My husband has been indicted along with me on federal charges. He had no knowledge of what I was doing , but because we shared a bank account and he wrote checks, the feds say he must have known. His attorney finally convinced the ausa to allow a polygraph test to prove his innocence. He took this test around the first of June with the FBI. The examiner told him that he didn't do well and that he must have know about the crime. He then politely told him, no I did not and left. I have read of the FBI trying to get confessions from people even if they pass the test. To date we or his attorney still do not have a report. Is this good, bad or normal? Any input would be appreciated.
With all due respect, what kind of defense counsel would allow their client to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and be subjected to an open-ended interrogation by law enforcement without the attorney being present? To add insult to injury, your attorney allowed the FBI to conduct the interrogation! Unbelievable! You certainly have grounds to have any future verdict set aside for your attorney's incompetence.
beech trees
Although it is inferred, she didn't out right say that the atty. wasn't present. Even if he was there, he apparently allowed the interogation without objection. There or not, you are correct. A good lawyer should be able to have this thrown out of court because of incompetence. If this happens, the feds still have the option to a new trial, but I would think the polygraph and other interrogations would not be allowed as evidence in the new trial. I doubt that a dismissal of charges, based on atty. incompetence, is achievable. If they loose in court, they still have one hell of an appeal.
I do not know how long it normally takes to receive a polygraph report from the FBI in the circumstances you described. In any event, one month should have been more than sufficient time for the FBI to have a final polygraph report prepared. Did the FBI or AUSA actually make a commitment to provide your husband with a copy of the polygraph report?
The main purpose of the polygraph is as an interrogational prop and pretext for getting a suspect to agree to an interrogation in the absence of counsel. It is also the FBI's policy not to video- or audiotape polygraph interrogations, a deliberate policy that denies the suspect the ability to challenge any admission(s) the polygrapher may attribute to him, or to prove any allegation of polygrapher misconduct.
I agree with Beech Trees and Twoblock that your lawyer's pushing for a polygraph examination to "prove your husband's innocence" is an indication of incompetence.
If you haven't already done so, download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) for more about how polygraph testing actually "works" (and doesn't).
I'd have to disagree with the assessments of this situation (as I have with similar posts in the past).
First of all, the AUSA could not (would not) introduce the polygraph results as evidence against this individual. While some districts in federal court have allowed polygraph results to be introduced, it has nearly always been for exculpatory purposes. I know of no federal case wherein a DI result was introduced as part of the prosecution's case. Therefore, Beech and George are slandering this attorney by calling him incompetent, without the facts (and I suspect without a JD or any other legal / law enforcement credentials).
If the attorney did allow a post exam interview, he would be considered incompetent. However, MrsG, makes no mention of such an interview. She said the examiner informed her husband of the result, and he said it was wrong, and left. That constitues neither interview, nor interrogation. That sounds like an arranged exam, wherein the defense attorney agreed to an exam, but demanded there be no post instrument interview. The attorney likely was present, but if he wasn't he likely has worked with the examiner before, and knew he would not violate ethics by betraying such an agreement. If the examiner did so, any admissions made would likely be surpressed as a violation of the client's rights (unless he demanded to go against his attorney's advice, which he could do if counsel was present as well).
While I believe Two Block is a fair minded, concerned, interested citizen; Beech and George have an agenda. This is yet another front on their attack on the system that slighted them. They would like to discredit lawyers who use polygraph as a resource in defense strategy/ planning; and thus reduce this use of polygraph by putting fear in attorneys that allowing an exam of a client could constitute malpractice. Unfortunately for Beach and George, these gentlemen are obviously very much laymen in the field of the Federal Legal System.
I have admitted to having meager, at best, credentials in the science fields, but I am no doubt a seasoned Federal Law Enforcement professional--especially experienced in these types of exams. I can say without a doubt, Beech and George, you are either making assumptions for self-serving reasons, or your ignorance of the system at work here caused you to fill in the blanks with highly unlikely possibilities. The passage above says nothing about an actual interrogation occuring, just that she heard the FBI might try to get a confession even if a person passed. I inferred from this only that she suspects he might have actually passed. I suspect that the reason he left right after receiving the result, was because that was what was agreed upon between attorney and examiner.
If information were to come forward that an actual interview geared to eliciting admissions occurred, then I would change my position on the competence of the defense attorney. For such an interview to be allowed in an exculpatory examination (again, unless the suspect demanded to make admissions against advice) would be highly irregular. For this to be carried out, against the wishes of attorney would be misconduct that would yield nothing but inadmissible information.
The reasons for delay in receipt of report could be attributed to QC process and workload. Or it could be an issue with discovery procedure between AUSA and defense. It's also possible the husband's attorney is unwilling to share the info with MrsG and thus she believes he does not have what he does. If charged, the husband's defense would likely be to claim no knowledge of her wrongdoings, or even blame her for everything. Thus his interests would conflict with hers. He and she should have a separate attorneys and they likely won't be sharing info if the two are tried separately.
Wow!!! Post # 100. Do I get an award, a cake, or some sort of certificate? At least a congrats for surviving 100 posts worth of sharp replies! :)
let me clarify this situation a little further. No, the attorney was not present. He did this as an attempt to get the ausa to dismiss charges, not to use it in a trial situation. No, they did no specifically say that a report would be issued to us but the attorney told us he would let us know as soon as he heard something, so I assumed that there would be some type of report. And finally, yes, we do have separate lawyers. Thanks for all the input.
