Defense attorneys begin to get notifications about scrutinized lab technician
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html
In summary
Forensic Lab Technician Aaron Layton FAILED a polygraph test for the Columbus Ohio Police Department in 2003.
When Layton applied for a job with the Columbus Police Department in 2003, he failed his initial polygraph test and then made a series of admissions during a second test.
Among those admissions:
Layton told the polygraph operator that while conducting a marijuana test for the Arapahoe County Probation Department in Colorado, he got an initial positive result but skipped a required second test, then lied about it in his report. He also said he "committed perjury" when he testified about the test in court.
Layton said this action was not unique -- while working for Forensic Laboratories he "never conducted confirmatory tests and he falsified his reports 'hundreds of times.' "
He said while working at the Colorado lab, he would forge his supervisor's signature and notary stamp on affidavits involving evidence and procedural results.
A convicted Sex Offender he was arrested in Denver in 2007 for failing to register as a sex offender and is still on probation, but he decided to seek the relatively polygraph free environment of the left coast.
He subsequently found employment with a company called Bio-Tox running forensic tests for agencies including Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties.
His history and the admissions he made following his polygraph test have called into question every evidentiary test he has conducted and will likely cost thousands of dollars to resolve, not to mention the possible human cost of convictions based on his perjured testimony. All of which could have been prevented with a pre-emloyment polygraph.
Just like the one he failed for Columbus P.D.
This is one excellent example of why companies providing evidentiary services to Law Enforcement and the Courts should be exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act restrictions prohibiting Pre-employment polygraph testing.
While polygraphy can indeed have utility for getting admissions (such as those made by Aaron Layton), pre-employment polygraph screening should be abolished because it has no validity. It's a pseudoscientific fraud that is inherently biased against the truthful and yet easily passed through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect.
Note that the same Columbus Police Department -- whose polygraph screening Aaron Layton failed -- in 2007 hired a woman named Shatoya Wright who was just this week arrested on federal charges of making false statements regarding her relationship with a man who robbed a bank where she worked. It seems she aided and abetted the robbery. But somehow, the polygraph failed to screen her out.
She hasn't confessed to helping in the robbery. You don't know what questions she was asked on the polygraph test. She hasn't been convicted but still you have concluded that
QuoteIt seems she aided and abetted the robbery. But somehow, the polygraph failed to screen her out.
Just because it fits your pre-conceived opinions regarding polygraph doesn' t quite make it so.
Did you ever actually do any scientific research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect?
Or is that just another one of your unconfirmed opinions?
QuoteThis is one excellent example of why companies providing evidentiary services to Law Enforcement and the Courts should be exempt from the Employee Polygraph Protection Act restrictions prohibiting Pre-employment polygraph testing.
What about all the false positives that result from preemployment polygraph screening?
You cite one anecdotal example to justify the polygraph. Have you done any research on how many applicants you fail have actually done anything? Besides making your polygraph chart zig and zag too much?
TC
QuoteWhat about all the false positives that result from preemployment polygraph screening?
What about em?
The true positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.
Acknowledging that false positives do occur, what proof do you have that someone complaining about a false positive on a polygraph isn't simply lying to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a lie, any more or less than a convicted child molestor claiming his charges were just a BIG mis-understanding and he didn't do what he was accused of. Even with dozens of victims, making statements against the pervert, they frequently go on web sites and ramble on about how wrongful accusations that have ruined their lives and frequently demand reform to laws that allow the word of a child to be weighed equally against their denials.
The only penalty for failing a pre-employment polygraph test is having to fill out another job application somewhere.
Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?It's obvious to me that there may be a possibility of psychological damage brought about from an unreasonable inability to move on. But then, the inability to move on isn't caused by the polygraph. It comes from the mind of the examinee.
Move on. Thats what Layton did. He moved on to a place where he didn't have to take a polygraph. I certainly think its reasonable to conclude that not having to take a polygraph figured into his decision. I'll bet you dollars to bottlecaps HE knows it works.
George, I noticed you didn't answer my question.
You don't need to bother now.
If you had done any scientific research or even if you were aware of any research where a group of subjects were given your book to study that proved whether or they were able to consistently or with any reliability whatsoever that, by using the instructions you provide, that they were then able to easily pass through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot detect, I don't think you would be able to keep it to yourself.
NAS seemed to question the credibility of claims that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners. They didn't say it was impossible but they seem to doubt that there is proof that anyone could pull it off, say by, reading a book about how to beat the polygraph.
I don't think there is any serious opposition to the idea that polygraphs can be effective for eliciting damaging/disqualifying admissions from examinees. Personally, I don't have any problem with their use in that regard.
However, if the polygraph exam ends and there has been no admissions that should be the end of it, but it is not. At that point the examiner attempts to determine what the examinee was thinking when he answered the questions, and at that point the utility of the polygraph is at an end. At that point there is no difference between using a polygraph and using Tarot cards or a crystal ball. Any of the above might elicit a disqualifying admission, but none of them is capable of accurately determining the presence or absence of truth or deception.
