AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

hmm...were to begin...
as most of the regulars know i have been "studying" for my poly for some time now. well i had it a few days a ago. at first i was a bit nervous, there was a little voice in my head saying "mabye all this CM stuff is bull...mabye im toast...", but i figured what the hell, worst that can happen is ill be yelled at and ill lose my chances of getting the job. now i dont want to get into too much detail so ill sum it all up.
1) no sennsors on the chair (relief no.1)
2) basic and short pre test interview, plus explenation on how the poly works (much the same as described in TLBTL)
3) stim test. i used CM's on the issue he told me to lie about (pucker+breath change). he then told me what i lied about and that he saw it easily....ha ha....by now i was fealing VERY confident.
4) the test was mixed R/I and CQT (2 stages). in the R/I part i basicaly gave a strong response on a different issue each chart, but not too strong. always making sure that the concealed control he asked had a stronger response.
on the CQT (picking out the controls was easy) i just stayed calm during the relevants and peaked the controls. i dont think i missed a single one (i was far more focused than i though i would be). i also made sure to make one type of control slightly differrent from another type.
he went out a couple of times to check his "charts".
both times he came back and asked if any question bothered me more than another, i sayed about one of the controls that i thought about a time i lied to someone important and another time about some other control...he agreed that those were the ones (ha ha....).
at the end of about 2 hours he unhooked me and told me i had passed the test succesfully. no post test interview. a smile and good bye.
so id say odds are high that i actually passed. not even the slightest little query on his part through out that whole test (other than controls) and not a single addmission on my part other than "minor" control stuff.
and you know what? i lied. ill say that again. i lied, used CM's and would seem to have passed.
some of you know what i lied about some dont. those that do know that its one of those things we all wish we had not done. nothing that might affect us working in a sensitive place. i deserve this job. and would not let past mistakes keep me out.
moral of the story:
Saidme and his pall's on the net are (no disrispect) simply liars. plain and simple liars. unless they have some magic polygraph that was not used on me, they are full of....
if used corectly anal pucker and breath changes are NOT in any way detectable. (ih have no expirience with sensors so i cant vouch for them not working, but, i belive that the most pronounced changes i caused were breath ones and to my knowledge there are no sensors for that).
more over, it was not even too hard. once i had the stim test i was as relaxed as can be (but still on guard). i just put on a good show.
the rest was simple. i can now say without a dought in my mind that any one that spends a few weeks reading the free stuff on the net. does a day or two of practicing, and tries his best to be cool on the day of the test can pass test (lieing).
thanx to all of you that helped.
i hope i pass the whole checkup.

Wombat

Congratulations, you  must be beaming with pride.  At least your honest (haha) enough to admit you lied about your relevant question(s).  I don't know the experience or training of your examiner but just like in any profession you've got good ones and you've got bad ones.  

Regarding your charts you  wrote:  "but, i belive that the most pronounced changes i caused were breath ones and to my knowledge there are no sensors for that). "

I guess I would be interested to know why you think that?  Pnuemo tubes are sensors that monitor breathing just for your information.  Better re-read BLT.

Wombat,

You write:

Quote...3) stim test. i used CM's on the issue he told me to lie about (pucker+breath change). he then told me what i lied about and that he saw it easily....ha ha....by now i was fealing VERY confident....

Congratulations on your apparent overall result.  You've gotta love this preliminary stage of the game though.  There's nothing like conning a con man.  Yes sir...at this stage of the game, give him/her the awe and amazement any vodoo master needs and craves...  

Saidme,

Nice try, pal with your little nomenclature diversion.  But it is Wombat who beat your community, not the other way around.  And if you think it can't or won't happen to you, get ready for a fall or plan on retiring soon...

The time is coming when the polygraph and its misconceptions will be common knowledge to a majority of the public.  I feel it is only a matter of time.  

Kudos to people like George who have the balls to start a page like this to expose the fraud of pre-employment polygraph "testing".

More like kudos to George for attempting to assist pedophiles, rapists, murderers and thieves with succeeding in their criminal behavior.  

No Wombat this isn't directed at you since your exam appears to have been a pre-employment screening examination.

Regarding specific issues testing, there's nothing better (wasn't that in the NAS study?) ;)  

saidme,
when i sayd sensors i was refering to anti CM's sensors (like the ones they use for leg movement ect..). of course i know that the pnuemo tubes measure breathing. what i meant was that i think that my sudden breath changes (as a CM) were more effective than the anal puckering. but im only guessing.
but who cares? its all over. now all i have to do is wait, and pray, that i pass the whole screening process. (i dont see any reason why i wont, the only thing i was afraid of was the poly).
as to the assisting rapists ect...you are absolutly right. very bad people can use this site to pass polys (although it may be a bit harder  since the "crimes" i did are not in the same ball park as rape ect...).
but since i at least know that passing a poly is no harder than baking a cake id advise the authorities to stop relying on it and to put funds into finding a new and better system.

Wombat

I won't dispute this site may assist pre-employment applicants from fouling up (and in some cases passing) polygraph examinations.  I do maintain that specific issue testing is very difficult (if not impossible) to beat using CM's picked up on this site.  It all has to do with psyche set and consequences.  The only consequences of failing a pre-employment polygraph is you don't get the job.  Specific issue failure may lead to jail.

Wombat,
Looking forward to working with an honest, trustworthy guy like you!  It's guys with integrity like you that plant evidence, falsify reports etc.  If you make a mistake in the field or the investigation doesn't look like it's going your way...cheat.  It may be morally wrong but at least you'll get what you want.  Your momma must be proud.

Getem Ray :D

Ray,

You wouldn't happen to be Ray Latimer, would ya?

Just curious

PK

PK,
I am not Ray Latimer.  Just a guy who gets upset when he sees a person with integrity like Wombat lie and cheat his way into the LE field.

PK

I know Ray Latimer, and you're no Ray Latimer. :D

Ray,

If you were really concerned, you would ditch your useless polygraph gig (assuming you are a polygraph examiner), get off your backside, and head out to the field to help (do investigations...remember those?) those who are doing backgrounds to do a more thorough job...

Quote from: Saidme on Jul 18, 2003, 06:47 PMPK

I know Ray Latimer, and you're no Ray Latimer. :D

When did I claim to be Ray Latimer? I'm glad to say I am NOT Ray Latimer...personally I think he's an arrogant jerk. That seems to be par for the course, as far as examiners go. I have met a couple examiners that I would consider "professional", but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  :P

PK

Anonymous,
Actually, I still do investigations and I'd put good money on it that I've resolved more cases in the last year then you have in your life.  Contrary to what most anti-polygraph crusaders say, most examiners in the agencies and departments I am familiar with are selected to their position because of their outstanding track record in resolving cases.

Also, Wombat has already stated that a background investigation would not reveal the information he is concealing so there goes that bright idea.  In my experience, admissions gained after an SR test would not usually have been discovered in even the most intense investigation.  Go ahead and jump on the "background investigation bandwagon" with everyone else.  

The problem a lot of anti-polygraph people have is that they make personal attacks on examiners.  It will get you no where and it makes your arguments seem hollow.  The point I have made in this thread is that Wombat has made a decision to conceal derogatory information by lying to the agency he is applying for.  Regardless of what one thinks of polygraph, you would have to agree that Wombat's actions are those of a person who lacks integrity.  I made the point that he has established that he will do what it takes (cheat,lie) to get what he wants.  That concerns me.  Does anyone disagree?

Quote from: Ray on Jul 18, 2003, 05:46 PMPK,
I am not Ray Latimer.  Just a guy who gets upset when he sees a person with integrity like Wombat lie and cheat his way into the LE field.

Ray,

I do agree, there are those who do NOT belong in LE. I'm not totally familiar with wombat's circumstances and why he felt he needed to lie. If continues his career with the same ideas, he will eventually be caught. On the other hand, maybe he won't lie anymore and go on to have a good career. He is the only that can make that decision.

When I began in LE, (nearly 8 years ago) I had to lie about high school marijuana use because of ridiculously strict guidelines in my area. The reasons I didn't have a huge problem with lying are simple. First, the usage was sparse, at most. Second, it was a long way behind me even back when I first applied ('94). Third, there is no true "standard", only bureaucratic ideas of what they "should" be. Which is why the "standards"are different from state to state, agency to agency, etc. I knew that stuff was WAY behind me when I applied and I have gone on to have a pretty darn good career so far.

As far as integrity goes, I believe it depends on wombat's intentions for becoming an officer. If he is joining for any reason other than to help his community and only to benefit himself, he probably won't last anyway. If he is joining try to make a difference for the better in his community, then I wish him luck.

Best,
PK

Ray,

You write:

Quote...Contrary to what most anti-polygraph crusaders say, most examiners in the agencies and departments I am familiar with are selected to their position because of their outstanding track record in resolving cases....

I don't dispute (nor make any representation of knowing) whether you are a skilled investigator.  Under the best of circumstances I would even tend to agree with the above quoted material regarding examiners in general.  I don't make the assumption that polygraph examiners are individuals who can't make it as investigators nor that they are merely problems to be shelved with some support assignment.  Assuming you are that skilled investigator and that you are a polygraph examiner as well, probability would indicate that you are lacking in any real serious background in the physiology and psychology that are the bedrock foundation of any meaningful polygraph practice and that would be the basis for any interpretations you render.  In fact, I'm not aware of any polygraph school that even has any science prerequisites for admission (please educate me if you know of one).  My only advice to you is to return exclusively to that which you are qualified for and presumably skilled in...criminal investigation.  You and your guesswork (SR interpretations add little to the process you indicate that concerns you--the gentleman in question has already indicated he beat one of your own and considers such a feat to be no more difficult than baking a cake (I tend to agree with him).  And no, I have no disagreement with your position regarding lying and cheating...

I don't know why I did not see this sooner.  Thanks for the enlightenment Ray.

Most polygraphers that you know of, and I can assume to be representative of a great cross-section of polygrapers as a whole, are former investigators/cops.

They bring with them to the polygrapher job the mentatility that comes from dealing with the bottom of society (criminals) during their policing and investigating careers.  I am not laying blame here.  I can only guess that I too would subconsciously or perhaps consciously change my view of poeple and the world if I dealt with societies undesirables day in and day out.  I know a few cops (family and friends) that say it is almost inevitable that your attitude changes towards people when all you get to see is the worst.

The problem we have here as it realtes to pre-employment screening is when people like you get transferred to a position where you are asked to evaluate police candidates truthfulness in his/her application.

As an ex investigator you must have come across thousands of suspects and faces.  I foresee a big problem here with pre-employment screening in that the polygraphers might be transferring (either consciously or subconsciouly) old faces, emotions, cases, victims, crime details, etc onto the candidates they screen.  They subconsciously or consciously stereotype the candidate as bad or good (fail or pass) within the first couple of seconds of the polygraph examination.

To make this shorter...

A bad "vibe" (for potential reasons stated above) on behalf of the examiner, towards a candidate, might relate in a higher frequency of DI's and post test interrogations which, as I have witnessed on this site, seem to always deteriorate with an end diagnosis of "deceptive" from the polygrapher or a potential fabricated confession.

Have to run but I am wondering if I am on to something here.  Maybe someone with a psycology or phyciatry background might be able to pick up where I left off.

That is just my thought or hypothesis that might make for a good Phd thesis?

PK,
You too made a decision to lie on your application forms.  I think that was an unethical thing to do.  There are no guarantees that because you began your career in such a fashion that you will act unethically on the job and I'm sure you've had a stellar career with many confessions and arrests.  However, I think that you also have established that you will do whatever it takes to make a situation come out in your favor.  

You said the drug policy was "ridiculously strict" in your area.  According to who?  You?  What other rules/policies at your department do you find ridiculously strict?  Regardless of how strict or ridiculous you think a policy may be, a person with integrity doesn't conceal their misdeeds on their application forms.  If you are not within the guidelines of an agency, find another one that accepts your past errors in judgement.  Your ability to justify your actions is what concerns me.  

Don't get me wrong PK, I'm not here to judge you as a person because I don't know you and I certainly don't claim to walk on water.  I don't doubt that you're a solid officer and a good guy. I'm only commenting on your decision to lie to obtain a position of such power and authority.

Out of curiosity, why are you so anti-polygraph?  You already have your job.  Did you have a bad experience or have you just seen too many suspects wrongly convicted?    

Although I don't believe it was George's intent to encourage lying on application forms, when reading this site one gets the impression that anything a person does to show up those evil polygraph examiners is acceptable.  People pat Wombat on the back for "beating the examiner" but forget that he is now one step closer to his badge and gun.  Mark one down for Antipolygraph.org!!!