Public Servant,
No award, cake, or certificate, but if you're ever in my neck of the woods, get in touch and you're welcome to come over for food, drink, and conversation. Your participation on this message board is always welcome.
With regard to your most recent post, I would not go so far as to say that a lawyer's allowing a client to be polygraphed would amount to malpractice. I don't know under what circumstances it might or might not.
To the best of your knowledge, does the FBI conduct polygraph examinations of suspects in criminal cases (indeed, of persons already indicted) subject to the proviso that no post-test interrogation shall be conducted? I admit that I had not considered the possibility that such a scenario might arise. (I'd be interested in hearing from anyone knowledgable in this regard.)
Public Servant hit it right on the head. It's quite common to conduct exculpatory polygraph examinations at the defense attorney's request. Although not quite as common, I have conducted polygraph examinations on suspects who have already been indicted. George, I believe you used the term "wild conjecture" on one of these threads. I saw alot of "wild conjecture" on this thread from both you and Beech Trees. Shame on you.
Beech
Had the scenario you described taken place (see below), I doubt seriously if a judge would punish the prosecutor or police for the attorney's incompetence. Had there been an interrogation and the fellow confessed, I believe it would have been allowed regardless of the objections of counsel.
"A good lawyer should be able to have this thrown out of court because of incompetence."
Plain and simply put, the poly is nothing more than a tool used to try and scare the uninformed examinee (your husband) into a confession. The tactit used by the examiner was mearly meant to try and scare your husband into "spilling the beans". Appearantly he wasn't carrying any and did the right thing by leaving the poly exam. Sounds to me like your husband failed the exam in the eyes of the fbi. If you do see a "report" I am willing to bet the conclusion will be that he either failed of was inconclusive as they apparently did not get their much hoped for confession. I would not let your husband take another one ever again. They might try to convince your husband he needs a retest based on the results of the first. Tell them to shove their second "exam" and get a new lawyer for suggesting your husband take one in the first place.
Canadian Crusader,
You missed my point completely and ignor the fact that, in two posts now, MrsG has not mentioned any actual interrogation taking place.
In a situation like the one described, what other method of corroborating his claim of no culpable knowledge/involvement, would MrsG's husband have, other than an NDI exam? Can you blame him or his attorney for trying?
You say a second exam should be out of the question (and seem to say any should have been). But this site says anyone could easily beat a polygraph...so shouldn't lawyers and their clients be beating down the examiners' doors to obtain exculpatory evidence. You can't have it both ways!
George,
Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I would very much like to take you up on the offer, but, alas, the geography is a bit insurmountable at this time. If you're ever on the complete opposite end of the land mass I believe we share, stop in for the same hospitality you offered, and some of the local food and culture. I too believe the friendly conversation would be enjoyable.
On the topic of exculpatory exams...
I can't speak for the FBI, but they are quite common within Federal Law Enforcement. The examiner would agree not to attempt to elicit any admissions and just run a good exam. The attorney may or may not be present, but the examiner would have instructions from the attorney regarding any spontaneous incriminating statements (usually to stop and defer to the attorney) and that no post-test interview could be conducted. The defense attorneys are people we work with regularly. Unlike on TV, it is not a completely adversarial relationship.
The attorney would have to turn to the LE agency, because the prosecution would likely not accept polygraph results from a private examiner. If the defendent paid the examiner, who's to say he's not getting what he paid for, regardles of what is the truth.
I've run numerous such exams, and more than a couple were awaiting trial, and came up NDI (often similar situations to this, where circumstance had them tied to a bigger issue, and this was the only way to verify their statements). Usually, some, or all of the charges are dropped as a result (likely there was an agreement betwen prosecution and defense prior to exam). Many times the attorneys find a DI exam useful as well. They now know it might be better to pursue a plea bargain. I've seen more than a few felons get off easy after they went DI and their attorney convinced them to accept a very nice deal. It's easier for a defense attorney to defend his client if he knows what the truth is. That's the service polygraph offers defense attorneys.
Regards.
Public Servant,
You write to Canadian Crusader:
QuoteIn a situation like the one described, what other method of corroborating his claim of no culpable knowledge/involvement, would MrsG's husband have, other than an NDI exam?
An NDI ("No Deception Indicated") CQT polygraph examination would have provided no genuine corroboration, because the "test" has
no scientific basis. At best, such an outcome
might provide bureaucratic cover that a prosecutor could use to justify his decision to drop charges.
QuoteYou say a second exam should be out of the question (and seem to say any should have been). But this site says anyone could easily beat a polygraph...so shouldn't lawyers and their clients be beating down the examiners' doors to obtain exculpatory evidence. You can't have it both ways!
If certain protections (such as the lawyer's right to be present, video/audiotaping, no post-test interrogation) were in place, then perhaps, in cases where the prosecution is foolish enough to make decisions on the basis of CQT polygraphy, lawyers and clients
should be beating down the polygraph examiners' doors to obtain "exculpatory" polygraph examinations.
But in the case of the FBI, it appears that no such protections exist. According to a recent report of investigation (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/higazy-oig-report.shtml) by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York:
QuoteIt is the Government's understanding that, according to FBI protocol, no one other than the polygrapher and the examinee are allowed in the polygraph room during the administration of the
exam because the presence of other parties may influence the results and render the exam not objective.