Since it seems unlikely the polygraph would retain the same utility (eliciting admissions) were it to become more widely known that it is not, in fact, capable of detecting deception it seems that abolishing pre-employment screening is far more reasonable and logical than increasing its use.
Quotewidely known that it is not, in fact, capable of detecting deception
What is your point?
Whatever polygraph detects, the fact still remains that polygraph's ability to identify the true positives and true negatives (properly identifying liars and truth tellers) significantly outweighs the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association and if a false positive occurs in a pre-employment test, the only material penalty the examinee suffers is the time spent filling out another job application.
QuoteWhatever polygraph detects, the fact still remains that polygraph's ability to identify the true positives and true negatives (properly identifying liars and truth tellers) significantly outweighs the false positives and false negatives.
Quite the contrary. The NAS postulated that for every true positive actually caught on the polygraph there is likely a hundred or more truthful applicants declared liars.
Whatever it detects? The standard phrase polygraph operators use when they get a "reaction" is "DECEPTION INDICATED". Does it really indicate that? Yes? On what scientific basis? If not, are all these so-called examiners routinely lying when there is a reaction measured on the chart? What happens when it becomes common knowledge for applicants that deception is really NOT INDICATED? What will happen to the utility of the polygraph then?
QuoteAcknowledging that false positives do occur, what proof do you have that someone complaining about a false positive on a polygraph isn't simply lying to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a lie,
What proof to you have that they are? GM's FBI polygrapher concluded he was a drug dealer. What proof is there that he is actually a drug dealer? Based on a polygraph? Are we suppose to believe everything alleged about people we read in the tabloids too?
QuoteCan you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?
That's a pretty good "rationalization". You can falsely accuse an applicant of being a drug dealer, with no proof, and call him a liar again if he dares to protest, BECAUSE , what the heck, they can just go and apply elsewhere.
TC
Lets not mischaracterize what they might postulate and besides we're talking about pre-employment not security screening.
The FBI reported that they administered approximately 27,000 pre-employment polygraph examinations between 1994 and 2001. More than 5,800 of these tests (21 percent) led to the decision that the examinee was being deceptive. Of these, almost 4,000 tests (approximately 69 percent of "failures") involved obtaining direct admissions of information that disqualified applicants from employment or of information not previously disclosed in the application process that led to a judgment of deceptiveness.
For that time period with that agency, less than 7% of the 27,000 pre employment tests could be remotely considered false positives, but inside that LOW number it is not unreasonable to presume that at least part of that 7% were actually liars that just refused to own up to their lies. Based on the date of his FBI Polygraph George Maschke would fall somewhere in the 7% who after being called deceptive did not make any disqualifying admissions.
I realize that this next part will probably sail right past you given your demonstrated knowledge of polygraph, but the second series in George's FBI polygraph contained the following 3 questions.
QuoteHave you ever sold any illegal drugs? Answer - No.
Have you ever used any illegal drugs? Answer - No.
Have you deliberately withheld any important information from your application? Answer - No.
The FBI Polygrapher determined that there was deception indicated on this test series. Based on currently accepted polygraph procedures, there is no way to make any type of reasonable conclusion as to which question or questions caused the reaction on the exam. This is why current protocols require a follow-up test to further explore areas indicating reaction. In short problems with application information are just have likely to caused the reaction as drug use or drug sales on this test series. If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him.
The characterization that the FBI agent ACCUSED George of anything is yours not George's. In his complaint letter to the FBI Director he simply stated that
Quote"The polygrapher concluded that I was attempting to deceive him."
He further went on to describe the examiner's demeanor as follows
Quote"The polygrapher's demeanor and that of the chief of recruitment in Los Angeles changed instantly from warm and cordial to curt and suspicious.
I noticed he didn't hesitate to use the word accuse in his letter to LAPD when he thought it was appropriate.
He didn't claim that the FBI agent accused him being a drug dealer or anything, why are you? Looking for drama?
And in the end, all it really cost George was the time it took him to fill out another job application. I've heard he now holds a prestigious position at the Hague and somewhere out there is an FBI Special Agent who passed his pre employment polygraph and currenlty occupies the position to which George mistakenly believes he was somehow entiltled
QuoteWhat is your point?
My point is that the utility of the polygraph is limited to eliciting confessions from people who believe it is capable of detecting deception. That utility would surely be diminished, if not completely eliminated, by widespread admissions of polygraph supporters that the polygraph measures physiological responses but does not, in fact, detect lies.
I have sat across from three separate polygraph examiners and had each of them solemnly tell me that they, not the polygraph, were the true "lie detectors" and that they could easily tell, even without the polygraph, that I was lying during my pre-employment exams. I might have been impressed by their act if I had actually been lying, but since I had been telling the truth, all they did was convince me of both their and the polygraph's inability to detect truth or lies.
BTW, I have always thought it sounded hollow, at best, when polygraph supporters cease defending their chosen profession and instead devolve into the argument that no one is owed a job anyway, so anyone wrongly disqualified by the polygraph has nothing to complain about. It is off-topic and is essentially an ad hominem attack, insulting the character of the posters by implying they are whining rather than voicing their concerns about the lack of validity of a purportedly scientifically valid test.