Quick note on C/M's, in my experience many more good applicants disqualify themselves by attempting C/M's and getting caught than the those who actually "beat the examiner" with C/M's. Sorry George.

Ray,

You write:

Quote...Quick note on C/M's, in my experience many more good applicants disqualify themselves by attempting C/M's and getting caught than the those who actually "beat the examiner" with C/M's....

By convention, you have no idea how many examinees have beat you (or anyone else) with countermeasures, making the above quoted statement exceedingly absurd.

Poly-Killer

Hi!! It's me the real Ray Latimer, arrogance and all.  I have no idea why my name is being brought into this argument. I beleive that  I havn't posted to this site in the past two years.  when I do post I use my name and I do not hide behind a pseudonym and snipe.  What is your problem?  Do me a favor, find someone else to talk about, I am a super-sensitive guy and I cry easily.
Please do not respond to this post, it is not an invitation to engage in dialogue.  Stay warm and cuddly, I'm sure someone must love you despite your oh so macho pseudonym.

all the best,

Ray Latimer, (just think of the sun "ray" BRIGHT AND WARM and you will have me pegged)

Candadian Crusader,
I believe the theory you're referring to is counter-transference.  This is where a person who experiences a traumatic event projects his feelings onto another individual.  Nice try but it's a reach.  Do I view the world differently now than before?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean I'm so jaded that I can't do my job professionally.  You watch too many movies.  We're not all living on the edge and out of touch with reality.  What do I see when an applicant enters the room?  I see myself.  I remember what it was like when I was trying to get this job.  I sat in that chair.  The polygraph is a tough experience.  To the examinee, an examiner may seem tough and mean (I thought mine was).  But this is not done because of a bias against an examinee.  It is done for the purposes of psyche set.  If an examinee feels a bias, it is often the result of control issues.  It always amuses me when an applicant posts on here that an examiner "immediately didn't like them."  Well, I guess most examiners are just jerks out to disqualify good applicants.  It's a conspiracy!  Gosh, George's examiner didn't like him despite his outstanding resume and the FBI's speedy process of his application.  Enough with the bias argument.

Anonymous,
What makes you think I lack a sufficient background in psychology and physiology?  Because I'm a dumb cop?  I'm not a PhD but I feel confident in my educational background.  Also, most polygraph schools require an undergraduate degree.  I know my university requires a solid science background for graduation.  I think it's safe to assume most examiners have the necessary sciences prior to entering an accredited polygraph school.  The psych and phys relevant to polygraph is also covered in detail in the school.  No one has ever claimed an examiner needs a PhD to be proficient.  This whole education is a real sore subject with you antipoly folks.    

QuoteBy convention, you have no idea how many examinees have beat you (or anyone else) with
         countermeasures, making the above quoted statement exceedingly absurd.

You're assuming we have no way to detect C/M's.  Also, I did not claim it as a fact only a strong opinion.  Sorry it's not scientific.  I guess I must be wrong then....anyway, I feel strongly that through the use of varying techniques, practice and innovations, examiners have become much more proficient at seeing C/M's.  I believe this to be true due to an increase in verified C/M charts.  George doesn't have all of our secrets.  You just keep believing George when he tells you that examiners can't see C/M's.  You want us to prove it you. Why would we give you any help?  We have nothing to prove to you.  (Oh, and I know we're not perfect yet.  Just to head off any arguments there.)

As I asked PK, what's your beef with polygraph.  And don't tell me you're just a concerned citizen worried about polygraph fraud, waste and abuse.  That's catchy!  

By the way, thanks for your advice.  I considered it but, after getting another child molester off of the streets yesterday I think I'll keep at it!  Oh but don't worry guys, I wasn't too mean to him in the interrogation and I tried to keep my "lies" to a minimum.

Getem Ray! ;)

Ray, you asked / stated...

"As I asked PK, what's your beef with polygraph.  And don't tell me you're just a concerned citizen worried about polygraph fraud, waste and abuse.  That's catchy!"

My "beef" with the poly isn't the same as some others on this site, mine is with the poly as a screening method. It's been proven time and time again that you DO get false positives, and bad apples DO still get in when the poly is relied on too heavily. I've seen guys that I am friends with and I have known virtually their whole lives be falsely accused. I just wish more departments placed a greater emphasis on the background investigation, i.e. employer/school references, personal references, financial matters, psyche testing, etc., you know...REAL police work.

I think many PD's find it more "cost effective" to do superficial BI's coupled with a poly and maybe a psyche, then label candidates as recommended hires. If you look at the amount of man hours required to do a thorough BI, which is compounded by the fact that the detectives doing them are among the higher paid personnel in the dept, it's no wonder they try and cut costs. What happens then? Hello Mr. Polygraph.

For criminal investigations and specific issue, I do feel it can be a valuable tool when used the in that manner. Problem is, you can't be forced to take a poly...and the results are usually not admissable...I wonder why.  ::)

I don't necessarily fall into the "waste and abuse" crowd, although I agree that it used in a wasteful and abusive manner far too often.

I hope that answers your question.

Saidme,

"Getem Ray"

Perhaps we should get you fitted for a skirt and some pom-poms.  
 
Better break out the "NAIR", saidme!
 
Sorry...coudn't help myself  
 

Best,
PK

Quote from: Ray Latimer on Jul 18, 2003, 10:56 PMPoly-Killer

Hi!! It's me the real Ray Latimer, arrogance and all.  I have no idea why my name is being brought into this argument. I beleive that  I havn't posted to this site in the past two years.  when I do post I use my name and I do not hide behind a pseudonym and snipe.  What is your problem?  Do me a favor, find someone else to talk about, I am a super-sensitive guy and I cry easily.
Please do not respond to this post, it is not an invitation to engage in dialogue.  Stay warm and cuddly, I'm sure someone must love you despite your oh so macho pseudonym.

all the best,

Ray Latimer, (just think of the sun "ray" BRIGHT AND WARM and you will have me pegged)

OK...I never doubted that the other "Ray" told me the truth when he said it wasn't you. And my wife happens to LOOOVE my rough macho pseudonym ridden exterior. I am quite warm and cuddly on the inside though.  :)

Stay "bright and warm", k, Rayburt?

PK

Quote from: Ray on Jul 18, 2003, 09:36 PMPK,
You too made a decision to lie on your application forms.  I think that was an unethical thing to do.  There are no guarantees that because you began your career in such a fashion that you will act unethically on the job and I'm sure you've had a stellar career with many confessions and arrests.  However, I think that you also have established that you will do whatever it takes to make a situation come out in your favor.  

You said the drug policy was "ridiculously strict" in your area.  According to who?  You?  What other rules/policies at your department do you find ridiculously strict?  Regardless of how strict or ridiculous you think a policy may be, a person with integrity doesn't conceal their misdeeds on their application forms.  If you are not within the guidelines of an agency, find another one that accepts your past errors in judgement.  Your ability to justify your actions is what concerns me.  

Don't get me wrong PK, I'm not here to judge you as a person because I don't know you and I certainly don't claim to walk on water.  I don't doubt that you're a solid officer and a good guy. I'm only commenting on your decision to lie to obtain a position of such power and authority.

Out of curiosity, why are you so anti-polygraph?  You already have your job.  Did you have a bad experience or have you just seen too many suspects wrongly convicted?  

Ray,

Sorry about the late reply...I just went back and read this post.

In retrospect, I wish I wouldn't have had to lie. I will not try and "justify" it, except to say that it has been, by far, for the greater good. The only way to have gone to another dept would have been to move out of state, which wasn't exactly feasible at the time.  When I said "ridiculously strict", I mean when those so-called  "standards" are compared to other agencies across the nation.

I've done some research and most agencies are only concerned that you were never a serious "pot-head" (pertaining to MJ use). While a scant few others want to say things like "20 times and you're ok, 21 times, now you can't ever be a Police Officer in this state." That, to me, is ridiculous. I and many others believe that there are times when circumstances should be considered on a case by case basis. That probably won't happen because of the liability factor, you'd always have someone who didn't get picked screaming "why'd you pick him and not me?"

As far as "doing whatever it takes..." you're wrong. I've had chances to guarantee air tight cases by doing unethical things that would have been VERY easy for me to do and I NEVER have. Never have I falsified 1 word on any report, lied on the witness stand or anything else that would have brought dishonor to the profession. I understand why you would make the assertion, but like I said, you're wrong. I can't readily come up with a scenario where I would lower myself to do such a thing either. I take pride in my position and I realize it is one of immense responsibility...and I don't take that responsibility lightly.

Take care,
PK

QuoteIt's been proven time and time again that you DO get false positives...I've seen guys that I am friends with and I have known virtually their whole lives be falsely accused.

You can't make that claim.  How did you verify these false positives on an applicant screening test?  How did you establish ground truth prior to your claim?  Unless you are with your friends every waking moment of their life, you just can't claim to know.

QuoteI just wish more departments placed a greater emphasis on the background investigation, i.e. employer/school references, personal references, financial matters, psyche testing, etc., you know...REAL police work.

Would an intensive background investigation like you suggest have caught your lie?  I doubt it.  I'll bet you didn't have to take a poly for your job...if you did I doubt you be in LE today.  Polygraphs resolve issues a background investigation can not.  

QuoteWhile a scant few others want to say things like "20 times and you're ok, 21 times, now you can't ever be a Police Officer in this state." That, to me, is ridiculous.

Just because you think a rule or standard is ridiculous does not justify your effort to circumvent it.  If you eventually find a rule or law ridiculous what are you going to do?  I think I know the answer to that question.  You see why I have concern.  You say you've done nothing dishonorable on the job....yet.    
  

QuoteI take pride in my position and I realize it is one of immense responsibility...and I don't take that responsibility lightly.

But you took the application process lightly when you decided to lie and cheat.  That shows a lot of "pride in your position".  Just remember this, you obtained your position under false pretences.  If you have a conscious, that will always hang over your head.  It's kind of like falsifying a resume...and what happens when you get caught doing that?  If I were you I'd be fighting like hell to abolish the polygraph.

Stay safe.

Ray,

I hope your polygraph skills are better than the judgment you've shown here...you're incorrect about a number of things.

First, I can  make claims about false positives without spending every waking moment with these guys...2 of them requested 2nd polys by independent 3rd party examiners and were cleared. Not to mention that you don't have to spend every waking moment with an individual to know the kind of person they are. I know there are exceptions, but generally when you're close friends with someone since grade school...ya kinda know what they're about.

Second, the types of BI that I am speaking about wouldn't need to discover very minor issues, as they are almost always no indication of the true character of a person anyway. Example: 31 yr old male that drove drunk 2 or 3 times when he was 19 yrs old in college. Is it relevant whether a BI uncovers that? On the other hand, if that same person drives intoxicated on a regular basis...now we have a problem.

Third, you're right about me not taking A poly, I've taken and "PASSED" 3 POLYGRAPHS!. 3 different examiners and 3 different agencies and offered a position with EACH agency (1 of which being the Highway Patrol).  8)

Fourth, "Lie and cheat"?...That's stretching it a bit...I did lie about the NUMBER of times I smoked MJ, and I'm not sure to what extent. All I know is that I was WELL outside the timeframe for use (I think the policy is 5 years), but I believe I exceeded the number of uses permitted (20 or less). Did I keep a log? NO. But it was very infrequent use and I never purchased it. For that matter, I can't say, with 100% certainty that it WAS more than 20, I just think it PROBABLY was. Either way, I had NO problem with "cheating" on that question...it's stupid. Like I said, I feel it's ridiculous to say "20 times, you're good to go...21 times, go home, you can't be a cop." It's irrelevant to me that any of this "concerns" you. :P

As far as abolishing the poly, I'm where I want to be so it wouldn't effect me directly. I would like to see the poly go bye-bye, not for myself though, but because I'm tired of potentially good officers get ousted from candidacy because of it. I guess maybe it DOES effect me, doesn't it? More good officers = more seniority and less work.  :D

You know, Ray, you have certainly taken a high moral stance for someone who LIES FOR A LIVING, don't ya think? It's kinda like a car thief condemning someone for stealing a candy bar as a child.  ???

Fact is, Ray (and other poly-screeners out there), when I retire (or die trying) I'll go KNOWING I served my profession, my community and those close to me with integrity, respect and dedication. What will you have? IF you have any shred of conscience left, I suspect you'll have a head full of bad memories...memories filled with lies, trickery, deceit and mind games. I've chosen a career in which I try to help people and make the community safer because that's what I enjoy. I'm out on the street, doing what poly examiners won't (or can't) do. Why do poly examiners become poly examiners anyway? Are they cops that can't handle the street? Too old for SWAT or SRT, too scared for vice or narc work? Don't like not having total control and being able to intimidate others? I just don't recall ever hearing one single person in either of my academy classes say "I can't wait to be a polygraph examiner!" Some say swat, some UC work, some K9, some want brass...none say poly examiner...I wonder why. Im curious, do you tell others what you do? If so, is it with pride? Probably not, huh? Not unless you're trying to score with the local badge bunnies.  ;D

Best,
PK

PK,

You obviously just finished the academy.  Quite full of yourself.  