We also know that it is the FBI's policy not to audio- or videorecord polygraph examinations -- a policy that has no good faith justification.
QuoteOn the topic of exculpatory exams...
I can't speak for the FBI, but they are quite common within Federal Law Enforcement. The examiner would agree not to attempt to elicit any admissions and just run a good exam. The attorney may or may not be present, but the examiner would have instructions from the attorney regarding any spontaneous incriminating statements (usually to stop and defer to the attorney) and that no post-test interview could be conducted. The defense attorneys are people we work with regularly. Unlike on TV, it is not a completely adversarial relationship.
Thank you for sharing these insights. Which federal law enforcement agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations under the conditions you've described?
QuoteThe attorney would have to turn to the LE agency, because the prosecution would likely not accept polygraph results from a private examiner. If the defendent paid the examiner, who's to say he's not getting what he paid for, regardles of what is the truth.
Indeed, if the a defendant's attorney hires a private polygraph examiner, and the results don't come out to his liking, he can choose not to disclose them and seek out other polygraphers until he obtains a favorable outcome.
QuoteIt's easier for a defense attorney to defend his client if he knows what the truth is. That's the service polygraph offers defense attorneys.
If only that were so... But the polygraph does not detect lying or deception, nor does it "verify the truth" as some polygraphers are fond of saying. It is a mistake for any attorney to rely on polygraph chart readings to determine whether his client is telling the truth.
In any event, if an attorney wanted to use a polygraph examination in an attempt to assess his own client's veracity, it would be unwise for him to turn to the FBI to provide that service.
George,
QuoteAn NDI ("No Deception Indicated") CQT polygraph examination would have provided no genuine corroboration,
This is something I guess we'll have to agree to disagree upon. However, I will say this:
On the thread wherein the stim chart became a hot topic, Mark Mallah stated he believed deception to create a response. He said the problem is that response could be caused by other factors as well. I believe I've seen this in your statements as well. This argument could support a reason not to trust a DI result but should not affect the reliability of an NDI. Lack of significant response to relevant questions should indicate lack of deception, and any of the other factors one might assert could cause a seemingly deceptive response.
Did I state that clearly? I'm not making a new assertion, just applying yours to other assertions from your side.
On the issue of allowing no witness to observe exams, let me say that nothing could be more WRONG. Even an exam that is conducted on a person who has waived his right to counsel, should be witnessed. All of my exams are witnessed by someone, just so no one could say anything improper occurred. And I, personally, would have no problem with taping of exam from start to finish, to include post test. That would end all questions or insinuations a defense attorney, or anyone could have. I hope this allegation you cite is in error. Such a policy would be impossible to defend, if for no other reason than the fact it leaves each exam open to scrutiny and doubt.
To answer the question of what agencies run exculpatory exams; mine, and many others no doubt. Sorry, I don't speak for my agency, or any others here. I post as a private citizen. To be specific might cause others to infer otherwise. Perhaps I could be more specific if we ever end up in the same location with a table and a couple of brews between us. You probably could gather from this post to which agency I do NOT belong.
On your last portion, I would only reiterate that we shall have to agree to disagree. I believe defense attorneys are quite wise to use polygraph in this way, and I know many quite successful ones who do so. I'll have to leave the last line alone.
Public Servant,
Of course, we can agree to disagree on the probative value of polygraph chart readings. But I would note that the National Academy of Sciences also disagrees with you. ;)
The message thread to which you refer in which the stim test has recently been discussed is Looking for an Interesting Quote (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1099.msg9014#msg9014). Actually, Mark did not exactly write that he believed deception to create a response. What he wrote was, "I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test."
It should be pointed out that during the stim test, when the examinee denies having written the number he actually wrote, any reaction produced has nothing to do with a willful act of deception. The examinee's denial that he wrote the number he actually did is an act of compliance with the polygrapher's instructions and not an act of deception.
A deceptive answer to a polygraph question may or may not be accompanied by an associated physiological response measurable by the polygraph. The absence of such a response is no sure sign that an examinee's answer to a question was truthful.
It is good to know that all your examinations are witnessed by a third person. Do I understand you correctly that such third persons could include the examinee's lawyer? It is also good to know that you have no problem with exams being taped. If your agency were to make such taping routine, it would offer you and your colleagues, as well as those you polygraph, an important protection.
Allowing witnesses and taping is most certainly not the policy of the FBI, however: the Bureau does not allow anyone other than the polygrapher and subject to be present and does not allow the recording of polygraph sessions. As I said before, there is no good faith justification for this policy.
I had asked you which federal law enforcement agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations under the conditions you've described (allowing defense counsel to be present and allowing taping). I think you understood this as a question about which agencies administer exculpatory polygraph examinations, but what I am asking is which ones (in stark contrast to the FBI) allow defense counsel to be present and allow taping (regardless of whether the examination is deemed "exculpatory")?
Just as I am not speaking for the FBI when I describe their policy of not allowing defense counsel to be present and not allowing the recording of polygraph examinations, I don't think your answering this question could be construed as your speaking in behalf your agency, or any other. The answer to the question I've put to you would be useful to those considering whether or not to agree to such a polygraph examination.