Sergeant while I don't really care what you think about polygraph or polygraphers. True positives and true negatives from polygraph significantly outweigh the false positives and false negatives. The vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.
I do care about the innocent people who come on this forum looking for information that you and your buddies scare into trying to cheat on a polygraph with your half truths and horror stories. Whether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.
Contrary to what you may want to believe, 99% of polygraph research is designed towards reducing the possibilty of a false positive. polygraph does not wish to harm the innocent any more than they wish to be harmed. The process doesn't need much help spotting liars. If a Bad Guy beating the test wasn't an unusual occurrance, it wouldn't be newsworthy.
Allow me to illustrate the polygraph screening process in a manner that even a rookie patrolman can understand.
The standardized field sobriety test is used hundreds of thousands of times every year by officers in the field. It is a screening test and while there are many differences between polygraph and SFST there are some similarities.
Basically Every person who fails and SFST isn't intoxicated and every one who passes isn't sober. It does not measure the amount of alcohol in anyones blood. It measures coordination and mental accuity and from someones performance on the test and officer assigns a score. If the score is in favor of the driver, he is released. If it is on the bordeline, SFST has no INCONCLUSIVE RANGE, the officer flips a coin. If the score is high enough then based on his analysis he puts handcuffs on the driver and hauls them to Jail for an intoxilyzer which ALSO does not measure the actual amount of alcohol in blood. If the intoxilyzer fails to confirm his analysis, he lets the driver go, or maybe calls in a drug recognition expert to perform another series of screening tests which may lead to release or a blood test. If both the officer and the DRE are wrong then the guy goes to jail has charges filed and has to post bond ALL before there is any confirmation by chemical analysis that this driver has done anything wrong. The observations made by the original officer are a combination of subjective and objective but unless someone has a video camera going there is no record of the data collected except for the officers notes and his memory of the drivers performane. He intends to use both his notes and memory to provide evidence of probable cause for arrest and to support his charge of DUI at trial.
The driver is not and cannot be obligated by law to submit to a SFST, but I have never heard of an SFST training program, policy, or officer that informs the driver that they have a right to refuse to stand on the side of the road at 2 O'clock in the morning and do acrobatics for the nice policeman. They are coerced into taking the SFST by being told if they don't take the test they will just be arrested anyway. They didn't volunteer to do it. The officer didn't tell them that they have the right to refuse to do it. They aren't told that the test has an error rate. They aren't told that if they do what the officer has coerced them in to doing that their actions will be used as evidence.
The driver gets hauled to jail if he fails it and he gets hauled to jail if he refuses to submit to it whether or not he is drunk. His only crime may have been crossing a yellow line or sitting too long at a green light.
On a pre-employment examination, the examinee volunteers to take the examination by virtue of pre-exsisting knowledge that it will be required as part of the hiring process. Just like he volunteers to take a written test, submit to an interview, physical exam and psychological testing. He will be told that he does not have to take the test. The vast majority of agencies will also read him the miranda warning on the off chance he may admit to criminal activity during the exam. So he goes into the process voluntarily and aware of his rights against self incrimination. He submits to a screening test in which the data that is collected is permanently recorded for further review. Depending on Law and deartment policy this may be retained for 2 to 3 years or become part of an officers personel file.
If he passes the exam he moves on in the application process. Will he be a good officer Who knows? Some times drunks get past field sobriety tests and sometimes liars get past polygraph.
If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure. The manner in which he is questioned may differ from agency to agency or examiner to examiner, but a problem concerning the way a post test interview is conducted is not an indication of a problem with polygraph, it is an indication of a problem with the way interviews are conducted.
I've heard all the stories, some from credible about screaming accusations and angry behavior, but I have yet to ever raise my voice in an interview and never felt the need to do so in order to get admissions, I don't see why polygraph interviews would need to be any different.
If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. If neither one of those occurs, current protocols endorsed by APA call for a follow-up test to attempt to resolve any areas of reactivity.
If he passes the second test then he moves on in the process. If he fails then he is questioned about the reason for his failure.If he makes admissions that disqualify him as a candidate then the process is over. If he is caught attempting countermeasure then the process is over. At this point if he makes no admissions then a report will be forwarded to the hiring authority indicating that there were significant and consistant reactions to certain questions on the test which were not resolved.
The APA Policy states that noone should be denied employment based solely on the outcome of a polygraph examination. They recomend that agencies further investigate the applicant in attempt to discover more information.
No One goes to jail. No one loses their freedom for even a minute. All they have to do is fill out another job application at their own convenience. Whether you read or chose to ignore the FBI pre-employment testing data I posted previously, according to their records unresolved polygraph failures are under 7% and part of that 7% will be false positives and part of that group will be liars who didn't confess. Getting caught using countermeasures will move part of those false positives into the resolved failures group.
So It doesn't really matter whether or not you can point to a specific response that is absolute proof of deception the process has proven that it detects liars at rates significantly greater than chance and that makes it a useful tool in the pre-employment process.