Law Enforcement examiners are seasoned investigators.  Ever conducted an investigation?
Usually to get into the polygraph field, one has to have good communication and people skills.  They make people want to be honest with them if you know what I mean -- Felons confess to them (just in case you didn't know what I meant).

The job of a LE examiner is to resolve the cases the detective / investigator could not.  This includes obtaining admissions from the culprit,  eliminating other suspects, or corroborating the word of the falsely accused.  This is not employment to be proud of?!  

I know you specified screeners but I'll bet any sworn officers where you work who are examiners, run both screening exams and criminal specific exams.  And unless the agency hires more people than it investigates crime, they do more criminal examinations.  So basically you're publicly insulting some of the most seasoned investigators in your agency.  You're off to a great start kid!

QuoteIm curious, do you tell others what you do? If so, is it with pride? Probably not, huh? Not unless you're trying to score with the local badge bunnies.

So you're saying while an examiner should be shameful of his profession in the presence of you and your young buck tough guy academy buddies, chicks tend to dig us.
Well, chicks do dig me.  But it's my stunning good looks and charm they love!  I don't know if they go for examiners in general, or cops in general, for that matter.

As for all those other tough guy jobs you mentioned; been there, done that.  Spend hours, unarmed, with suspected felons in a 10' x 10' room everyday, and resolve some serious criminal investigations.  Then you'll impress me.

I'd agree with you that the number of times you burned a joint doesn't necessarily predict your performance as a cop.  But what other method of weeding out those who were dealers, habitual users, violent offenders (and have never been caught and whose friends might not reveal their habits to a background investigator).  You need exams to catch those who have not been caught before and thus might slip through a background investigation.  Some people would love to become a cop for power, violent behavior (you get a gun!), to further their criminal pursuits, etc.  There would be no other method of preventing such types from working beside you or deterring them from applying in the first place.

Anyway, good luck to you in your career.  May you never lose sight of the real reason you were given a badge (hopefully you had the same motivation in receiving it).

Public Servant,

You write in part:

Quote...I know you specified screeners but I'll bet any sworn officers where you work who are examiners, run both screening exams and criminal specific exams....

For the sake of conversation, lets assume that some good comes from the specific-issue exams conducted by your above suggested multi-application examiner. He should know as you should know that polygraph screening is nothing but fraud and is likely to harm many innocent individuals.  This sort of individual has seriously tainted and is continually undermining any positive contribution he might otherwise be making.  In fact, I would suggest that individual is causing considerably more harm in his/her professional career than the officer who had previously (prior to becoming an officer)  engaged in some limited personal useage drug experimentation never to use illicit or unprescribed drugs again during his subsequent career.

Public Servant,

Some investigator you are, go back and read my posts in this thread.

First of all, Columbo, I'm NOT new to the force...nearly 8 years here. Now that's exactly "veteran" status, but definitely not a newby. 8)

Where did I say ANYTHING about "chicks" digging you? I said TRYING to pick up the local badge bunnies...not necessarily being SUCCESSFUL at it.  ;)

As far as you self-proclaimed "good looks, charm"...blah blah blah, I'm a little skeptical here. If you've kept yourself in good physical condition, kudos to you (seriously) but that would make you the exception to what I have seen to be the rule. Examiners are typically of the more "portly" variety. With all the charm of a ticked off crack-whore.  :o

Our investigators/examiners, except for one (the other retired) do either screening OR specific, not both.

I do agree LE is faced with a problem of keeping out the bad apples. I wish there was a better solution to weeding out all the bad apples. Who's to say that they (some of the bad apples) weren't just fine when they joined, and got all boogered up by the job. I've seen that happen. I just dont think a screening poly isn't the anwser. Don't ask me what is, if I knew Id be rich.

Anyway, take care,

PK

PK,

Quote2 of them requested 2nd polys by independent 3rd party examiners and were cleared.

So the polygraph does work!!  They were cleared.  Based on your position on the polygraph, I would not make that claim.  Also, are you claiming you know everything about these guys?  That is not reasonable.  You would have to be with someone every waking moment to testify to all of the issues in a polygraph.  You may "kinda know what he's about but, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a hidden relevant issue or two.

QuoteSecond, the types of BI that I am speaking about wouldn't need to discover very minor issues, as they are almost always no indication of the true character of a person anyway. Example: 31 yr old male that drove drunk 2 or 3 times when he was 19 yrs old in college. Is it relevant whether a BI uncovers that?

Here you go again determining what is important to the hiring agency.  The example you gave would not disqualify most applicants.  However, in your case, drug usage DOES disqualify applicants.  A BI often does not discover drug usage.  Hello polygraph.

QuoteFourth, "Lie and cheat"?...That's stretching it a bit...I did lie about the NUMBER of times I smoked MJ, and I'm not sure to what extent. All I know is that I was WELL outside the timeframe for use (I think the policy is 5 years), but I believe I exceeded the number of uses permitted (20 or less). Did I keep a log? NO. But it was very infrequent use and I never purchased it. For that matter, I can't say, with 100% certainty that it WAS more than 20, I just think it PROBABLY was. Either way, I had NO problem with "cheating" on that question...it's stupid. Like I said, I feel it's ridiculous to say "20 times, you're good to go...21 times, go home, you can't be a cop." It's irrelevant to me that any of this "concerns" you.  

The point is you lied on your application forms.  That is a demonstration of your integrity level.  THAT concerns me.  If you feel this is not a demostration of your integrity level let me know.  It also appears as though you not only lied your agency but, three others as well.  A further indication of your integrity.  I don't care if the policy says 500 times or 20 times...that is the policy. Bottom line.  By the way, 20 times sounds very liberal to me.  Also, if you can't remember the number of times you used MJ, that tells us a little about your usage history.

QuoteYou know, Ray, you have certainly taken a high moral stance for someone who LIES FOR A LIVING, don't ya think? It's kinda like a car thief condemning someone for stealing a candy bar as a child.  

This always amuses me.  We lie for a living...yes I do.  Let's look at this a little closer.  Well you're the poly expert so you know why I lie in the pre-test.  It has to do with psyche set and allowing the innocent examinee a place to go.  I'm a real scumbag.  Now during the interrogation I deceive in order to resolve the issue.  All good interrogators do this.  You should know this.  The lies told in the course of a polygraph pale in comparison to your lies, PK.  The only reason you antipoly people take the position that examiners are liars  and "lie for a living" is that it's at easy shot at us and technically, you're correct.  You never explain why we lie.  Is it done to conceal our serious past misdeeds like you?  Explain to me why we lie.  I'm serious.  Tell me in your own words why examiners lie.  What is the intent behind our lies?  

QuoteFact is, Ray (and other poly-screeners out there), when I retire (or die trying) I'll go KNOWING I served my profession, my community and those close to me with integrity, respect and dedication. What will you have? IF you have any shred of conscience left, I suspect you'll have a head full of bad memories...memories filled with lies, trickery, deceit and mind games.

What will I have?  PK let's be honest.  I have resolved far more homocides, rapes, child abuse and robbery cases than you will in your career.  Refer back a paragraph to my "why we lie" comments.  I want you seriously answer that question.  

"...lies, trickery, deceit and mindgames."  If you're a good interrogator your career will be full of these things as well.

Quote. I'm out on the street, doing what poly examiners won't (or can't) do. Why do poly examiners become poly examiners anyway? Are they cops that can't handle the street? Too old for SWAT or SRT, too scared for vice or narc work? Don't like not having total control and being able to intimidate others? I just don't recall ever hearing one single person in either of my academy classes say "I can't wait to be a polygraph examiner!" Some say swat, some UC work, some K9, some want brass.

You are one macho guy!  Let me tell you about my history.  To begin with, my time in special forces units in the military quenched my thirst for any sort of SWAT work...  K9's are not my thing...UC work gets old very quick...chasing the brass? already got some thanks.  I worked every crime under the sun as an investigator in a large metro area.  I gained a reputation for getting confessions.  (As you should know, in order to develop informants and make cases you must be a good interrogator).  I found that I really enjoyed this aspect of police work.  So I kind of fell into polygraph.  It was a chance to do interview and interrogation on a daily basis.  You may not think good interrogators do "real police work" but you're still young.  You may find one day that there is more to police work than acting macho, wrestling with suspects and slapping cuffs on perps (by the way, I still do these things...as do most examiners...and I know more examiners than you do!)  Maybe you've been exposed to some "weak" examiners but I assure you I am the norm and not the exception.  

QuoteExaminers are typically of the more "portly" variety.

Back this statement up.  Don't just say "from what I hear."  From my calcualtions you've come across 5 examiners in your life.  If you can't back it up, don't say it.  You are quick to make personal slams with no evidence.  Makes you look silly.

Poly-Killer:

You have one hell of a crappy 'tude for a cop on the beat.  Actually I have some serious doubts as to the authenticity of your claim to wearing the 'Blue'.  However, if you really are on the job, you are clearly destined to be a great back office puke!

By the way, love your little SWAT figure.  Do you go to bed every night reading your latest issue of SOF?

And what's with the "Poly-Killer" pseudo?  Exactly who is it you've killed?  If you are a gun totin' badge carrier, the world has something to fear.

BATMAN

Quote from: Ray on Jul 20, 2003, 06:28 PM
This always amuses me.  We lie for a living...yes I do.  Let's look at this a little closer.  Well you're the poly expert so you know why I lie in the pre-test.  It has to do with psyche set and allowing the innocent examinee a place to go.  I'm a real scumbag.  Now during the interrogation I deceive in order to resolve the issue.  All good interrogators do this.  You should know this.  The lies told in the course of a polygraph pale in comparison to your lies, PK.  The only reason you antipoly people take the position that examiners are liars  and "lie for a living" is that it's at easy shot at us and technically, you're correct.  You never explain why we lie.  Is it done to conceal our serious past misdeeds like you?  Explain to me why we lie.  I'm serious.  Tell me in your own words why examiners lie.  What is the intent behind our lies?  

You are right, it is a cheap shot, it's just so damned hard for people to resist given the stated goal of the polygraph. ;) The bigger problem is the innocent examinee who understands the workings of the polygraph and hence is at a disadvantage since you can't provide the innocent a "place to go." The inverse is problematic as well, a totally honest individual is at a disadvantage since the P in the PLCQT does not stand for "Certainty" though the exam will be scored as if it were.

Quote
"...lies, trickery, deceit and mindgames."  If you're a good interrogator your career will be full of these things as well.

This is very true (it was curiousity about "profilers" that led me to research interrogation psychology and the polygraph). After gaining the confidence of a child abuser or murderer - and giving them a place to go, ie: rationalize to a sympathetic ear, you must want to go out and shower then get drunk. Important, job, with seriously disturbing aspects.

-Marty

Ray,

We all know why investigators lie to suspects - to get confessions- standard stuff.

My problem with the polygraph issue is that unless there is a confession- you don't really get an accurate conclusion (and sometimes, not often, but some times, people do confess to things they never did).

When polygraphers (pre- employ) get DI from the computer and no confession they believe that the person lied.

I have heard all the 'para sympathetic' and 'repressed memory' fantasy psycho babble I ever care to hear.

I have been accused of dometic violence by one agency and told that that issue posed no problem by another.  Hmmm.  Since I know that I have never hit anyone in a domestic situation I am left to conclude that the machine is not accurate.

I have also been told that I reacted to leaking classified information by one agency.  Another passed me on that issue.  Hmm.  Since I know that I have never leaked anything, and would not tolerate that by others, I am left to conclude that the machine is not accurate.  

In one situtation a polygrapher asked why I reacted to a question about a drug issue.  I have never taken or even seen that kind of drug outside of a Court or LE setting- I have never arrested anyone for that type of drug possesion or even known anyone who has used that type of drug.  Hmm.

Then in  a ridiculous exchange the polygrapher wanted to talk about it.  He said that I was 'repressing a memory'.  When I told him that it was impossible to repress a memory of something that had never occured, he said there must be something.

At the end of him trying to coax a (faulty) confession he said, " well, usually I get someone to tell me something about what they didn't want to ..."  

He asked what I thought about polygraphy.  I told him that I read about the NAS report in the Times and thought that it wasn't accurate.   At that point he almost jumped out of his skin and said, "I don't want to hear your opinion!" --Then why did you ask asshole?  

