted with "We know you're being deceptive and untruthful." When it became apparent that they wouldn't budge a bit, I asked to leave. They never physically restrained me, but was made to understand they weren't about the let me leave. At that point I was becoming genuinely frightened as to what going to become of me on this situation. I had no idea at the time who they were (turns out it was CIA).
The examiner walked out of the room, and another walks in a little later and plays good cop. After he saw I was maintining I was truthful, he turns into bad cop. After a while, he leaves, and yet another examiner walks in and the whole thing starts over again. When they saw I wasn't budging, they forced me to sign some form. I completely forgot what it said, but I would have gladly signed a form saying I was Kennedy's assassin (nevermind that I wasn't born at the time....). But after that, as I'm walking out the door, the one examiner extends his hand for me to shake, which I did for some reason, and then he says "It's the worst thing you can do." Wow, words of wisdom to live by. I stayed in there for 5 hours, all too see if in fact I had only smoked pot once in my life (as I reported in my clearance form -- arguably, one of the dumbest things I've ever done (the reporting of the act, not the act itself!).
I was indeed completely naive about polygraph interrogations, and now would do things completely differently. Instead of doing what Gino and Mark suggest, I fed the examiners' fetishes by passionately maintaining I was truthful and letting this thing drag on for hours and hours. What a waste of time. I wish I could tell the IRS that I'm refusing to pay the $1200 in federal taxes I owe, and that they should reimburse ME. I can only assume these examiners will one day pay dearly.
I was in a post-test interrogation situation myself. After the examiner finished cycling through the questions, he got up and shouted "Things couldn't look any worse than they are." I was naive about the entire polygraph interrogation procedure at the time, and was completely dumbfounded at how I could derserve winding up in such a situation after spilling my guts. [Also, during the pre-test interview, the examiner brought me to tears regarding the death of my father due to a serious illness just 6 months prior.]
The interrogation lasted for hours afterwards, and I would continue to say I was telling the truth all to be rebutted with "We know you're being deceptive and untruthful." When it became apparent that they wouldn't budge a bit, I asked to leave. They never physically restrained me, but was made to understand they weren't about the let me leave. At that point I was becoming genuinely frightened as to what going to become of me on this situation. I had no idea at the time who they were (turns out it was CIA).
The examiner walked out of the room, and another walks in a little later and plays good cop. After he saw I was maintining I was truthful, he turns into bad cop. After a while, he leaves, and yet another examiner walks in and the whole thing starts over again. When they saw I wasn't budging, they forced me to sign some form. I completely forgot what it said, but I would have gladly signed a form saying I was Kennedy's assassin (nevermind that I wasn't born at the time....). But after that, as I'm walking out the door, the one examiner extends his hand for me to shake, which I did for some reason, and then he says "It's the worst thing you can do." Wow, words of wisdom to live by. I stayed in there for 5 hours, all too see if in fact I had only smoked pot once in my life (as I reported in my clearance form -- arguably, one of the dumbest things I've ever done (the reporting of the act, not the act itself!).
I was indeed completely naive about polygraph interrogations, and now would do things completely differently. Instead of doing what Gino and Mark suggest, I fed the examiners' fetishes by passionately maintaining I was truthful and letting this thing drag on for hours and hours. What a waste of time. I wish I could tell the IRS that I'm refusing to pay the $1200 in federal taxes I owe, and that they should reimburse ME. I can only assume these examiners will one day pay dearly.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Apr 05, 2001, 03:07 AMSomeone pointed out to me that a current government employee about to undergo a polygraph interrogation may not have the luxury of walking out without inviting adverse consequences.
In this case, you might need to stay for a post-test interrogation. If you do, you should not attempt to engage with the examiner, or attempt to persuade him/her. Do not give him/her that much power. Simply assert that you told the truth, period, and do not attempt to explain why you were found deceptive.
You still might consider leaving at some point, but you should conduct yourself professionally and not get sucked into conflict with the examiner.
Also, read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector for more on this point.
Gino, I would be interested in your comments, or anyone else who has been in this situation. I "confess" that I was under post-test interrogations as an FBI employee for many, many, hours, and made the mistakes I am cautioning against. I knew very little about the polygraph and was naive.
Posted by Nate
- Apr 04, 2001, 01:02 PMYes, you guys are probably right, it would not be wise to argue with and examiner because it would be a no win situation if he is dishonest about his agrument. Although on the last test that I took, I talked to the examiner for 2 full hours before I took the test (when he said do you have any question?....I took the opportunity). I told him I was educated on the matter and told him everything (the complete honesty tactic). It worked and he passed me! My discussion on the pre-exam was basically that I was predetermined that I was going to fail because of a false positive. It was as if I was arguing that I failed before I even failed!?! He must have believed me and passed me so I guess it worked. I would assume that if I tried to argue after a false positive, the discussion would be different and not winnable as you guys stated.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Apr 03, 2001, 06:43 PMI just want to second what Mark said.
Intellectual jousting with a polygraph examiner who has already informed you that you were "deceptive" is a big waste of time and can lead to disastrous consequences.
Staying for a post-test interrogation is asking for trouble in the form of a false confession. As soon as you are sure that the examination has moved into the "post-test interview" (read interrogation) phase, politely deny the polygraphers charges and get the heck out of Dodge. Common signs singaling the start of the "post-test" include the examiner motioning you to sit in chair positioned with its back to the corner, and his use of the words "deception" and/or "trouble."
Anything you say to the examiner at this point just gives him ammunition to twist into a false confession that will help him justify his "findings" to his superiors. False confessions are much harder to fight than dismissals on polygraph charts alone. Even if the interrogation is taped, you will have a difficult time obtaining copies to support your version of the events. Bolt for the door.
Intellectual jousting with a polygraph examiner who has already informed you that you were "deceptive" is a big waste of time and can lead to disastrous consequences.
Staying for a post-test interrogation is asking for trouble in the form of a false confession. As soon as you are sure that the examination has moved into the "post-test interview" (read interrogation) phase, politely deny the polygraphers charges and get the heck out of Dodge. Common signs singaling the start of the "post-test" include the examiner motioning you to sit in chair positioned with its back to the corner, and his use of the words "deception" and/or "trouble."
Anything you say to the examiner at this point just gives him ammunition to twist into a false confession that will help him justify his "findings" to his superiors. False confessions are much harder to fight than dismissals on polygraph charts alone. Even if the interrogation is taped, you will have a difficult time obtaining copies to support your version of the events. Bolt for the door.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Apr 03, 2001, 06:01 PMNate,
You and everyone else out there should be aware that "going head to head intellectually" with a polygraph interrogator is the biggest waste of time you can engage in, and an impossibility.
The interrogation will NOT be a good faith exchange, but an attempt to intimidate, wheedle, cajole, coax, and pressure you into a confession using any tool available, including distortion of your words, lies, half-lies, and trickery.
If accused of deception by a polygraph examiner, the innocent person should assert their innocence and politely walk out the door.
You and everyone else out there should be aware that "going head to head intellectually" with a polygraph interrogator is the biggest waste of time you can engage in, and an impossibility.
The interrogation will NOT be a good faith exchange, but an attempt to intimidate, wheedle, cajole, coax, and pressure you into a confession using any tool available, including distortion of your words, lies, half-lies, and trickery.
If accused of deception by a polygraph examiner, the innocent person should assert their innocence and politely walk out the door.