Quote from: ed earl on Mar 07, 2009, 11:26 AMThe vast majority of peer reviewed published polygraph research cited by the NAS agrees and so does the Americam Medical Association.
The conclusion of the NAS study called for the abolition of polygraph screening. The American Medical Association adopted a formal position supporting the abolition of polygraph screening just prior to the passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. Recent posts attempting to mischaracterize the positions of either of these groups are disingenuous at best.
QuoteWhether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.
Yet it is ok for polygraph operators to lie to job applicants? As Drew Richardson has very capably pointed out, there are a minimum of seven deceptions conducted by polygraph examiners during each one of these screening "tests."
If such behavior is sanctioned by law enforcement agencies, I don't see the problem with an applicant who answers the relevant questions truthfully taking steps to protect himself from a false positive. It's about the same level of ethical lapse as deceptively telling a used car salesman that you found a better price elsewhere.
QuoteContrary to what you may want to believe, 99% of polygraph research is designed towards reducing the possibilty of a false positive.
Please offer a citation to support this statement.
QuoteThe APA Policy states that noone should be denied employment based solely on the outcome of a polygraph examination. They recomend that agencies further investigate the applicant in attempt to discover more information.
Yet in a substantial number of places--perhaps even in a majority of places--this policy is treated with a wink and a nod. If the APA was actually serious about this, I would place more stock in it.
This policy is flat-out ignored in a great number of places, including virtually every federal law enforcement agency that employs polygraphy.
QuoteNo One goes to jail. No one loses their freedom for even a minute. All they have to do is fill out another job application at their own convenience. Whether you read or chose to ignore the FBI pre-employment testing data I posted previously, according to their records unresolved polygraph failures are under 7% and part of that 7% will be false positives and part of that group will be liars who didn't confess. Getting caught using countermeasures will move part of those false positives into the resolved failures group.
With regard to the statistics you posted, the FBI has a
deliberate policy of not employing audio and or video recording polygraph examinations. Victims of this process frequently tell us that that were attributed false confessions. Until audio and/or AV recording is done of these polygraph examinations--
and such tapes are immediately made available to the examinee at the conclusion of the polygraph session, any "confession percentage" numbers are suspect and will remain as such.
With regard to the "right" to employment, you are correct that no one has a right to a government job. Still, everyone has a right to receive due process in hiring selection. The reliance on polygraphy as a sole determining factor in hiring--is a denial of this due process.
More importantly,
the taxpayers do have a right to have the most qualified persons employed in positions of public trust.
With regard to your earlier ad hominem attack on George Maschke: There is a reason why the FBI used George Maschke and his Army intel colleagues to do the translation in the 1st WTC bombing: the agency's utter lack of capable Arabic speakers.
I am certainly willing to bet that the person who filled the available slot was less capable with the Arabic language and our country became less safe as a result of the more capable applicant being passed over in a flawed selection process.
My position is supported by the litany of articles published following the 9/11 atrocities describing the lack of Arabic speakers at FBI. Capable speakers could have been counted on two hands at the time, some seven years after George was disqualified solely on polygraph results.
QuoteWhether you personally tell anyone to cheat or not Sergeant you are squarely in the middle of the "Amen Pew" for a preacher that tells people its OK to lie to members of YOUR chosen profession. Justify it in any way that makes you feel good about yourself, but it won't change that fact.
Feel free to read my prior posts, but I can tell you that my advice to anyone taking a polygraph has always been to tell the truth and not withhold any information. Not just to the relevant questions, but to all the questions. I've disagreed with a number of antipolygraph posters on that exact point on a number of occasions.
If you consider someone like me, who consistently advises people to tell the truth while also stating that he doesn't believe the polygraph is capable of detecting deception, as someone who gives tacit approval for people to lie to the police, you certainly have a unique way of interpreting things.
You obviously feel the polygraph is good and accurate. You certainly have that right. Perhaps you could afford others the right to their opinions as well without subjecting them to ad hominem attacks that do nothing but damage your own credibility.
Quote from: Ed Earl on Mar 06, 2009, 02:10 PM
The only penalty for failing a pre-employment polygraph test is having to fill out another job application somewhere. Can you name another penalty that is material rather than percieved?
Actually, yes. A failed polygraph due to a false positive stays with you for the rest of your career. In fact, early in my career, I failed a polygraph due to a false positive. I then was being considered for employment to another agency in the same county, and was removed from consideration because of my previous false positive, even though the second department didn't polygraph at all!
Additionally, the fact that one can fail a polygraph for one department, and be considered for employment anyway for another department, (must of course, pass a polygraph) goes to show that the departments themselves do not consider the polygrap as reliable.
The blanket use of the polygraph results in hiring people who have no conscious, or people who have no life experience, or true sociopaths.
Just the type of cop I want watching my back, for sure.
Good thing Gary Ridgeway painted trucks instead of being a cop. He certainly could have passed a pre-employment polygraph.