Hmm as soon as you mention doubts about accuracy the interview is over- interesting.
 
I have been told similar stories by friends in LE about one agency saying your a thief (example) and another say your honest Abe.  -see "Fail here pass there" on this site.

So for pre-employment I can find little respect for polygraphers.

In criminal cases- yes poor, ignorant people will often confess. However  using a polygraph is just like lying about a witness or partner that rolled when the officer has just be out calling his husband/wife and saying that s/he will be late.

The issues I have with polygraphers is that they extend their lie outside of the jurisdiction of their confessional and tell the public outrageous claims of accuracy.  

Atleast use the code words 'investigative tool' , that way we all know what you mean (prop).  You can fool some people some of the time......

Batman,

Batman I don't think that PK takes his little swat guy logo too seriously.   I mean, you don't want us to actually believe that you are Batman, do you?

I don't think that Marty believes he is a wolf.

My name is not Sue.

As for SOF- I take offense.  What other magazine can tell you what guerilla war is going on in a country that used to have another name last year.  Not Redbook!!

Yes the daggers with a jeweled, dragon hilt are a bit much, but, like polygraphs- where there is a market!

I read  Time, Newsweek, Better homes and gardens, Playboy (just the articles), popular mechanics and guns and ammo just to name a few.  Some magzines  tell me that I have to use mulch in my flower beds, some tell me how to stay on target while on the move.  

Ray-

whether your ex SF, made more arrests they Wyatt Earp, done it all and written the book is not really the issue.

You stated the your University requires a 'solid science background..." and that most examiners have the " necessary sciences prior to entering an accredited polygraph school."  So what happened?   You believe in science until it says that polygraph test are inaccurate and easily beaten.

There is a reason that real science has standards - thats to ensure accurate results.  You can't throw out the results (NAS) when they don't suit you.

Suethem, Welcome to the debate.  Read all of the posts before putting in your two cents.  PK and I were discussing examiner qualifications - that is why I stated mine.  He, like you, has a distorted image of the examiners in LE.  All of my comments were responses to issues raised by PK.  Stay with us here.

QuoteYou stated the your University requires a 'solid science background..." and that most examiners have the " necessary sciences prior to entering an accredited polygraph school."  So what happened?   You believe in science until it says that polygraph test are inaccurate and easily beaten.

You took this out of context as well.  I was not bragging on my science expertise.  Someone asked me about it.  As far as the NAS study, I think it has flaws.  I don't feel that a lab setting is a place for polygraph to be studied.  A real world study would give us a better picture of polygraph.  I can only speak from my own experience.  But that is a debate for another time.  The issue in this thread is applicants lying on their application forms.

QuoteIn criminal cases- yes poor, ignorant people will often confess.

Maybe those are the only people you can get to confess...You obviously know nothing about interrogation.

Let me give you some stats.  In the last 30 applicant exams I have conducted, 11 have been DI/SR.  Of those 11, 9 gave admissions to the relevant issue they had failed (and I guarantee no background investigation would have caought these folks).  At the very worst, there were 2 false positives.  And yes, of the 19 that passed, I may have been "beaten" a few times.  Now without polygraph, 9 applicants who lied on their application forms would have been hired.  How would you address this issue?  

I don't claim polygraph is perfect.  I don't claim it to be a hard science.  It takes a skilled examiner to run a fair test and it is a necessary "tool" in the application process.

As far as your experiences go, I'd like you to expand on them.  For example, regarding the domestic violence issue what was the relevant question?  Was it a general crime question or specific to DV?  Were you told that you had failed the polygraph?  Crime and drugs are broad relevant questions...many times the examiner needs to find the issue.  One more question, how do you feel about applicants that lie on their application forms?  Do you give kudos to guys like PK who "beat" the polygraph?  

Marty,

QuoteThe bigger problem is the innocent examinee who understands the workings of the polygraph and hence is at a disadvantage since you can't provide the innocent a "place to go." The inverse is problematic as well, a totally honest individual is at a disadvantage since the P in the PLCQT does not stand for "Certainty" though the exam will be scored as if it were.

I disagree with this statement.  If an innocent examinee is not concerned about the relevant issue but knows he/she is lying to a control issue he will be NDI, regardless if you "understand" polygraph.  It may be more challenging for the examiner but it is still a fair exam.  Also, a totally honest individual?  Come on....I will never buy that statement...even from George.  

Quote from: Ray on Jul 18, 2003, 11:50 PM....anyway, I feel strongly that through the use of varying techniques, practice and innovations, examiners have become much more proficient at seeing C/M's.  I believe this to be true due to an increase in verified C/M charts.  George doesn't have all of our secrets.  You just keep believing George when he tells you that examiners can't see C/M's.  You want us to prove it you. Why would we give you any help?  We have nothing to prove to you.  (Oh, and I know we're not perfect yet.  Just to head off any arguments there.)

Would you be willing to demonstrate this for both the pro and anti-polygraph communities? I'm not saying that you need to reveal how you do it, just show us that you can in fact detect countermeasures.

I think Dr. Drew's challenge is still up.

Drew's challenge!  What a joke.  Any credibility he had went out the day his little clock started ticking.  What an idiot.

Ray,

What happened to those two false positives?  No confessions huh?  

I am sure that your concerned and have asked your supervisor to have a team of investigators get right to the heart of the matter.  The applicants will probably be 'cleared' in a matter of days...The Academy is tough boys/girls start those push ups now!

"maybe those are the only people you can get to confess... you obviously know nothing about interrogation."

If I know nothing about interrogations than it would be doubtful that any agency would put me in charge of confession taking-

If no investigation is ever carried out then no investigation would have caught anything (sounds like a test paragraph).  ---You can't win the lotto unless you play!!!

My experience with domestic violence is nothing!  Never been a vicitm or perp.

They only person I have ever hit was wearing gloves and head gear- and to be quite honest my blows were not that great- but I have a strong neck- because it snapped back about 20 times with out breaking.  Ahh academy memories....  Wait a minute, maybe thats the memory I 'repressed'- it surely was not a good one.  Me, I pick a Ranger with 30 pounds on me for my boxing partner.  I thought we were going to fight two other people, not each other!

Lying on applications-bad.

"Beating" the poly- Since it is not a valid test, I don't see a problem.

I was told I failed by the polygrapher, when I called personnel later they told me I was Inconclusive- so the only one who lied to me was the polygrapher!

Saidme,

Surely you can out smart an idiot!!  Step up to the plate!!!

Suethem

I've already offered my services to Drew should he ever be accused of a criminal matter.  Playing parlor games with him would prove little.  ;)

QuoteWould you be willing to demonstrate this for both the pro and anti-polygraph communities? I'm not saying that you need to reveal how you do it, just show us that you can in fact detect countermeasures.

You're right...we can't do it.  Just keep believing that.  If it was ethical I would post confessions applicants have made regarding CM's '"learned" on this site.  We're not perfect but, we're getting better.

Why would anyone take Drew's ridiculous "challenge"? What would I gain from proving that I can catch most CM's most of the time?  Nothing.....It's a losing proposition.  I'd prefer that you keep advocating their
use.

QuoteWhat happened to those two false positives?  No confessions huh?

I said "worse case" 2 false positives.  I highly doubt they were.  You're a good interrogator so you should be familiar with how a "guilty" person acts during an interrogation.  9 for 11.  That's over 90% correct on DI/SR charts.  Pretty damn good.  Remember, nothing is 100%, even in science.

QuoteIf no investigation is ever carried out then no investigation would have caught anything (sounds like a test paragraph).  ---You can't win the lotto unless you play!!!

What??  Who said BI's don't take place??  You're making assumptions.  Admissions to application falsifications are generally NOT discovered in a BI.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Stop with the damn BI argument!  Example:  an applicant does coke 2 times 6 years ago with a friend.  He says he's never used cocaine on his app forms.  What are the odds that will be discovered in a background?  Not good.  Example two:  Applicant downloads kiddy porn in the privacy of his home.  Will a BI reveal this?  No.  I suppose we could search all computers that applicants have.  Think that could be a little intrusive?  These are serious issues.  I'd bet good money that screening polys have uncovered many more issues like this than any other investigation could.  If you have a better idea how to resolve this issues, tell me because I'm listening...and don't tell me better BI's.  FYI- these admissions took place during 2 of those DI/SR tests I referred to.  Present that to the public and you see if they think two POSSIBLE, I repeat POSSIBLE,  false positives are worth it.  

QuoteI was told I failed by the polygrapher, when I called personnel later they told me I was Inconclusive- so the only one who lied to me was the polygrapher!

Oh my God!  The scummy examiner lied to you.  You guys love to jump on George's "the only liar in the room is the examiner".  That makes me chuckle.  What's the big deal anyway?  It's called probing which happens during an Inconclusive.  Did he upset you?  Sorry if he wasn't nice to you.  
  

QuoteMy experience with domestic violence is nothing!  Never been a vicitm or perp.

You didn't answer my question.  What was the relevant question related to your "interrogation" about DV issues.  I'm willing to bet it was a general crime question.  Was this the inconclusive test?

Quote from: Ray on Jul 21, 2003, 02:27 AMYou're right...we can't do it.  Just keep believing that.  If it was ethical I would post confessions applicants have made regarding CM's '"learned" on this site.  We're not perfect but, we're getting better.

I don't know why you're willing to demonstrate that you can detect countermeasures through posting confessions (which would prove little), yet you are adamantly opposed to demonstrating your ability to detect them during an organized experiment (which would prove a lot). I guess I will just have to take your suggestion that I continue my belief that you cannot detect them. :)

QuoteWhy would anyone take Drew's ridiculous "challenge"? What would I gain from proving that I can catch most CM's most of the time?  Nothing.....It's a losing proposition.

What would you gain? Credibility, for one thing. It's also possible that if the polygraph community didn't act so secretive regarding their ability to detect countermeasures (like you're doing) the NAS wouldn't have trashed the polygraph so badly in that area.

You made a comment earlier in this thread about anti-polygraph posters making "hollow" argument. Well, I don't think any argument is more hollow than stating, "I won't show you how, but just trust me, I can do it."

QuoteI'd prefer that you keep advocating their
use.

If that were the case, why even make the claim that you can detect countermeasures? Why not feign ignorance, wait for examinees to employ them, and then bust them for it?

I've seen quite a few polygraphers on here trying to 'help' examinees by telling them not to employ countermeasures because they will be caught and fail their test. Shouldn't they be advocating their use, instead of doing that as well?

Ray,

You doubt that they were false positives now?  

Oh know it's possible false positives?

So now its possible that you have accused two innocent people of committing crimes or participating in actions that have barred them from employment in LE.  

Its possible that two people have been labled as liars by LE when in actuality they are innocent.

So you don't feel bad that you accuse innocent people?

Thats a great arguement for justice.  "We are usually right, most of the timeand when were wrong we don't care"

So your saying that the your department is going to go forward with the investigation for the two false positive cases, and if everything else pans out ok  they will get hired? Please!!
 
This should be the new pro-poly mantra

I don't care about the NAS report!
I don't care about Background investigations!
I don't care about Dr. Drews findings!
I don't care about scientific validity!
I don't care about what psychologist think about PLCQT!
I don't care about false positives!
I dont' care about Doug Williams!
I don't care about false negatives!

We get it - you don't care!!!

You obviously believe in the PLCQT.  I don't.

I am not sure I understand the very last paragraph of your statement.  My test was ultimately found to be inconclusive.  As stated elsewhere, later another agency asked me about DV and I passed with flying colors.   How do you explain that?

Ray wrote in part:

Quote9 for 11.  That's over 90% correct on DI/SR charts.

No. It's about 82%.

Bat-turd,

I'm sorry to have offended your seemingly delicate nature.  :'(

How would you propose I prove to you I am in the "blue"?  ???

As far as my dreams, Im living them. I am a defensive tactics instructor, a firearms instructor, a certified physical fitness specialist/CSCS, and currently enrolled in FTO school. By the way batty, don't sweat the "little SWAT guy" thing, it's meant to be light-hearted, and for your information, I happen to like the "little SWAT guy".  ;D

I didn't mean to frighten you with the "Poly-killer" moniker,  it's just my little dig at the poly world. Why? I'm so glad you asked, it's because I have effectively "dusted" every poly/ examiner who has had me in their "lair". I go in, play my role, and walk out laughing and disgusted at the same time. POLY SCREENING IS A JOKE. What's so crappy about the whole thing is I CAN"T LAUGH IN THEIR FACES and tell them I just played them like a harp, now THAT would be my idea of entertainment.  8)

What's so crappy about my "'tude", anyway? Is it crappy because it offends you? Guess what...TOO BAD.

Later, Oh king of guano!