QuoteActually, Mark did not exactly write that he believed deception to create a response. What he wrote was, "I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test."
It should be pointed out that during the stim test, when the examinee denies having written the number he actually wrote, any reaction produced has nothing to do with a willful act of deception. The examinee's denial that he wrote the number he actually did is an act of compliance with the polygrapher's instructions and not an act of deception.
First of all I see little difference with my paraphrase (from memory at the time) and the actual quote you provided. I'd leave it to Mark to say for sure if I misrepresented his statement. I would be the last to do so.
Likewise, while being told to write a number is not deceiving the examiner, giving an answer that is not true, is certainly a lie. This coincides even better with Mark's direct quote.
It appears to me we have reduced this from substantive argument to semantics.
You have correctly assessed my view on witnessing of exams.
On the topic of naming agencies who do these type of exams, I would say that doing so might indicate I work for one of these agencies. Giving hint to the agency for whom I work, might give room for the inference I sought to avoid. Besides, there are many agencies who employ examiners at the local, state, andfederal level. I couldn't name all or even know if all of them run these types of exams.
I think that I can provide the service you seek, by stating that most agencies would allow the attorney to be present, or make an agreement to no post as I mentioned, if the exam was requested by counsel or set up as an agreement between prosecutor and defense counsel. If one is in a situation wherein their attorney suggests (or they request the attorney to set up) an exculpatory exam, the best way to ensure they obtain this type of agreement is to demand it of their attorney. The defense counsel can not force the client to do anything any more than the prosecution, so demand he enter into such an agreement and/or witness the exam as a prerequisite.
Also, as an aside, some jurisdictions have examiners who work for the prosecutors office, or even the public defender's office.
And don't worry George, no one will mistake you as speaking for the FBI. :)
Public Servant,
QuoteFirst of all I see little difference with my paraphrase (from memory at the time) and the actual quote you provided. I'd leave it to Mark to say for sure if I misrepresented his statement. I would be the last to do so.
Likewise, while being told to write a number is not deceiving the examiner, giving an answer that is not true, is certainly a lie. This coincides even better with Mark's direct quote.
It appears to me we have reduced this from substantive argument to semantics.
I think the key point here is that the stim test has nothing to do with the detection of deception: it's a form of concealed information test. In the stim test, when the examinee denies writing the number he actually did, his reply may be deemed a "lie" in the strict sense that it is not true. But the intent to deceive is missing: the examinee denies writing the number he did merely because the polygrapher instructed him to do so. Any reactions measured by the polygraph during the stim test are not the product of deception.
I think it bears repeating that a deceptive answer to a CQT polygraph question may or may not be accompanied by an associated physiological response measurable by the polygraph and that the absence of such a response is no proof that an examinee's answer to that question was truthful.
QuoteThe message thread to which you refer in which the stim test has recently been discussed is Looking for an Interesting Quote. Actually, Mark did not exactly write that he believed deception to create a response. What he wrote was, "I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test."
Just to clarify, I based my statement on my own personal experience and the widely held belief that when people lie, they experience some internal discord. That discord, I suspect, is manifest through the polygraph's measurements. One of the problems with the polygraph is that it cannot distinguish among various types of internal discord.
Even though I was told to lie during a stim test, I did experience discord when doing so, and was not surprised to see a strong reaction there.
QuoteOn the thread wherein the stim chart became a hot topic, Mark Mallah stated he believed deception to create a response. He said the problem is that response could be caused by other factors as well. I believe I've seen this in your statements as well. This argument could support a reason not to trust a DI result but should not affect the reliability of an NDI. Lack of significant response to relevant questions should indicate lack of deception, and any of the other factors one might assert could cause a seemingly deceptive response.
Yes, it could support a reason not to trust a DI, as I believe. But it has no application to an NDI, which turns on other factors.
Let me ask this though: what is the main point here, and its implication(s) vis a vis the stim test?
Mark,
QuoteLet me ask this though: what is the main point here, and its implication(s) vis a vis the stim test?
I'm not sure I remember. I believe this thread was narrowed to George and I debating on whether an NDI should be relied upon in cases such as MrsG presented.
I merely seized upon your post to illustrate how an assertion made by a poly opponent could support that an NDI result would be reliable. Just made use of a little (of my own) logic applied to your post...hope you didn't mind.
QuoteJust to clarify, I based my statement on my own personal experience and the widely held belief that when people lie, they experience some internal discord. That discord, I suspect, is manifest through the polygraph's measurements. One of the problems with the polygraph is that it cannot distinguish among various types of internal discord.
I believe the psychological term for this is Cognitive Dissonance (I don't have a psychology text book in front of me but I don't think I'm making complete wild conjecture here, George :)). You were doing something you felt was wrong (being dishonest), yet you did it (lied) at the request of the examiner. The internal (psychological) fight results in a physiological response. It results from having a conscience. I'd argue that everyone has one of those; just some don't listen to it as often as others.
Of course, the 100% presence of a conscience in all people would more difficult to determine through research than validating polygraph. It's that dastardly establishing ground truth thing again... which no doubt, George, is the main culprit which enabled the NAS to sharp shoot polygraph research and validation.