QuoteThe conclusion of the NAS study called for the abolition of polygraph screening
Odd then that the words "abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don't appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm
Regarding what you claim to be the AMA's Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
Drew Richardson capable? Was he even capable of passing his polygraph internship? Drew may have had to lie to an examinee seven times on the handful of exams he conducted, but that doesn't prove anyone else does. He supposedly wrote the "Epitaph for polygraph almost 19 years ago. Can you cite one major piece of Federal Polygraph Legislation since EPPA in 1988? Your generalized statement accusing polygraph examiners of lying is an ad hominum attack on polygraph examiners.
My comments regarding George's situation with the FBI was not an Ad Hominum attack, I was just pointing out that a poster's claim that the FBI accused George of being a drug dealer was misleading and (I suspect) a deliberate overstatement for dramatic purposes. George never claimed in his letter that he was accused of anything by the FBI. In fact my post included the statement "If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him." Why am I unwilling to automatically assume he was truthful? The man endorses lying as a means to get a job. That puts his personal credibility at issue .
You and the other members of George' s anti polygraph posting coalition really over use that AD HOMINIM ATTACK JUNK. Doesn't your Latin Dictionary have more than one page? You fellows are always Ad Hominum this and Ad Hominum that, but you don't hesitate to accuse polygraph examiners of lying and chicanery. You accuse the FBI of lying in their statistical reporting based on the smallest scrap of anecdotal evidence. But should anyone with a differing opinion dare question the morals or character of someone who endorses lying or voluntarily associates themselves with someone who does, you can't wait to raise the old AD HOMINUM ATTACK Flag, can you.
Why do you accuse "polygraph" as a whole for the failure of agencies or individuals to follow proper practices and procedures. In a blatant Ad Hominum attack You questioned the ability and qualifications of an individual FBI agent you've never even met and whose work product you have never seen and it appears your reason for that is "He isn't George"
While I agree that the taxpayers do have a right to have the most qualified persons employed in positions of public trust, I do not agree that George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini or anyone but the hiring authority has the right to determine the necessary qualifications for a government job. Polygraph examiners almost never decide who gets hired and who doesn't any way.
Nopolycop Were you ever able to find employment anywhere? Un less you made admissions your results should not have been shared. Blame the agency, Blame an Individual Examiner. but "Polygraph"isn't responsible, but it still didn't cost you anything material other than filling out another application.
Gino, and you too George if your reading:I'm going to leave you with one question. I'm betting I don't get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject. Here it is any way.
Why haven't you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?
Ed,
First, I need to let you know how much I value your participation in this discussion. A discussion forum truly flourishes only when all points of view are represented.
QuoteOdd then that the words "abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don't appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm
The conclusion of the study was that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies"
The exact conclusion was that reliance on polygraphy in federal agencies is unjustifiable.
It's not exactly a great stretch to say that a statement concluding that a practice cannot be justified is also saying that the practice should be terminated. Not a stretch at all.
QuoteRegarding what you claim to be the AMA's Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT
Ask, and you shall receive:
The AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs recommended that the polygraph not be used in pre-employment screening and security clearance (Council on Scientific Affairs. 1986. Polygraph. Journal of the American Medical Association. 256: 1172-1175.).
QuoteDrew Richardson capable? Was he even capable of passing his polygraph internship? Drew may have had to lie to an examinee seven times on the handful of exams he conducted, but that doesn't prove anyone else does. He supposedly wrote the "Epitaph for polygraph almost 19 years ago. Can you cite one major piece of Federal Polygraph Legislation since EPPA in 1988? Your generalized statement accusing polygraph examiners of lying is an ad hominum attack on polygraph examiners
I have seen similar allegations that Drew Richardson somehow lacked the intellectual capacity to become a polygraph operator out of the operators' peanut gallery in the past.
Do you have any idea how foolish it makes you look when you assert that a man with a legit PhD in a hard science—who later went on to become the chief of chem/bio at FBI—lacked the intelligence to complete a polygraph operator's trade school? An "academic program" with less than ½ the classroom hours of a typical barber college?
Speaking of Dr. Richardson, in 2004, he made the following post outlining examiner deception:
Quote You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
Please point out any part where you feel he is incorrect.
QuoteIf George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him
Ed, judging by this statement and your earlier reference to the APA "on paper" position statement that polygraph results are not intended to be a sole determining factor in hiring, it seems you have little grasp of how pre-employment polygraphs are actually conducted by federal agencies.
In the roughly eight years that I have been involved with this organization, I have yet to hear of the FBI doing a breakdown of a specific series during a re-test. The select few who are granted a re-test are put through the entire series of questions and "fail" again nearly without exception.
QuoteYou and the other members of George' s anti polygraph posting coalition really over use that AD HOMINIM ATTACK JUNK. Doesn't your Latin Dictionary have more than one page? You fellows are always Ad Hominum this and Ad Hominum that, but you don't hesitate to accuse polygraph examiners of lying and chicanery.
In the eight years that this Web site has been online, the primary response from the community of polygraph operators has been name calling and other personal attacks. It is only natural for us to point this out when it occurs.
All of our allegations of deception on the part of individual polygraph operators like Ed Gelb have been thoroughly supported (Do you feel that he was not deceptive with regard to his educational credentials?).
With regard to our criticism of the deception present in the polygraph process as a whole, this, too, is well supported. Do you disagree with anything posted in Drew's list?