Sincerely,
POLY- K I L L E R (ooooooo, sooo scary!  :o)

Ray,

You have raised some issues that I believe have some validity to them. Not to pat myself on the back, but I think I have as well. You may be good at what you do, you may enjoy it and think it's the right thing...in the end, that's important, to believe in what you do.

As far as my friends being cleared, that in no way validates or vindicates poly-screening. Obviously one of the examiners was wrong...if it were truly a "science" as some pro-poly people would have us believe, this should not have happened.

As for example I gave, are you saying someone who drinks and drives regularly wouldn't be DQ'ed? I don't know about your agency's standards, but mine wouldn't hire that person.

As far as how many rapes, homicides, yada yada yada you've solved...assuming it's true, it's misleading. I work the street and do some instructing on the side. When the street officers make contacts, cultivate CI's, respond to calls, etc., most of what we get is reported and forwarded to the detective bureau. We generally don't try "solve" the more complex cases...we PATROL and do street level investigations, make arrests, etc.. You may well have solved all those cases...point is it isn't my job. Of course I'm not dismissing the importance of solving cases, I'm just saying is isn't that much a part of what I do as a street officer.

As far as the "macho" thing goes you guys keep talking about...this makes me laugh. I understand about all the macho stuff, and trust me, I've talked far people into cuffs than I've forced into cuffs, although I prefer talking, neither works 100% of the time...so please, save the words of wisdom.

One last thing, your "calculations", like many other assumptions you've made...are a little off. My agency has 9 fulltime examiners, formerly 10 (he retired on disability). I was interrogated by 2 others, 1 being for the first dept I worked for, which had 2 fulltime and 2 part-time examiner / investigators. Hang on a sec while I get my calculator...OK, back now  ;)...That's fifteen examiners that I have had personal contact with, plus a few others I've met here and there. Add to this the pics of Mr Ogilvie and friends on another website, I'd say that jumps the number up to around 25. Of those, I've seen 2 that would classify as physically fit. I'd say that provides SOME grounds for the comment I made.

I've enjoyed the debate with you Ray, at least (unlike some of your counterparts) you try to remain professional for the most part and don't seem to resort to name-calling, slander, etc. Take care and good luck to you.

Best,
PK

Ray,

I think George got you there on the math.

Evidently math and science are not your strong points!

You might want to speak to the dean of your university and see if they can raise the standards! HA HA HA.

PK,

Not that it matters, but I have no choice but to remain in top physical condition.  Everyone where I work must maintain standards of fitness and pass tests of such on a regular basis.  (As a fitness instructor, perhaps you should bring your people up to speed.)  The looks and charm are genetic. :)

My post was made tongue in cheek.  My intent was to call attention to how your little generalizing ad hominem jabs made you look like some kind of short tempered new kid trying to "out-cool" everyone with your new job.  

If you are an eight year veteran, then stick to the substance of polygraph, instead of trying to insult your adversaries here.  Such talk is not effective debate.  I did not read anything else you said because you lost all credibility.  You'll be much more effective in getting your points across if you avoid generalizations and personal attacks.  The same goes on the job.  You never talked anyone into cuffs by showering them with insults or stereo-typing and name-calling, did you?

Regards.  Look forward to some good debate.  This one's predominantly between you and Ray and I see nothing of interest to jump in on at this point.

Maybe PK should start a clock. :D

Public Servant,


Funny...a guy (supposedly an "investigator") that jumps into a discussion, makes several incorrect assertions and then wants to speak of credibility. Enough about that.

As for the so-called "jabs", if you are referring the "jab" about the physical conditioning of the examiners I have had contact with, I was merely speaking from my own observations. About any other jabs you may be referring to, all I can say is maybe you need to thicken the skin a little. I don't feel I have said anything overly harsh, and generally it's only a matter of "returning fire".

Nothing more meant by it (usually) than a little "ribbing", if I offended...my apologies.

By the way, thanks for those inspiring words of wisdom, those and $0.75 will get me a morning paper.  :)

Take care,
PK

PK,
I've enjoyed our discussion and look forward to doing it again.  You have raised some valid points and I respect your opinion.  Good luck and stay safe.

George,
As always you're quick to point out an error by an examiner.  Thanks.  I got a little too excited. I meant to say "over 80% correct".

Suethem,

I'll try to refrain from the personal insults you seem to enjoy so much.  If you avoided the personal attacks your arguments would hold more weight.      

QuoteMy test was ultimately found to be inconclusive.  As stated elsewhere, later another agency asked me about DV and I passed with flying colors. How do you explain that?

How do you pass "with flying colors"?  I thought the poly wasn't valid.  There is a difference between Inconclusive and SR/DI results.  If you failed one test and passed another (regarding the same issue) I would at least understand your argument.  You're way too sensitive.  So an examiner questioned you...it's called an investigation.  Also, I wanted to know what the specific relevant questions were on each of your tests.  Was it a general crime question or specific to DV?  

QuoteYou doubt that they were false positives now?

Yes I do.  I highly doubt it.  Why do I feel this way?  Years of interrogation experience.  "Innocent" people act differently than "guilty" people do.  I thought you knew that?

I would like your opinion on the 11 SR/DI applicant tests I referred to in this thread.  9 of those (82%, Thanks George!) gave admissions to the relevant issue.  The admissions range from concealed drug involvement to downloading kiddy porn (all disqualifing).  I hope you would agree that those 9 individuals do not belong in LE.  If polygraph was not around, how would we have discovered these issues in the applicants' background?  Background Investigations, I don't care how intense, would not have discovered these issues.  Give me a better solution.  As for the 2 SR/DI tests without admissions, if they truly were false positives which I highly doubt, I would feel bad.  You do tend to get a little dramatic when it comes to applicant false positives.  It happens far less than you think in the real world setting.  

I'm not going to pretend that polygraph is perfect.  I believe in the hands of a good examiner the polygraph is about 90% accurate.  More than acceptable for screening/criminal exams. I believe there are good examiners and bad examiners.  A bad examiner may very well get false positives.  My hope is that there may one day be stricter controls on who is allowed to conduct polygraphs.  I think that we're moving in that direction.  I will say that I believe the great majority of LE/intel examiners are outstanding.  A few bad apples can ruin it for everyone.

As for the NAS study, I think it has some flaws (Lab vs. Field study) but I have certainly not dismissed it. I think it brings up some valid points.  Still it's hard for me to go along with the findings when I see the results I get.  Can you at least understand that?  

Oh and I do care about all of those things on your dramatic little list, save one.  I don't care about Doug Williams.  He's a shady guy looking to make a buck.  I'm surprised you align yourself with him.    

In your latest post you made it seem as though examiners are heartless thugs.  I guess that is the strategy promoted on this website.  I don't get it though.  Most examiners are skilled interrogators prior to getting into the field of polygraph.  Why do the antipoly folks always feel that it is necessary to resort to personal attacks?  Remember you're trying to get into our field-LE.  We may work together someday.  I love good discussion but your attitude toward polygraph should not influence your opinion toward individual examiners that you know nothing about. Why is everyone on here so hostile??        


  


  
          
          

Can't we all just get along! ;D

PK,

Wow, Killer, you just proved my accusations to be true by more little insults and insinuations that you are tough and I am weak.  As you seek to hurt me in this pathetic way, you only hurt your own credibility.

Oh, and be sure to spend that $.75 on a good respectable paper, not a tabloid or comic book.  I wouldn't my advice to go completely without benefit.

Regards!

Quote from: Public Servant on Jul 22, 2003, 11:30 AMPK,

Wow, Killer, you just proved my accusations to be true by more little insults and insinuations that you are tough and I am weak.  As you seek to hurt me in this pathetic way, you only hurt your own credibility.

Oh, and be sure to spend that $.75 on a good respectable paper, not a tabloid or comic book.  I wouldn't my advice to go completely without benefit.

Regards!

Public Servant,

Sheeesh, what did I say this time? What was it that inferred I believe I am strong and you are weak? Perhaps this is stemming from your own insecurity.  ???

How's this...

Good afternoon, Public Servant, I hope you are having a wonderful day! I hope your day in the office wasn't too stressful. Administering all those voodoo...uhhh...I mean POLYGRAPH tests can be quite taxing. Well, take care...chat soon! :D

That wasn't too harsh for you, was it?

Good grief!
PK

Ray,

I can't recall if both my DV questions were Relevant or general.  

"passing with flying colors" was what a polygrapher said.

In your example (9 out of 11) you say you got 82% right.

In Doug Williams's sting in NYC, 100% of polygraphers got it wrong.  100% of polygraph examiners picked innocent people as guilty ( and they all pick different guilty subjects).

I am curious why you think Doug Williams is shady?  Do you know something we don't?  There are plenty of books on the market instructing people how to pass polygraphs-  some are written by polygraphers- are those authors shady too?

Heartless thugs-  

I just find it difficult to hear denials about false positives.  They happen but you never hear polygraphers talk about them with any real regret.

Innocent people act differently than guilty people- yes sometimes-

My joke about your math and science skills was just a ribbing-  I did not mean to offend you.  I have been corrected on this site before and rightly so.

I have years of LE experience so its getting back in (which I have) not just in.

We disagree about polygraphy-- I'll just leave it at that

PK,

I am neither insecure nor offended by your taunts.  

My point was that if you lose the personal attacks, generalizations, and tough guy posturing, it would be easier to debate the substance of the issues.

Suethem,

Doug Williams claims to have run thousands of polygraphs when he was a police officer.  Now he says it is the scourge of society (paraphrase not quote).  

If he really spent years, running thousands of tests, why did he suddenly come to the conclusion that it was wrong.  Was he a little slow on the uptake, and it took thousands of tests,and years,to come up with a conclusion about whether his chosen professio was good or evil?  Or was he morally flawed all that time he was an officer, and it took him years to finally see the light?

My thoughts are that he got tired of working his butt off for a police officer's pay and thought he could make more through entrepeneurship on the other side.  There wasn't much competition in the market at the time.   He charges $40 or $50 for his book (I believe, haven't been to his site lately) while George and Gino provide similar info for free.  

But regardless of his motives, anyone on either side of the issue would have to question Doug's character.  Either he was willingly doing something he believed wrong, in high volume over a significant period of his life; or he turned on a system he believed in for the all-mighty buck.  Whether he is a sell-out or a reformed sinner depends on your perspective of the issue of polygraph.  

I've seen some posts here alleged to have been Doug Williams (I assume they weren't the football star, nor the guy who shot up his co-workers in AL -- when I first saw the name on the news, I thought it might be the stinger himself).  So if you're reading this Doug, feel free to defend yourself, or correct anything where you feel I am in error.

Public Servant

I know Doug Williams and you're no Doug Williams (aren't you glad). :D

Quote from: Public Servant on Jul 24, 2003, 12:18 AMPK,

I am neither insecure nor offended by your taunts.  

My point was that if you lose the personal attacks, generalizations, and tough guy posturing, it would be easier to debate the substance of the issues.

I believe there IS a little insecurity lurking around in there. I don't think I have "postured" at all, perhaps it's your skewed perception.

Best,
PK

Yeah Killer, you're right.  I am insecure since I do not have pictures of guns on my posts; since I don't use generalized insults as a substitute for debate; and since I don't feel the need to establish that I am a tough guy.  Yes killer, those things suggest I'm insecure.

Perhaps we should buy you a dictionary and a mirror.

Anyway, take care and stay safe out there, my friend.

Suethem, George, etc.

In an earlier post I presented the following statement:

QuoteI would like your opinion on the 11 SR/DI applicant tests I referred to in this thread.  9 of those (82%, Thanks George!) gave admissions to the relevant issue.  The admissions range from concealed drug involvement to downloading kiddy porn (all disqualifing).  I hope you would agree that those 9 individuals do not belong in LE.  If polygraph was not around, how would we have discovered these issues in the applicants' background?  Background Investigations, I don't care how intense, would not have discovered these issues.  Give me a better solution.

I was hoping for a response from an antipoly poster on this issue.

Let's look at those stats again.  Of 30 applicant exams, there were 11 SR/DI results, 9 of those gave admissions to the relevant issue.  So, AT WORST, of the 30 applicant exams there may have been 2 false positives.  The 9 applicants who gave relevant admissions were rightfully disqualified.  More than likely, these disqualifying issues would not have been discovered in a BI.  My argument would be that without polygraph, 9 undeserving applicants would have moved forward in the process.  

In my opinion, these results are fairly consistent throughout the law enforcement screening community.

Looking forward to your response.

Suethem,

You said:

QuoteI can't recall if both my DV questions were Relevant or general.