Perhaps, there could be other sources of internal discord which could cause a discernable response on polygraph charts. However, I'd argue significant response that occurs consistently to answering a yes/no question, would most likely be caused by the cognitive dissonance involved in telling a lie. Or by outright fear of detection of a deception, when the questions are a bit more serious than stim questions. And CQT adds the psychological set dimension to allow for response due to other factors.
Attack at will.
Public Servant,
(1) As has been pointed out many times on this message board, stim tests are really concealed information tests. The same results can be obtained through a silent test (no response from the examinee). They have no bearing whatsoever on detecting deception or on the foolishness of CQT exams. They are merely a con to try to convince an examinee of the overall viability of the process to follow (the substantive exam). Note Wombat's nice turning of the tables with his con of the con man on a separate thread.
(2) The cognitive dissonance which you suggest for the CQT is much better and generally explained by the fear of consequences mechanism discussed many times before on this site than the fear of detection mechanism you now shamelessly give us once again from the shallow theory spewed by polygraph academia. And as previously discussed this (the former) mechanism serves well to explain the large number of false positive results obtained with polygraph screening and attested to through the continuing litany of posts here as well as to explain why most of the so-called polygraph (simulated crime) research (with no real consequences to be feared) should be dismissed out of hand.
Public Servant,
QuoteOr by outright fear of detection of a deception...
Would you agree or disagree that the fear of an otherwise truthful answer being perceived as deceptive could also bring on a significant response?
I ask simply because I believe this very fact to be the underlying cause of 11 people failing their polygraphs in the Molly Bish case. Any insight you may have would be helpful.
Orolan
Why would an examinee fear their answer is perceived as deceptive? Let me enlighten you. That's where the art of polygraph comes into play and if the examiner does his/her job correctly then there will be no fear their answers are being perceived as deceptive. ;)
Saidme,
A truthful polygraph subject, perhaps especially one being questioned about a missing person, might well fear being perceived as deceptive because of the likely consequences thereof.
You write (with a wink) that "if the examiner does his/her job correctly then there will be no fear their answers are being perceived as deceptive." But CQT polygraphy lacks any meaningful control (in the scientific sense of the word), and the examiner has no way of knowing whether he/she has done his/her job correctly.
And hence we get situations like the Molly Bish case, where 11 individuals failed the polygraph.
Saidme,
You don't think a person would be apprehensive sitting for a polygraph exam that could cost them their life if they failed?
I do agree that a skilled polygrapher might be able to alleviate most of the apprehension, but not all of it. But that's not polygraphy, that's psychology.
Curious. What is your take on those 11 failures? Do you see it as examiner incompetence? Or are all 11 of them guilty?
Orolan
I don't know anything about the case you're discussing but I can provide you with some insight that might be helpful (but probably not). Let's say you're going to polygraph a group of employees working at the 7-11 over the theft of $100. You're going to polygraph them on that specific issue. Let's say for arguments sake, only one in the group stole the money. Let's say the group consists of 11 people (I'll use your number). At the conclusion of the 11 polygraphs let's say 9 were DI. Obviously, one person stole the money, why would 8 others go DI? What might cause that is a little bleed over from other incidents. Maybe the other 8 people stole money from the 7-11 in the recent past, but they didn't steal that $100. That would explain why you had more than one DI. Of course you would interrogate them all equally. From an examiner's standpoint, not only might he/she solve the crime of the stolen $100, but could resolve many other thefts that went unreported. I've seen this very scenario occur.
I hope that's not too much for you to digest. You can apply this same scenario to just about any crime.
I think the polygraph examiners here are seriously discounting the internal turmoil occasioned by "fear of consequences", and the possibility that even the innocenct subject will focus on the relevant question more so than the comparison question.
I instinctually found that a direct question about whether or not I committed espionage piqued me much more so than some vague question about whether I had ever taken anything of value from an employer.
Look at the consequences. So what if an examiner accused me of taking something of value before that I had not revealed during the pre-test. What is he/she going to do with that? Hardly anything. It's so amorphous, especially when the purpose of the test is a COUNTERINTELLIGENCE screening. It's even off-point.
But what about the espionage question? Any suspicion of espionage must be followed by an investigation, possibly suspension and/or dismissal. So it's easily the more important question.
Of course, not every subject sees it that way, but neither does every innocent subject automatically perceive the comparison question as the more important one. Thus the premise of the CQT--that the innocent subject will focus on the comparison question--is flawed.
Saidme,
Not only is your theft analogy, i.e., if they didn't commit this robbery, they committed another, rather presumptuous, it becomes incredibly ridiculous when you extend it to the case at hand, e.g., kidnapping/murder, to suggest that if these roughly dozen examinees didn't murder/kidnap the young lady in question, they kidnapped/murdered someone else. What kind of a half-brained notion is that? Come on—get real... you can do better than that...hmmm.... or can you?
A
As I stated in my earlier post, I don't know the case facts they were discussing so I can't really comment on any specific case. I can only try and explain to the uneducated how (in my experiences) truthful people can come up DI. As I've stated in earlier discussions, polygraph is not 100%, nor is anything else. Could there have been bad examinations conducted in the case, of course. Could they have failed because they had committed other murders/kidnappings? Of course. Could they have failed because they were involved? Of course. Could they have failed because they had knowledge of the perpetrator but didn't (for whatever reason) want to disclose it to authorities? Of course.