QuoteGino, and you too George if your reading:
I'm going to leave you with one question. I'm betting I don't get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject. Here it is any way.
Why haven't you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?
With regard to field situations, in addition to liars and criminals, plenty of truthful people are also employing countermeasures to protect themselves against false positive outcomes as a result of this unreliable "test." Thus, we could also prove the effectiveness of countermeasures with their assistance as well.
Regrettably, I don't think that we are going to have an easy time getting members of any of these three groups to confess.
A better way to test the effectiveness of polygraph countermeasures would be for an operator to step up to the countermeasure challenge prominently featured on the home page of this Web site.
Odd then that the words "abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don't appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm
Are you now agreeing that they in fact
did not call for the abolition of polygraph screening, only that abolition is the inference you drew from your interpretation of their comments. One would think that such an august body as the National Academy of Sciences, would clearly state what they mean in such a manner as to leave as little as possible open to inference. In short if they wanted it abolished, why didn't they say so?
Quote:
Regarding what you claim to be the AMA's Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT
Ask, and you shall receive:
QuoteThe AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs recommended that the polygraph not be used in pre-employment screening and security clearance (Council on Scientific Affairs. 1986. Polygraph. Journal of the American Medical Association. 256: 1172-1175.).
My link provides the abstract for the very article you are citing. Its odd that if the AMA is taking the position you described that something similar and unequivocal wasn't mentioned in the abstract. Of course at this point JAMA articles from that time period are not currently available on line while the reconstruct their online archive. I am perfectly willing to accept the abstract which everyone can read as their position on the matter, which is closer to what I have said than your characterization of words we are not capable of reading ourselves.
QuoteI have seen similar allegations that Drew Richardson somehow lacked the intellectual capacity to become a polygraph operator out of the operators' peanut gallery in the past.
Do you have any information that Drew Richardson ever ran a field polygraph on a criminal case or competed a polygraph internship. A PHD does not automatically bestow polygraph knowledge or skill sets.
Likewise his comments that you provided are so broad and general that they show little specific knowledge of the practical application of polygraph. I will discuss them below.
QuotePlease point out any part where you feel he is incorrect.
QuoteWith regard to our criticism of the deception present in the polygraph process as a whole, this, too, is well supported. Do you disagree with anything posted in Drew's list?
Actually I feel he is incorrect on at least all seven. The reason I say that is the he is talking in broad generalizations and while they may have occurred in isolated polygraph examinations are not necessarily applicable to all examiners or all examinations so using any of those statements as evidence that "Polygraph Examiners" are liars is intentionally misleading but more specifically?
1. Polygraph examiners probably do not explain the autonomic nervous system in exactly the same way a doctor of physiology would explain it. How exactly would you explain the autonomic nervous system to say, a suspected rapist with a ninth grade education who doesn't know the difference between an axon hillock and Axel Rose or Dendrites from Dentyne? Most polygraph examiners that I've heard give a fairly good lay explanation of what happens during a sympatheic activation as it relates to the data collected by the components. I haven't heard them all. Neither has he.
Even examinees with advanced degrees who aren't students of medicine are likely to have a great deal difficulty of following a text book explanation of the process.
2. Neither you or Drew know how all examiners explain the stim test to examinees. Drew may recall how he was initially taught, but all examiners don't use a stim test an all don't explain it exactly the same way.
3. How exactly do you believe that examiner's represent the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam
4. Old news. Some recent studies show that the examinees knowledge of the function of comparison questions have little or no effect on the outcome of an examination. Since it doesn't really matter why do you presume that "Examiners" lie about it.
5. Drew has very little idea about what "examiners" as a group represent about the recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand. At best he has limited knowledge from whatever examinations he has personally conducted, those he has personally observed and questionable anecdotal comments from people he may have talked to. At best that is probably going to account for a less than hundredth of a percent of the examinations conducted without him.
6. Interrogational themes are a tool used my 99% of criminal investigators regardless of polygraph. If deception during interrogation has received broad acceptance by the courts. Even if it had not; for him to conclude that all polygraph examiners lie during post test interrogations is an overgeneralization unsupportable by data. Which he then attempts to support with more opinion and supposition with his sub points 1 and 2.
7. That's an opinion and as such really doesn't prove or establish anything
QuoteEd, judging by this statement and your earlier reference to the APA "on paper" position statement that polygraph results are not intended to be a sole determining factor in hiring, it seems you have little grasp of how pre-employment polygraphs are actually conducted by federal agencies.
In the roughly eight years that I have been involved with this organization, I have yet to hear of the FBI doing a breakdown of a specific series during a re-test. The select few who are granted a re-test are put through the entire series of questions and "fail" again nearly without exception.
We know that in the 7 years between 1994 and 2001 the FBI ran approximately 27,000 pre-employment polygraph tests. I think it is fair to presume that they have conducted close to that many in the last eight years. Considering that you probably haven't talk to all of them, How many conversations are you relying upon in order to conclude that they have never run a breakdown test on pre-employment or that at some point in the last 8 years their policy has not changed? Even if we presume, for the sake of argument that you are absolutely correct you are only calling attention to an agency problem not a "Polygraph" problem
QuoteAll of our allegations of deception on the part of individual polygraph operators like Ed Gelb have been thoroughly supported (Do you feel that he was not deceptive with regard to his educational credentials?).