My point here is that you said you were inconclusive to this question.  I'm betting it was a general crime question.  If that was the case, the examiner has many issues to explore.  DV is a common inquiry in an Inconclusive test like yours.  It doesn't mean the examiner was convinced you had a DV situation in your past...it may just have seemed that way to you.    

QuoteInnocent people act differently than guilty people- yes sometimes-

No, No, No...the great majority of the time.  Without a doubt.  

QuoteIn Doug Williams's sting in NYC, 100% of polygraphers got it wrong.  100% of polygraph examiners picked innocent people as guilty ( and they all pick different guilty subjects).

Not sure if Doug's "lab experiment" holds up to the "scientific standards" relied on so heavily by supporters of this site.   Would the NAS give it their stamp of approval?  You can't have it both ways.

QuoteI just find it difficult to hear denials about false positives.  They happen but you never hear polygraphers talk about them with any real regret.

Problem is, it's real tough to determine if a DI/SR test is really a "false positive"...nearly impossible in a screening exam.  Of all the testimonials on this site (applicant screenings) have any truly been proven as false positives?  

Ray,

I said nothing about the scientific realiability of the Doug Williams test.  I only said that the polygraphers were 100% wrong in who they accused.

You offered up your real life situtation, I offered up the Doug Williams sting.

How could anyone prove a 'false positive'?  Isn't that like proving your innocence? Are polygraphers going to allow people to bring in witness and set the record straight- no.  

DI/SR - no job!!!  There is no investigative follow up to make sure the DI/SR was right.  The machine decides!

The Doug Williams sting did little to validate or invalidate the polygraph. Since each examiner fingered the specific examinee they had been told was guilty (different for each examiner), what it did prove is blatant examiner bias against the accused. Scientific? Maybe not. Damning evidence that something is wrong? Yes.

Suethem,

QuoteHow could anyone prove a 'false positive'?  Isn't that like proving your innocence? Are polygraphers going to allow people to bring in witness and set the record straight- no.

What good is a witness going to do?  If you claim you've never done drugs then fail a polygraph how can a witness "set the record straight"?  Claims of false positives are just that - claims.  I'm not saying it never happens, just a lot less than this site leads people to believe.  If a guilty person takes and fails a polygraph then gives no admissions of course they're going to say the "machine is wrong".  What the hell else would they say?  Even the examples given in TLBTLD (Mallah, Tenebaum) and on this site were not confirmed as "false positives".  Just he said she said situations.  The reader is led to believe that these were all confirmed.    

No one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams.  11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime).  Without poly these 9 probably get the job.  Is that what you want?  Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive?  Give me a better solution than polygraph.  Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.    

Quote from: Public Servant on Jul 24, 2003, 02:48 AMYeah Killer, you're right.  I am insecure since I do not have pictures of guns on my posts; since I don't use generalized insults as a substitute for debate; and since I don't feel the need to establish that I am a tough guy.  Yes killer, those things suggest I'm insecure.

Perhaps we should buy you a dictionary and a mirror.

Anyway, take care and stay safe out there, my friend.

Public Servant,

You are starting to establish yourself as somewhat of a whiner. I mean all these "at least I..." and "since I..." things pointing out MEANINGLESS trivial details (like the picture I chose from the gallery) are doing little to establish you as anything else.  

I don't have to PROVE I am a tough guy...it's been confirmed time and time again...on the street. I work with lots of "tough guys" for that matter. People that are tough when they need to be tough. These also happen to be some of the most caring people I know, when you see them in other settings. Maybe the problem you have with me is my confidence, maybe my confidence bothers you, maybe you lack self-confidence and are threatened by anyone who displays it. Whatever it is, you are the one who has made baseless accusations toward me (never substantiating them).

Anyway, your crybaby antics are beginning to bore me, they aren't exactly my cup of tea. When YOU are ready to debate something worthwhile...drop a line...I'll try to keep up, K?

"Perhaps we should buy you a dictionary and a mirror."

Perhaps maybe we should buy you a pacifier and a baby rattle.

"Anyway, take care and stay safe out there, my friend."

I DO take care and try to stay safe...but I am not your friend, I dont know you...and probably wouldn't like you anyway.

Best,

PK (a.k.a. TOUGH GUY)...

Ray,

You write:

QuoteNo one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams.  11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime).  Without poly these 9 probably get the job.  Is that what you want?  Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive?  Give me a better solution than polygraph.  Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.

I certainly don't want unqualified applicants to be hired by law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, I don't want qualified applicants to be wrongly branded as liars. I think that the risk of a false positive outcome is greater than you suppose, and is to be expected from a diagnostic truth test such as CQT polygraphy that has no theoretical foundation, no meaningful control, and no validity.

A key difference between the polygraph and other aspects of the law enforcement or intelligence hiring process that must be borne in mind is that failing other steps does not impugn one's character. For example, if an applicant doesn't pass a board interview, or the math portion of a written test, or a physical agility test, it does not derogate from the candidate's assumed honesty and integrity. But when a polygrapher accuses an applicant of deception, he (and through him, the government) impugn the applicant's honesty and integrity in a way that should never be done on the basis of such an invalid test.

The polygraph is not necessary. The industrialized democracies of the European Union get along just fine without it. The notion that we Americans need to rely on such pseudoscience as the polygraph is a dangerous delusion.

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see this post earlier.  George, you make my day when you put this crap up.  First lets address law enforcement applicants.  I believe it's better to error on the side of caution then to hire unqualified applicants.  These people are given a great deal of responsibility and should be scrutinized closesly.  They're not bagging groceries (no offense to grocery people, did it as a kid).  Ray asked you to address his own facts and circumstances yet you failed to do that.  You hide behind words like validity and false positives, blah blah blah blah.  With regards to impugning someones credibility.  When it comes to DI charts that what we get paid to do.  And more often then not it produces credible information the examinee was involved in some wrong doing (relevant issue).  Fortunately there are people like polygraph examiners to step up and call a spade a spade.   ;)

George,
Thanks for at least attempting to respond to my post.  There are several antipoly people who have chosen not to respond (Suethem, etc.).  Although your post was well written, you failed to respond to the meat of my post.  

If I'm reading you right, you're saying it's better to allow nine applicants with serious flaws in their background on the job than to risk a possible false positive ( If I'm wrong, correct me).  Without polygraph, that is what my agency quite possibly may have had...connoissuers of kiddy porn, people who lie about their drug past and criminals working side by side with me. I have no idea how this could be acceptable to you but, that is esentially what you are saying.  You say you don't want unqualified applicants to work in law enforcement...it's not a matter of qualifications it's a matter of public safety!  I have still yet to hear someone suggest a better method of discovering serious, undetected issues in applicant's pasts!  

QuoteA key difference between the polygraph and other aspects of the law enforcement or intelligence hiring process that must be borne in mind is that failing other steps does not impugn one's character. For example, if an applicant doesn't pass a board interview, or the math portion of a written test, or a physical agility test, it does not derogate from the candidate's assumed honesty and integrity. But when a polygrapher accuses an applicant of deception, he (and through him, the government) impugn the applicant's honesty and integrity in a way that should never be done on the basis of such an invalid test.

No one said getting a job in LE was easy.  Should we treat all applicants with kid gloves?  Shall we refrain from aggressively questioning applicants who apply for such sensitive positions?  It sounds to me that your beef is with the aggressive questioning that took place following your polygraph.  If the polygraph is abolished will your next effort be to ban all "tough" questioning of applicants?  It's unfortunate but not all applicants are as honest and forthcoming as you are.

So the FBI examiner accused you of lying...big deal.  That test did not disqualify you from all other LE positions.  Move on....

I'm not intending to minimize your feelings.  I think you probably got a raw deal which is unfortunate.  If I was in your position I would feel the same way you do.  But look at the big picture George.  My results are the norm in applicant screening.  With it we eliminate the majority of the bad apples.  Without we eliminate NONE of the bad apples.  Give me a more effective solution.  I'm willing to bet you can't.    

I'm going off the topic here but I have a quick question.  In TLBTLD, are there any personal statements that are verified false positives or are they all just examinee claims?  If they are just claims, in order to be fair to the reader you may want to note that in the next version.  Thanks in advance.  
 

Ray,

Your a true believer so responding to you is like talking to the faithful about a different religion.  

The Attorney General John Ashcroft admitted that there is at least 15% false postitve rate.  Is he lying too?  

I wonder how many people you have falsely accused in pre-employment polygraphers over the years.  I am guess you don't even care.

They are just casualties of justice!



 

Quote from: Ray on Jul 25, 2003, 11:31 PMGeorge,
Thanks for at least attempting to respond to my post. ?There are several antipoly people who have chosen not to respond (Suethem, etc.). ?Although your post was well written, you failed to respond to the meat of my post.

Ray, I'll be happy to address the points you've raised in greater detail. I must disagree with Suethem's suggestion that it would be futile to respond to you. Whether or not we ultimately convince each other of the merits of our respective arguments on polygraph policy, I think that this discussion, and its associated sharing of viewpoints, is well worthwhile.

QuoteIf I'm reading you right, you're saying it's better to allow nine applicants with serious flaws in their background on the job than to risk a possible false positive ( If I'm wrong, correct me).

What I am saying is that it is not acceptable to obtain disqualifying admissions/confessions from applicants through the use of polygraph screening at the cost of falsely accusing and disqualifying truthful applicants. The risk of false positive outcomes is not just "possible": it is the entirely forseeable and expected result of relying on a purported diagnostic test (CQT polygraphy) that has no theoretical foundation and is without validity.

QuoteWithout polygraph, that is what my agency quite possibly may have had...connoissuers of kiddy porn, people who lie about their drug past and criminals working side by side with me. I have no idea how this could be acceptable to you but, that is esentially what you are saying. ?You say you don't want unqualified applicants to work in law enforcement...it's not a matter of qualifications it's a matter of public safety! ?I have still yet to hear someone suggest a better method of discovering serious, undetected issues in applicant's pasts!

You no doubt do have people working side by side with you who have done the kinds of things that your nine subjects admitted to. It would be naive to think that they have all been screened out by the polygraph. The fact remains that we have no reliable methodology for the detection of deception. As "Wombat," who started this message thread, has illustrated, less-than-honest persons can make it through.

One possible solution to balancing the benefit of admissions obtained against the cost of falsely accusing the truthful would be to eliminate from the hiring process only those subjects who make disqualifying admissions during their polygraph examinations, and to let everyone else proceed, regardless of their polygraph chart readings. What do you think of this solution?

QuoteNo one said getting a job in LE was easy. ?Should we treat all applicants with kid gloves?

No, and I did not mean to suggest that we should.

QuoteShall we refrain from aggressively questioning applicants who apply for such sensitive positions?

Certainly not, and a probing background interview is certainly in order. Many agencies could no doubt ask more far-reaching questions than they typically do. For example, if you look at the Alaska State Trooper Background Questionnaire (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/alaska-state-trooper.pdf), you'll see that it goes into much more detail than is typically done with those applying for top secret security clearances.

I do think, however, that questioning should be done in a civil manner. For example, there is absolutely no justification for the kind of abuse that Detective Bill Roche (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-006.shtml) experienced from Secret Service polygrapher Ignacio Zamora, Jr.

QuoteIt sounds to me that your beef is with the aggressive questioning that took place following your polygraph.

No. I was not subjected to aggressive questioning following my FBI pre-employment polygraph.

QuoteIf the polygraph is abolished will your next effort be to ban all "tough" questioning of applicants?

No.

QuoteIt's unfortunate but not all applicants are as honest and forthcoming as you are.

So the FBI examiner accused you of lying...big deal. ?That test did not disqualify you from all other LE positions. ?Move on....

That's easy for you to say, Ray. You and your colleagues in the polygraph community do not bear the costs of the false accusations you inevitably make. As William Shakespeare wrote, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."

The costs of failing a polygraph examination are quite high for many, especially those who fail FBI pre-employment polygraph examinations. (It is for this reason that I've recently concluded that the FBI pre-employment polygraph examination is a risk not worth taking (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-032.shtml).)

QuoteI'm not intending to minimize your feelings. ?I think you probably got a raw deal which is unfortunate. ?If I was in your position I would feel the same way you do. ?But look at the big picture George.

I looked at the big picture before I began commenting publicly on polygraph policy. The picture I saw, and continue to see, is that on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test. I think this is a part of the picture that you tend to minimize.

QuoteMy results are the norm in applicant screening. ?With it we eliminate the majority of the bad apples. ?Without we eliminate NONE of the bad apples. ?Give me a more effective solution. ?I'm willing to bet you can't.

Why do you believe the results of the 30 examinations of which you speak are the norm in applicant screening? I am skeptical that you would have the statistical data on hand to make such a sweeping characterization.