Mark
I fully recognize internal turmoil amongst truthful (and deceptive) examinees. Usually, if a truthful examinee will have any response, it will be in the early charts. As the test progesses, DI's go DI, NDI's go NDI.
Saidme you are so full of it.
You can't for one minute entertain the idea that the poly has inherant flaws? You still blindly maintain that the poly is so accurate that the other eight DI's must have commited some other potentially non-related crime?
You exude the typical "everyone is guitly of something" or "must be if I determined them DI" cop attitude. Of course, you would have to interrogate them all.
BS. You would label them all DI just to get the excuse to interrogate them all without representation.
You conducted polys in a similar case and found that most everyone of the employees had at one point in time stole from their employer? All the people confessed? You should go public. You would be able to demand double the typical fees charged for polys. Employers would be knocking down your door to solve all their unsolved theft and crimes with your amazing accuracy rating.
Saidme,
I am troubled by your response to A.
Another conspiracy?
All the people who failed the polygraph test in the Bish case are guilty of murder/ kidnapping, even if their victim wasn't Molly Bish.
That pool of 11 people would represent some kind of whopper anomaly for the statisticians.
Lets just say 3 of the 11, conspired and killed the poor girl. What your saying is that the 8 other people are also murderers? They just murdered someone else than Molly Bish?
A cult no doubt- Maybe it was the NAS and DOE scientists on the loose! They kill their victims with protractors and calculators no doubt!!
Saidme writes in part:
QuoteCould there have been bad examinations conducted in the case, of course. Could they have failed because they had committed other murders/kidnappings? Of course. Could they have failed because they were involved? Of course. Could they have failed because they had knowledge of the perpetrator but didn't (for whatever reason) want to disclose it to authorities? Of course.
The foregoing is precisely the kind of ad hoc hypothesis (http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html) that polygraphers typically resort to to explain away the failures of the polygraph. Couldn't the eleven suspects have failed the polygraph in the Molly Bish case simply because CQT polygraphy is not a valid diagnostic test for deception? ;)
No. ;)
Saidme,
With regard to your commentary regarding the Molly Bish matter, you offer an initial ridiculous suggestion for what might have taken place to produce what is highly likely to be a series of wrong polygraph results. Once again (although this time as opposed to the NAS study you admit it in advance), you offer commentary without reading or otherwise becoming familiar with the easily obtainable and publicly available information. When that information is forced on you (the nature of the crime is given to you), you seek cover by raising a serious of possible but improbable explanations for the results. It is apparent to anyone with any common sense that the only of several possible explanations that explains the totality of the results includeis a massive polygraph screw-up. And this result is not the outcome of a view bad days in the polygraph suite (malpractice on the part of the examiner(s) involved to be reasonably followed by the, "If only I or my colleagues had conducted these exams..." typical explanation), but just one more example of when employed in a multi-suspect matter, the CQT polygraph technique itself is revealed to be completely flawed (quackery). Although your recent, series of one word "yes" and "no" answers to various thread posts serves to hide the fact that you don't even pretend to make yourself knowledgeable about that which you comment upon, it offers little and is not nearly as cute as your attached emoticons would indicate or you think it to be. Perhaps you might want to give some serious attention to this post and the probabilities associated with the straw man scenarios you offered to us before in this matter.
Saidme,
It disturbs me that you would believe all 11 of these people who failed are guilty of either complicity in the crime or of a similar crime as yet undiscovered or unsolved. Interestingly enough, none of the 11 cracked under their post-test interrogation. As one who claims a near 100% success rate in gaining admissions, don't you find it odd that not one of these 11 offered anything? Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they didn't because they had nothing to offer?
Your 7-11 analogy seems plausible for that specific incident. I would not consider it uncommon for 7-11 clerks to occasionally drink a soda without paying for it, or take a few bucks out of the drawer when they shorted the last customer. In your analogy, however, you have "loaded the dice" so the results support your conclusions. How would you explain the same scenario using 3 employees and 8 random people off the street, and 9 of the 11 are DI?
How is it possible to be DI on a specific-incident polygraph when one has no involvement in the specific incident? Aren't they supposed to be more accurate than the fishing expeditions called pre-employment screening? Doesn't look like it to me.
The fact is the polygraph is junk, you know it is junk, and you don't care that it is junk. It is nothing but a prop, but one that works well on people stealing $100.00 at the 7-11. And I get the feeling most of your "successful" examinations are of this ilk.
Your comments regarding the Molly Bish case lead me to believe you have never been involved in polygraphing people in a capital crime investigation, particularly one involving the probable rape and murder of a teenage girl. And if you have, it was a case with plenty of physical evidence, 1 suspect, and the DA just wanted a confession to force a plea.
Quote from: Saidme on Jul 17, 2003, 05:16 PMLet's say you're going to polygraph a group of employees working at the 7-11 over the theft of $100. You're going to polygraph them on that specific issue. Let's say for arguments sake, only one in the group stole the money. Let's say the group consists of 11 people (I'll use your number). At the conclusion of the 11 polygraphs let's say 9 were DI. Obviously, one person stole the money, why would 8 others go DI? What might cause that is a little bleed over from other incidents. Maybe the other 8 people stole money from the 7-11 in the recent past, but they didn't steal that $100. That would explain why you had more than one DI. Of course you would interrogate them all equally. From an examiner's standpoint, not only might he/she solve the crime of the stolen $100, but could resolve many other thefts that went unreported. I've seen this very scenario occur.