My point exactly if you find a deception on the part of a single polygrapher you attempt to tar all with the same brush.
Quote
Gino, and you too George if your reading:
I'm going to leave you with one question. I'm betting I don't get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject. Here it is any way.
Why haven't you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?
With regard to field situations, in addition to liars and criminals, plenty of truthful people are also employing countermeasures to protect themselves against false positive outcomes as a result of this unreliable "test." Thus, we could also prove the effectiveness of countermeasures with their assistance as well.
Regrettably, I don't think that we are going to have an easy time getting members of any of these three groups to confess.
A better way to test the effectiveness of polygraph countermeasures would be for an operator to step up to the countermeasure challenge prominently featured on the home page of this Web site.
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. A truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work. It would be impossible to separate those who passed because they told the truth from those who passed because they attempted countermeasures. The only Identifiable subset would be those who attempted countermeasures and were caught. That also assumes that countermeasures even work research cited by NAS establishes that honest people who atempt countermeasures actually decrease their chances of passing a polygraph. If the study is correct, truthful people who attempt countermeasures fail and the NAS also said that it isn't very likely that someone could learn the effective application of countermeasures by reading your book.
The ONLY way to prove in a field situation that countermeasures are an effective way to pass a polygraph is for a liar or criminal to attempt countermeasures, lie on the relevant questions, pass the test, and then confirm that they were lying. So In order for you to prove that countermeasures work in the real world requires a level of cooperation you are unlikely to obtain from people you really shouldn't believe. You will never be able to effectivly separate a successful countermeasure attempt from a false negative and yet you regularly criticize polygraph reserach. You can't even figure out how to research the stuff you teach in your book.
One of the long held criticisms of polygraph research is that laboratory studies are unable to approximate field conditions with any reliability. The challenge that has been proposed would have the same inherent faults that have been openly criticized on this site.
Instead of talking about polygraphers like they are all exactly the same and do their jobs exactly the same. You need to separate the actions of individuals from "polygraph" as a whole and you also need to separate policy decisions made by hiring authorities from "polygraph" as a whole. "Polygraph" cannot dictate policy or the behavior of individual examiners in a manner that would make "polygraph" responsible for the majority of the criticisms on this board any more than "Medicine" can be held responsible for he behavior of a doctor or the policies of a hospital.
Quote1. Polygraph examiners probably do not explain the autonomic nervous system in exactly the same way a doctor of physiology would explain it. How exactly would you explain the autonomic nervous system to say, a suspected rapist with a ninth grade education who doesn't know the difference between an axon hillock and Axel Rose or Dendrites from Dentyne? Most polygraph examiners that I've heard give a fairly good lay explanation of what happens during a sympatheic activation as it relates to the data collected by the components. I haven't heard them all. Neither has he.
Even examinees with advanced degrees who aren't students of medicine are likely to have a great deal difficulty of following a text book explanation of the process.
Gee, that doesn't stop polygraph operators from lying to applicants by telling them that reactions on the machine mean deception. In fact, the phrase "deception indicated" is the standard term used to describe reactions. Which isn't true. Examiners purposely LIE to applicants, and as such, are deceptive as Dr. Drew Richardson says.
And if an applicant brings up the fact that a reaction DOES NOT necessarily mean what the examiner says it does, the examiner often gets all pissed off, or scoffs arrogantly at the applicant. Or
pontificates like an ole "poop"!
QuoteThe ONLY way to prove in a field situation that countermeasures are an effective way to pass a polygraph is for a liar or criminal to attempt countermeasures, lie on the relevant questions, pass the test, and then confirm that they were lying.
If you truly believe what you have written, then why are the statements of people who have told the truth and failed their polygraph dismissed as unimportant anectdotal evidence?
What is the difference in reliability between a person who says they lied but used countermeasures and passed, and a person who did nothing wrong, told the truth on their polygraph, and failed? The liar admitted he was lying, so he is more trustworthy than the police applicant who has told the truth on his entire application?
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
QuoteIf you truly believe what you have written, then why are the statements of people who have told the truth and failed their polygraph dismissed as unimportant anecdotal evidence?
Sergeant I have never said that false positives don't occur. The problem with anecdotal evidence is three-fold:
1st an unsubstantiated claim isn't really proof
2nd anecdotal evidence of a false positive does not discriminate between problems with policy, problems with an individual examiner or problems with polygraph as a whole. The person relating the anecdote is generally ill qualified to determine the distinction between causative factors important to arriving at a definitive conclusion related to the cause of the false positive.
2nd and what I think is the more significant problem with anecdotal evidence presented on this board lies in the fact that there are an insufficient number of these claims to establish with a reasonable level of certainty that they represent any significant number greater that the known error rate from existing research. Anyone who failed a polygraph while telling the truth would logically and understandably feel that their experience was significant because of their personal involvement, but until the numbers of these claims exceed the known error rates from research they are statistically inconsequential.
moving along..