With the polygraph, you eliminate those bad apples who admit to being bad apples. You also eliminate straight arrows whose polygraph squiggles zig when they should have zagged.

Your assertion that without the polygraph "NONE" of the bad apples would be eliminated is simply absurd. No doubt some applicants make admissions to disqualifying conduct during their polygraph examinations that would not otherwise have come to light. But bad apples can also be eliminated through thorough background investigations including credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, etc.

Polygraph screening has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth versus deception. Its utility comes from its use as a psychological prop for getting admissions. As more and more persons facing polygraphic interrogation learn that the "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud (as thousands are doing on a monthly basis), that utility can only wane.

QuoteI'm going off the topic here but I have a quick question. ?In TLBTLD, are there any personal statements that are verified false positives or are they all just examinee claims? ?If they are just claims, in order to be fair to the reader you may want to note that in the next version. ?Thanks in advance.

The examples cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector of the kind of harm that reliance on polygraphy is causing to individuals and to national security are ones where thorough investigations failed to corroborate the polygraph results. There is no credible evidence that Mark Mallah, David Tenenbaum, and Adam Ciralsky were Israeli spies. There is no credible evidence that CTR1 Daniel King or the Marine Embassy guards in Moscow were Russian spies. There is no credible evidence that Wen Ho Lee was a Chinese spy.

What would it take for a person to verify that a polygrapher's conclusion that he/she was deceptive when denying having ever committed an act of espionage, sabotage, or terrorism against the United States was a false positive result? One cannot prove a negative. Yet this seems to be what you are demanding.

Quote:
No one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams. 11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime). Without poly these 9 probably get the job. Is that what you want? Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive? Give me a better solution than polygraph. Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.      


Ray,

There are two problems here. The first is the sample of cases that you're talking about. It's basically anecdotal, but you seem to imply that it has statistical significance. Do you mean to say that out of 30 cases there are usually around 11 DI, and 9 out of those give admissions, that this is the average situation? Perhaps that is in fact the case, but you'd need a much bigger sample (and a reliable source) for this argument to be taken seriously or for these numbers to mean anything at all.

The second and more serious problem is with your basic argument, even if we take your assumptions as given. Ok, let's say 9 out of 11 DI's made admissions to serious offenses that might otherwise go undetected. Fine. But why do you assume the ones who passed are innocent? Given all the information that is publically available about the polygraph, people can easily learn the tricks involved. While 9 are dismissed for admitting to drug use or kiddy porn, perhaps one of the NDI's is in fact is a murderer (or even a serial murderer) who has learned countermeasures. Or maybe all 19 NDI's are serial murderers! Plus the two DI's who didn't make admissions. Who knows?

The point is that relying on flawed technology like the polygraph makes us think that we're more secure, while in fact the opposite may be true. As long as people believed that it works, polygraphy had utility as an interrogation tool. But that utility is rapidly and severely diminishing, to the extent that the complacency that results from relying on polygraphy means that, as has been said here before, the polygraph is not just useless, it is worse than useless. The problem of false positives is only one side of the polygraph dilemma.

Dimitrios

Dmitrios,
A good response, and one I was contemplating posting myself.

What I see as the biggest flaw is that Ray does not tell us how many positions were being filled from this applicant pool. If there was only one opening, was the whole polygraph process worth it? There would be a slightly less than 30% chance that the 3% who got a job would have a questionable background. I see that as statistically insignificant. What about it, Ray? How many positions were being filled?

You also touched on the possibility that some people slipped by the polygraph. Ray's confirmed accuracy rate of 82% (9 /11) on the DI's when applied to the NDI's would indicate that there could be 3 - 4 applicants who got passed him in spite of having something to hide.

Orolan

Get your head out of Dmitrios ass. ;D

Saidme,
Get your head out of your own ass ;D Then post a constructive and informative critique of my assertions.
Oh, silly me. You don't know HOW to do that, do you ??? I forgot, you're just a polygrapher.

George,

Sorry it took me a bit to respond.  Here we go....

QuoteYou no doubt do have people working side by side with you who have done the kinds of things that your nine subjects admitted to. It would be naive to think that they have all been screened out by the polygraph.

You're making a very big assumption there.  You still have not offered a better suggestion for discovering "concealed issues" like those of the 9 disqualified applicants.  These are important issues, right?  Background checks would not reveal what the polygraph did in these cases.  

QuoteI do think, however, that questioning should be done in a civil manner. For example, there is absolutely no justification for the kind of abuse that Detective Bill Roche experienced from Secret Service polygrapher Ignacio Zamora, Jr.

Another one-sided account that's so typical of this site.  I find it very hard to believe what Roche is saying here.  Let's look at his test.  It appears as though his test consisted of 2 different series.  He obviously passed the first series of relevant questions so it's safe to assume the control questions were effective.  He claims they weren't and that he was too honest.  My BS detector just went off.  Bill told his examiner about every lie he ever told.  Come on Bill, I'm not buying it.  So the examiner comes to the 2nd series and emphasizes the controls...very normal. Bill then goes inconclusive and is interrogated.  Cry me a river Bill.  It sounds like these examiners singled Bill out.  It would be interesting to find out if Bill gave any admissions....Here's what I think happened.  Bill's an arrogant cop, I picked that up from reading his glowing intro of himself.  He claims HE LED Secret Service agents in a joint investigation. He's used to being in charge in the room and doesn't like losing control of the room.  When stud Det. Bill fails the test he cries bloody murder and slams the examiner thereby saving his own face.  Just my opinion.  My point is that Bill's claim was not verified, in fact according to his own account, it was deemed unfounded by the testing agency.  It looks like the government is out to get Bill.    

QuoteThe picture I saw, and continue to see, is that on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test.

Is that your opinion or do you have the stats to back that up?  Please clarify that for me.

QuoteBut bad apples can also be eliminated through thorough background investigations including credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, etc.

Those things are important aspects of the application process but they do not reveal CONCEALED issues like the polygraph does.  At least admit in my example that the polygraph was effective.

Dmitrios,

QuoteThe second and more serious problem is with your basic argument, even if we take your assumptions as given. Ok, let's say 9 out of 11 DI's made admissions to serious offenses that might otherwise go undetected. Fine. But why do you assume the ones who passed are innocent? Given all the information that is publically available about the polygraph, people can easily learn the tricks involved. While 9 are dismissed for admitting to drug use or kiddy porn, perhaps one of the NDI's is in fact is a murderer (or even a serial murderer) who has learned countermeasures. Or maybe all 19 NDI's are serial murderers! Plus the two DI's who didn't make admissions. Who knows?

As for your example, it's pretty extreme buddy but I'll go with it.  So your agency, without polygraph, hires 19 serial killers, 9 drug users/serious crime/kiddy porn and 2 unknowns, right?  

Using polygraph, my agency eliminates the 9 drug users/serious crime/kiddy porn applicants.  It's not perfect but I'll take that.  My agency wins.  Thanks for playing.

Give the damn countermeasures thing a rest.  They're not as effective as you think but keep trying I guess.  I can always use more samples.  
 
Your failure to admit that the polygraph was useful in my EXAMPLE (where did I claim statistical significance?) leads me to believe this discussion is not worth pursuing.  

Ray,

Given the known weaknesses of CQT polygraphy, it is a much more plausible assumption that not all who passed your agency's pre-employment polygraph examination were truthful with regard to the relevant questions than is the assumption that because all passed the polygraph, none have done the kinds of things to which your nine subjects admitted.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Bill Roche's account is correct. Would you agree that the behavior he attributed to SA Zamora was inappropriate?

My statement ?that "on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test" is a logical inference based on known facts:

• that polygraph screening is completely invalid;
• that the number of polygraph screening examinations annually administered nationwide is at least in the tens of thousands;
• that the polygraph failure rate in many agencies is quite high, for example, on the order of 50% at LAPD and FBI.

Regarding elements of background investigations such as credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, you write:

QuoteThose things are important aspects of the application process but they do not reveal CONCEALED issues like the polygraph does. ?At least admit in my example that the polygraph was effective.

The polygraph only reveals concealed issues to the extent that the subject is willing to disclose them. I do not deny that the polygraph has some utility for eliciting admissions from subjects who do not understand that the "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud. But as the National Academy of Sciences has recently confirmed, polygraph screening is completely invalid.

I note that you did not respond to any of the questions I asked you in my previous post. These were not merely rhetorical quesions, and I would be interested in your answers.

Response to Ray regarding Bill Roche:

(Sorry, I forgot how to do quotes so I had to do it the old fashion way, I will update later)

"I find it very hard to believe what Roche is saying here."

Ray, it's coming on five years, and to this day I still shake my head at what happened to me. I never could have guessed that I would have been treated so poorly and unethically by the agency I wanted to work for. I can respect the fact we all want to believe in the Secret Service and that their professionalism provides a uniformed front in all aspects of the agency, but as you know every agency has their bad apples.

"He obviously passed the first series of relevant questions so it's safe to assume the control questions were effective."  

Ray, I have no faith in the polygraph.  This is my opinion and I will respect your opinion. However, I truly don't want to get into a discussion regarding the validity.

Unlike many other victims, my situation does not center on the validity of the polygraph, but rather, the unethical application of the polygraph.

Insofar as the polygraph, lets assume the polygraph is 100% accurate.

Under this assumption, I will say the control questions as administered by Agent Savage were 100% effective. This is evident that Agent Savage, a Special Agent with the US Secret Service, determined through the polygraph that I passed the national security portion of the examination.

At this point all should be well. Agent Savage has a subject where the control questions are effective.

I am perplexed as to why he needed to spice it up if I had just passed a test. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that based on his training and experience it was necessary. I have no idea why Agent Savage would try to spice the controls up by saying that I was scoring too high in the control questions.  There are many different ways to emphasize control questions. The list is endless. Clearly, this comment was irresponsible.

Ray, this comment was reckless and interpreted by me (an others) that I was failing the polygraph. I truly answered each control question as honestly as possible. When I answered no to the questions there was nothing in my mind that caused me any concern. To any extent the broad nature of the control question produced unknown anxiety causing the controls to produce an acceptable response, so be it.  I will stipulate the controls worked.

When Agent Savage said this to me I was devastated. I interpreted this as I was failing. I couldn't understand why since I had nothing that was bothering me.

I knew at that very minute I was going to fail the polygraph because I told the truth and the polygraph said I was scoring too high. Essentially, I knew the polygraph machine was not effective because I was telling the truth. How can I lower my scores if I am telling the truth. In the scope of seconds, I went from a firm believer in the polygraph (having passed three prior polygraphs) to having no faith in the machine.

Had Agent Savage stayed within his standards in training and used proper control question emphasize techniques, the outcome on my polygraph would have been different.

I have listed on my statement the names of pro-polygraph people that I spoke with regarding Agent Savage's statement and they clearly state that the comment was so devastating that any polygraph result after that statement is useless and inaccurate.

As I stated from the American Association of Police Polygraphists web site:

V.       INVESTIGATOR RESPONSIBILITES:

A.      During an investigation in which the polygraph might be utilized, the investigator should not resort to any misleading statements. If the person who determines that he/she was deceived later takes a polygraph examination, he/she may be overly suspicious of both the procedure and polygraphist. Such a mental attitude may cause the person's reactions to be so erratic that no conclusive chart interpretation could be made.

This is further corroborated in the book Criminal Interrogations and Confessions (3rd edition), written by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley.

Chapter five of this book talks about bait questions, and what occurs if they are improperly administered. Namely, "...once an interrogator is caught in a lie, further effectiveness is lost. (page 69.) (Note: This book has been quoted by the US Supreme Court and is considered a textbook for proper interview and interrogation.)

A professional polygraphist clearly has the ability to increase anxiety without making such a devastating and crippling comment.

Ray, the pro-polygraph experts have determined my polygraph results were flawed from here on out so I will save the step-by-step experience I endured and cut to the highlights.

After the next polygraph exam, Agent Savage said I failed it. Intensely interrogated me about lying, and then conducted another polygraph examination. Then interrogated me again and I was sent home.

Clearly, the standards in interrogation are such that an interrogation (accusatory statement) is not conducted until after the examiner has formed an opinion. Agent Savage formed an opinion based on an inconclusive result. Interesting?

The experts say my mind is mush related to being polygraphed again, least of all by the Secret Service. But back I go, this time to Agent Zamora.  Yelling, contorted face, knee slapping, and then hooking me to a polygraph to measure my heart rate and breathing. This is not appropriate or trained behavior.

Ray, clearly this is not the Secret Service's finest hour.
 
"Just my opinion.  My point is that Bill's claim was not verified, in fact according to his own account, it was deemed unfounded by the testing agency."