Aren't you showcasing here the flaws in polygraphy? After all, the goal here is to resolve which
one person stole the $100 from 7-11. If no one out of the 9 DIs admits to doing it, do you mark them all as DI? That would not seem fair, since the purpose of this particular test would be to locate a single perpetrator. The 8 examinees who answer "no" to the question "did you take the $100," should, regardless of "bleed over," not be marked deceptive since they are in fact telling the truth. What you've said is that an issue not directly related to the matter at hand
can screw you up on your test. That doesn't sound very accurate to me.
Orolan
Why I even bother responding to your drivel puzzles me. Maybe George has got a spell on me. Polygraph is an excellent tool and will be used for years to come, get used to it. As for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you (you wouldn't be able to verify it anyway). I wanted to keep the case simple so you would understand. As for the case your discussing, I have no opinion on any of it.
SEX (put it like you mean it)
Nothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear. Blah Blah Blah
Quote from: Saidme on Jul 18, 2003, 04:42 PM
SEX (put it like you mean it)
But that's not what I mean....
QuoteNothing's 100%, I think we've made that clear. Blah Blah Blah
Yes, but what you described reflects an accuracy rate
well below 100%. In the case of Molly Bish, I am reluctant to believe that 11 people had something to do with her murder.
Would I be correct in assuming that accuracy is just as useless as scientific validity, so long as you get some guilty people to confess? :)
s-X-e,
You have hit the nail on the head. Saidme cares nothing about accuracy, validity or integrity. He is an interrogator and would be just as comfortable with a cattle prod as he is with a polygraph, as long as he got his confessions.
Saidme,
You like hiding behind your supposed confidentiality, don't you?
Earth to Orolan
What are you talking about? ;D
xes
If nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.
No serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first. That way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.
Why are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?
I personally don't think he truely believes that his poly detects deception in humans. I am starting to get the feeling that he likes to come here and string along the anti poly people with stink bait comments that we apparently take hook line and sinker.
Correct me if I am wrong Saidme.
Do you honestly believe that the poly detects deception or do you believe in it and use it as an "excellent tool" for extracting confessions and nothing more?
CC
You've taken sides! You should take your own advice. I truly believe polygraph's detect deception (through physiological changes brought about by psychological consequences). Why? Because I see it work everyday. The confession happens to be a bi-product of the polygraph which I see as an added bonus. For all you non-believers, I don't interrogate NDI suspects. ;)
Saidme,
So what happens to the people who are DI but don't confess?
How many polygraphs have you given?
Sadime,
I have always been on the anti poly side when it comes to preemployment screening.
What are your stats if you don't mind me asking?
You must only be able to determine your efficacy with corraborating confessions. Or do maintain that indicated deception on the charts is without a doubt undisputed and proven indication of deception?
In the context of using a poly when it comes to a criminal investigation I can't see your deparment wasting valuable dollars on a poly when you have irrefutable evidence proving ones guilt. Irrefutable evidence of ones guilt would be the only other way, I see, that you could use to test your efficacy.
So..
What is your ratio for obtained DI's to confessions?
Saidme,
This is what I'm talking about:
QuoteAs for cases I've conducted I can't really share any details with you
Why not? Surely if these people you have polygraphed and obtained confessions from are real, they are now members of the prison population. And their criminal records are a matter of public record. So why can't you disclose that info?
And for the information of suethem and Canadian Crusader:
Onesimus asked of Saidme on 6/13/03:
QuoteHow many people have you accused of lying that did not give you a confession and were later found to be guilty in a court of law?
To which Saidme replied that same day:
QuoteI can't give you an exact number but many. And you're right, they were all found guilty.
(Emphasis added)
Since there could be no doubt that those who gave Saidme a confession were later found guilty, the above statement then brings about the conclusion that every person Saidme has ever scored as DI is now in prison for the crime they were being polygraphed for, an amazing 100% accuracy rate.
Quote from: Saidme on Jul 18, 2003, 06:46 PMIf nothing is 100% I suppose everything is well below 100%, mooooooooooo.
Why would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever).
QuoteNo serious, accuracy is everything. That's why I prefer to give examinee's a polygraph first.
Why would you ascertain the truthfulness of an examinee by first giving them a test you yourself just demonstrated is
not accurate?
QuoteThat way I know for a fact whether or not their deceptive about the issue at hand.
Only if they confess though, right?
Quote from: Canadian Crusader on Jul 18, 2003, 06:48 PMWhy are we (anti poly) trying to argue the scientific validity of the poly with the likes of Saidme?
I can only speak for myself here, but I find it somewhat comical. I also think Saidme's attacks on other posters, and blatant unwillingness to address issues that would no doubt damage the reputation of his little box reflects poorly on the polygraph community. If I were just beginning to research polygraphy, and I came upon this board, seeing some polygrapher verbally attacking others, dodging reasonable questions, and outright dismissing the importance of scientific validity would certainly push me into the camp opposed to polygraphy.
So I guess I he is doing us a favor.
WOW! When I said attack at will, I never thought there'd be two more pages. I think the discussion has run it's course (and perhaps degraded), so let me apologize if I did not respond to anyone's questions. All seems to be covered.
I did want to comment on something sXe said
QuoteWhy would you think that? DNA testing, for example, while not 100% accurate, is highly unlikely to identify an innocent person, much less 11, for a single murder (or theft, or whatever).
I'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence. But this does not prove the person committed the crime. If a man has sex with a woman then departs; then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect? The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body. Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him. DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted. And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence
found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.
Because polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used? Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove. Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.
Public Servant,
You write, in part:
QuoteBecause polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
The reason polygraph results are generally not admissible as evidence in a court of law is not that it is less than 100%, but rather that it doesn't meet the judicial Daubert standard (or the previous Frye standard) for scientific evidence. See DaubertOnTheWeb.com (http://www.daubertontheweb.com/polygraphers.htm).
In some cases, DI polygraph results have indeed been a key piece of "evidence" leading to conviction. For example, Floyd Fay was wrongly convicted of murder in Ohio in large part because he failed a stipulated polygraph examination. You'll find his case documented in the 2nd edition of Lykken's
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. More recently, an inconclusive polygraph outcome and the Kafaesque interrogations that followed led to a navy cryptologist's wrongly being locked up for more than a year in pre-trial confinement before all charges were dropped. See Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for documentation of the case of Daniel M. King.
Okay, here's the result. My hubby met with his attorney this week. He did fail the test, even though the questions they asked relating to my crime were ones that he had no knowledge of at the time I was doing it, but does have knowledge of it now. "Did you know your
wife was stealing money?" ...........he did not at the time I was
doing it, but it well aware now.
No report was issued to us or the attorney, just the verbal from the
FBI.
Quote from: Public Servant on Jul 19, 2003, 04:52 AMI'd agree that a DNA match pretty much says without a doubt that the person, whose DNA matched, left the source of evidence. But this does not prove the person committed the crime. If a man has sex with a woman then departs; then someone else comes in and kills said woman, with minimal contact and/or leaving little of his own DNA, etc; who will now be the best suspect? The innocent man left skin cells, hairs, and semen all over the decedent's body. Given that this man is now undeniably connected to the scene, there is already a very strong case against him. DNA is powerful evidence and if a shread of motive is found (sex leads to plenty of motive theories), this innocent man could be convicted. And on the flip side, the lack of DNA evidence found at the scene obviously does not prove the guilty guy innocent, though one would likely be inclined to think so.
Yes, I see your point. This issue was a hot one during a cource I recently took on Criminal Procedure & Evidence. I think most in the LE field would agree that it is extremely foolhardy to rely soley on one piece of evidence when investigating a crime. While DNA and possibly even a polygraph (utilizing a GTK) might point in the direction of one suspect, it is very important that other investigative leads are aggressively pursued to ensure that there is other evidence to conclusively link the suspect to the crime. The reliability and accuracy of any procedure and evidence comes into play when we get into the area that you talked about.
I'm sure we'll all agree DNA evidence is extremely accurate, although not 100%. However, like you've pointed out, it cannot tells us whether or not someone committed a crime, only that they were present. So, once you have a positive DNA match, it is important to take into account several other factors. Did the suspect
admit to being there prior to finding out the results of the DNA test? Did the suspect provide a reasonable explanation along with that admission? Or did the suspect lie and claim s/he was never there? If the latter most option is the case, now you have to figure out why the suspect lied, (i.e. afraid of getting caught, afraid of being falsely linked with the crime, etc). However, what you do have is conclusive evidence that they
were there. There can be no denying that. Now it's time to figure out why they were there, and either investigate deeper or move on to other suspects.
With the polygraph, coming up with a DI chart is
not conclusive evidence that they were there, or had anything to do with a crime, since as Saidme showed us, and the Molly Bish case demonstrates, the polygraph does not have an accuracy rate high enough to make that claim. As an interrogation tool, it is probably excellent for getting confessions out of the guilty, but absent a confession, I would not direct any investigation of mine in a certain direction based on the results of a polygraph test.
I'd also like to address the flip side of what you said, which is, a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene. I would not like to think that LE agencies are relying too heavily on DNA evidence to solve their crimes, even though DNA is extremely valuable in proving certain things. However, police have been solving crimes long before DNA evidence and polygraphs have been around, so a lack of DNA evidence at a crime scene in no way exonerates a suspect from a crime. It probably just means they were either very careful or very lucky.
QuoteBecause polygraph is recognized as less than 100%, no DI exam results would be presented as evidence of guilt in court. Confessions can be admitted as evidence, but rarely will the result of any poly. DI alone never put anyone in jail.
Now do you think poly is more dangerous than DNA, given how they both are used? Don't get me wrong, DNA evidence is great, but we must ensure we know what it actually proves, and does not prove. Those parameters are fairly well set, to a safe zone, when it comes to criminal investigative polygraphy.
I think the poly is much more dangerous than DNA, because it is not nearly as accurate in establishing a connection to the crime. Like I said, while a DNA match will establish someone was at a crime scene, it will not establish they committed the crime. Certain kinds of DNA evidence are more helpful than others, e.g., skin under fingernails, victim's hair in the trunk of a car, blood on a pant leg or shoe, etc., while others just prove contact with the victim occured, e.g., semen traces found in the victim.
Both the polygraph and DNA can be misused and detrimental to any investigation when utilized by an incompetent examiner, but I do not believe even a competent examiner can use a polygraph to conclusively link a suspect to a crime.