Yes, By all means the Secret Service denied wrongdoing. However, such is to be expected. The Catholic Church said their priests didn't molest children and they allowed it to go on.

Fortunately the examinations are tape recorded so there is no dispute as to the truth. Unfortunately, the Secret Service will not release the tapes.

Interesting though, when I testified about my experience in front of the Kansas State Legislature, the American Polygraph Association representative told the legislature that what happened to me was "criminal." Sorry I don't know his name. But I'm sure the record can be retrieved (March 6, 2000) and/or call the APA to see who they sent up to testify. (He was some ex-military guy if that helps.)

As outlined in my statement, the APA allegedly researched my complaint and received some sort of testimony from Savage and Zamora. Although they skirted the issue in the investigation by making comments about the Agents behavior like their behavior was  "not necessarily the best way to handle things, not necessarily the most professional way to handle things..."

When the Agents behavior is exposed to a legislative committee, they back tracked quickly, called it an aberration, and  moved to the accuracy of polygraph when professionally administered.

"It would be interesting to find out if Bill gave any admissions."

No secrets here. Everything was based on polygraph results.

"Bill's an arrogant cop, I picked that up from reading his glowing intro of himself. He claims HE LED Secret Service agents in a joint investigation."  

Ray I am sure you can appreciate the fact that a baseline has to be established in ones credibility. Insofar as mine, I have copies of search warrants, police reports, Agents Names etc.  This is a very clear record.  


I respect that you do not have to believe what happened to me happened. Especially since the Secret Service will not release the tape. However, I have testified before the Kansas Legislature, had a polygraph bill introduced in California, given interviews on national TV, while maintaining a very prosperous police career. If I lied, my credibility as an Officer would be destroyed and my career and livelihood would be taken away. Each statement I have made can be corroborated.

That may mean something to you, this may not. I respect whatever decision or feeling you have about it.

All that I ask, is that you think for one second what I am saying is true. I can assure you it is one second of pure pain and frustration.

As far as the tone of the rest of your response, I interpret it as dialog that is consistent with views represented in different postings from people who represent all sides so I do not take it personalJ.  

Anyways, I appreciate your dialog here. I try to follow discussions but work and the kid's just keeps me pretty busy. I actually got a heads up to this thread.

Anyways, my best to you and all those who take part in this board no matter what side of the fence we sit.    

Take care,

Bill

Bill,

I guess I'm skeptical because I have never heard anyone complain that the control questions were overemphasized.  That generally would cause a false negative - not a false positive.  You said there are many ways to emphasize control questions and you're correct.  Why did the examiner's comment that "your scores were too high" on the control questions send you over the edge?  If that's not an acceptable statement by the examiner what is?  Did he tell you that you were failing the test?  I doubt it.  Those comments do not sound inflamatory to me.  If anything, your concerns about the controls would be a good thing.  

Is it safe to assume that you went into the second series of testing feeling as though you weren't passing the controls?  You probably had between 3-5 controls on the first series so I'm not buying the "I was 100% honest..." statement.  Bottom line is that you were concerned about the controls going into the next series.  That's a good thing.  I see nothing wrong with that test.

It appears to me that in both tests the examiners were trying hard to emphasize the controls.  You accuse the next examiner of slapping his knee and pointing at you.  What was he talking to you about?  The controls I'm sure.  I'll say this as well, I don't believe his actions were as violent and traumatic as you make them seem.  Remember, we're only getting your emotional version.  

Again, the majority of your complaint centers on the controls.  If these examiners were so biased against you why would they spend the time trying so hard to hammer home the controls? Think about that for a second.  These guys were giving you every opportunity to pass the test.  If you were saying that the examiner never talked about control issues and only hit relevant issues then you might have a complaint.  

You said this was a very emotional and traumatic experience for you.  Do you think that you were able to give an accurate, unbaised version of the events of your polygraph when you testified?  Did you explain that the examiner was attempting to set the controls in order to give you a fair chance to pass the test?  You claim many pro-polygraph people say your test was an outrage.  Did they listen to the test or did they get your emotional version?    

Bill, do you think these examiners were out to get you?  If you were such a qualified applicant why were they, along with the government, so biased against you?  I guess it's a big conspiracy.

Bill,

One more thing.  Are you sure you didn't make any admissions??  Here's why I ask.

QuoteAfter the next polygraph exam, Agent Savage said I failed it. Intensely interrogated me about lying, and then conducted another polygraph examination. Then interrogated me again and I was sent home.

In my department, if an examinee fails a question, for example undetected crime, then gives an admission to that question which may or may not be disqualifying, we might run additional tests to clear up the issue and then let the hiring panel decide.  Here's an example: examinee fails, admits to breaking into vehicles at age 15.  I'd probably test him out on that issue.  If the examinee admitted to something more serious (murder, rape, robbery) or admitted to nothing I would not test any further knowing he would be disqualified.

If the agent told you that you failed and interrogated you I would have to believe you gave some sort of borderline admission regarding a relevant issue, otherwise why would he re-test you??  It sounds like that was what happened.  

Let's recap: You pass series I.  You then fail the next series and make an admission that falls in a "gray area". He then attempted to clear you so the hiring board could make a decision.  The test was deemed inconclusive but he felt you needed a fresh start with a fresh examiner due to the interrogation.  It looks like he did you a favor.  According to George, he could have done what most examiners do; twisted your admission to make it sound disqualifying.  But he didn't do that because he wanted to give you a fair shake.  What a jerk.  

Perhaps your admissions were what shook you up more than the exam itself?  You sure you want those tapes released?

Ray,

QuoteI guess I'm skeptical because I have never heard anyone complain that the control questions were overemphasized.

That's because polygraph testing is usually left to professionals who stay within their standards of training.

QuoteThat generally would cause a false negative - not a false positive

In theory, "Generally" is correct, but not absolutely. There is no surgical manner in which to jack up a person up and how that person will react to being jacked up.

QuoteWhy did the examiner's comment that "your scores were too high" on the control questions send you over the edge?

I now understand controls. But as an applicant, you are led to believe the only controls are the irrelevant questions.

Under the assumption that each question is relevant, I answered each question honestly. I was told I was lying. I was telling the truth. This upset me. Therefore, I lost faith in the polygraph. Once faith in the polygraph is lost, all further testing is irrelevant. Essentially the game is up.

It is not realistic to believe that an examiner can place surgical stimulation on certain questions that causes an applicant to become upset and not have it have an impact on other areas of the test. If you get punched in the face hard enough, it will cause more places in your body to hurt than just your face. The same is true for my situation.

QuoteThose comments do not sound inflamatory to me.

Absolutely floored many experts, including Joseph Buckley of the Reid Institute who is a polygraph proponent. He told me everything after this statement made by Agent Savage related to the polygraph results was invalid due to over stimulation of the applicant.

QuoteIs it safe to assume that you went into the second series of testing feeling as though you weren't passing the controls?

The controls were irrelevant, again based on the experts in the pro-polygraph community my mind was mush and the controls and relevants were hopelessly intertwined.

QuoteIt appears to me that in both tests the examiners were trying hard to emphasize the controls.  You accuse the next examiner of slapping his knee and pointing at you.  What was he talking to you about?  The controls I'm sure.  I'll say this as well, I don't believe his actions were as violent and traumatic as you make them seem.

They were definitely emphasizing the controls, and as you will read later on, they were emphasizing the relevants too via premature interrogation.

Insofar as the drama, it was all too real to make up.
 

QuoteDid you explain that the examiner was attempting to set the controls in order to give you a fair chance to pass the test?

Improper setting of controls results in improper test results.  

QuoteDid they listen to the test or did they get your emotional version?

Just the facts. Would the fact an examiner who told an applicant that he was scoring too high in the controls have a negative impact on the remainder of the test? Answer: Yes. The remainder of the test would be flawed due to over stimulation.
 

QuoteBill, do you think these examiners were out to get you?

I have no idea. I have heard theories on both yes and no. I just know what happened to me.  

QuotePerhaps your admissions were what shook you up more than the exam itself?

 

There were no admissions. The Freedom of Information Act confirmed that. The FOIA Act stated there were no pre-test or post admissions on any of my series of examinations with Agent Zamora and Savage.

Although the US Secret Service will not release the tape, they released the report (except questions formats etc for National Security purposes, but are available on the LBTLD.)

The report corroborates there were no admissions made by me before or after the examinations. My polygraphs were based solely on the polygraph results. It is in black and white (and on their stationary).

QuoteIf the agent told you that you failed and interrogated you I would have to believe you gave some sort of borderline admission regarding a relevant issue, otherwise why would he re-test you??  It sounds like that was what happened.

Ray,   to your defense you were unaware of the FOIA report. Last night I only mentioned the tape as that is the best evidence. I tend to concentrate on the tape because it would be such a dramatic piece of evidence to hear the abominable actions of the two Agents. (Plus I wanted to go to bed  and relieving all the details of this is not pleasant, even after almost five years.)

The FOIA act corroborates my statement that no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and that after the first examination I passed regarding national security with Agent Savage, all examinations were determined to be inconclusive.

After Agent Savage's polygraph, his report was sent to Washington and my file was reviewed. As there was no issue other than my inconclusive results, I was authorized another polygraph with another examiner.

Insofar as my second examination with Agent Zamora, again no pre-test or post-test admissions were made and I was inconclusive on the first two exams. It wasn't until after the contorted face, knee slapping and yelling I failed the last polygraph. Then after the polygraph, no post test admissions were made.

In my agency, whose training is consistent with acceptable interview and interrogation models, an interrogation would never be conducted until the examiner has formed an opinion. An opinion was not formed until the last polygraph with Agent Zamora (remember this was the polygraph after over five hours of horrendous behavior).

So everyone is on the same waive length. An interview is a fact gathering process and an interrogation is a series(s) of accusatory statements often times conducted in a structured manner to obtain admissions and confessions.

Within interview and interrogation, standardized practice is not to move into interrogation until the examiner had formed an opinion as to the person's guilt or innocence. DODPI, where Agents Zamora and Savage were trained, adheres to this standard, that being, no interrogation until an opinion is made.  

I'm sure this standardized practice is only common sense. You cannot go into a full blown Reid Technique and then re-polygraph the person immediately afterwards. This is what Agents Savage and Zamora did.

Some polygraphists will attempt to short cut the process and go fishing for an  admission after an inconclusive result even if no pre-test admission was made. It is their belief either based on their perceived skill or ego that they can move into interrogation and obtain some type of admission. It is their mistaken belief that the inconclusive result is a precursor of a the subject attempting to hide something and a few placed lines of, "Your failing your polygraph so you are withholding something so tell me what it is" will result in an admission.  

This is a high risk/high gain technique because once the interrogation card is played, and if it fails, you cannot go back to square one. You are done (provided you are professional and adhere to acceptable to standards in training).

Clearly, the behavior of the Agents was very poor.

1.      Telling an applicant he is scoring too high in the control questions thus destroying his confidence in the polygraph as outlined last night.
2.      Full blown interrogation after an inconclusive polygraph where no-pre-test or post test admission were made.
3.      The interrogations prior to re-polygraphing were hostile and based on a Reid Technique structure.
4.      Making comments that I failed the polygraph during the interrogation structure when in fact the test was inconclusive, and then re-polygraphing moments later.  
5.      Repeated polygraph tests that resulted in inconclusive results, followed by intense interrogations, then re-polygraphed again, then interrogated, then re-polygraph etc. (remember, the FOIA act says no admissions).

Ray, so often I hear accusations about law enforcement and I hope and pray the officers were right. Most of the time they are, but every so often there are accounts of bad behavior. The bad behavior cuts me like a knife through my heart. I am upset with the offending personnel for putting our standing in the community in jeopardy.

What happens behind closed doors in law enforcement is presumed professional, and fortunately, most of the time it is. I have no doubt you are a law enforcement  member with high standards and ethic.  Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

It is frustrating to see our peers conduct interrogations in death penalty cases (or any cases) where their conduct was unethical. I understand in the mid-west (I believe Illinois) there is proposed legislation that interrogations in death penalty cases need to be audio and video taped so as to ensure police credibility based on the number of false confessions where the subject was later exonerated by DNA.

Although my experience was not a death penalty case, what Agent Savage and Zamora did, felt like it almost killed me. It is an example of the lack of faith the public is placing in law enforcement agencies.  

Again, at no point did I attack you or the validity of polygraph and stipulated for the purposes of this discussion that it is 100% accurate when professionally administered.  

Ray, this is just one experience the polygraph community is going to have spin as an aberration and inconsistent with the values of those that take their profession seriously. (Kind of like how the APA cut their losses before the State Legislature in Kansas when it came to my case, so that ought to tell you something. )
 
Well my best to you and the remainder of your career.

Take care,

Bill