Where exactly in my post did I say that a mere admission by the examinee would be sufficient to "CONFIRM" they were lying for the purpose of proving the hypothesis that countermeasures are effective? They would have to admit that they were both lying and attempting countermeasures, but confirmation might involve more corroboration. If you wish to conduct your research in that manner then we can critique your protocols after you obtain some quantifiable results. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR CONFIRMATION, the process STILL requires a level of cooperation you are unlikely to obtain from
people you really shouldn't believe.
But the question was and is: Since it is unlikely countermeasure research will ever be able to effectively separate a successful countermeasure attempt from a false negative tends to render this opposing hypothesis,( that countermeasures work in field applications,) proffered by TLBTHD virtually immeasurable; what qualifies the authors to criticize polygraph research considering there are a multitude of peer reviewed published research studies that show polygraph works in its stated purpose of detecting liars as rates significantly better than chance? NAS questioned the likelihood that anyone would be able to learn and effectively implement countermeasures from reading books like TLBTLD.
Cullen you are putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. That is the same problem with Drew Richardson's conclusion that "Polygraphers" lie at least seven times in every polygraph.
Guys, don't sell field practitioners short, Sergeant might tell you that the average street cop with a few years under his belt knows more about the field applied psychology than many doctors practicing psychotherapy even though the cop may have never even opened a copy of DSMV-IV. As an example: Those big cash and drug seizures you see about in the news that occur on highways. The vast majority of those seizures occur as a direct result of the psychological manipulation of a driver (approved by our courts) into surrendering his rights against self incrimination and his right to refuse a search of his vehicle. In an 8 hour school, rookie policemen are taught the technique and turned loose on the public to seek drug dealers. But when the officer is wrong, you'll never hear about it on the news. Sergeant knows exactly the technique I am talking about and I would not be the least bit surprised to find out he has proven proficiency. When highway drug interdiction first started gaining popularity in the 80's cops and troopers who wouldn't get out of their car for anything short of a fatality started making traffic stops for failing to signal a lane change in order to put themselves in a lawful contact to implement the technique?
The vast majority of the kinesics clues that are taught to police officers by Reid, Inbau, Walters, Foster, et al are based on observation of visual clues pointing to an autonomic sympathetic reaction to question stimulus. There is far more psychological manipulation and manipulation of this reaction occurring in interview rooms or on the side of the highway clear across our country than occurs in most polygraph rooms.
In closing Drew Richardson's statment that all polygraphers lie at least seven times in any polygraph is no more accurate or supportable than claiming Columbus discovered the world was round.
Since you repeatedly refer to it, what is the known error rate of the polygraph during pre-employment testing?
QuoteCullen you are putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. That is the same problem with Drew Richardson's conclusion that "Polygraphers" lie at least seven times in every polygraph.
The phrase "DECEPTION indicated" is not just used by "a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases". It's routinely used by polygraphic interrogators to describe chart reactions. Use of the term appears to be fairly standard. And it is NOT true. A reaction does not indicated 'deception", any more than blood in the stool indicates "cancer".
TC
You have obviously never read the definition of
indicated.
Here's one http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indicated?qsrc=2888
QuoteIt's routinely used by polygraphic interrogators to describe chart reactions
Cullen you are AGAIN putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. You are in no position to know what "examiners" routinely do which adds a second fallacious argument to your comment by your uninformed opinion. While the term
Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart. The term Deception Indicated is not currently approved by APA as a finding for any screening protocol absent a specific issue breakdown test to clarify any reactions observed during screening. Your conclusions, like Drew Richardson's statment that all polygraphers lie at least seven times in any polygraph is no more accurate or supportable than claiming Columbus discovered the world was round.
Sergeant the information for you to find that data is contained in the NAS study and in the JAMA abstract that has been posted Ad Nauseum. Look it up if you need to. However, if a high error rate is established by legitimate research it just weakens your argument regarding the value and consequence of anecdotal claims, I see no need to "run the numbers for you in order to make my point, which was that unless the anecdotal claims establish a clear question of the existence hgher pecentages that known error rates established by research, then they are inconsequential.
I will acknowledge that depending on the protocols of the individual studies, error rates appear different. The NAS statistical example for security screening of 10,000 employees uses a 90% accuracy rate and reports potential false positives in the 15% range. The FBI reports unresolved failed pre-employment tests in the 7% range. Using their numbers, False positives will necessarily fall somewhere in the 1% to 7% range. Absent some method of verification, separating false positives from true positives isn't possible. This is why APA does not recomend that agencies base their hiring decisions solely on the results of a pre-employment polygraph test.
So Sergeant, have you ever engaged in any roadside psychological manuipulation in order to obtain a consent to search? Ever manipulated a drug trafficker into a lie by getting him to deny that he was carrying drugs or money and then once obtaining the denial asking him a double edged question to manipulate him in to consenting to a search. Does your agency condone that practice? Have you attended Reid or Walters' schools. What is the ratio of officers trained in kinesics interrogation techniques or drug interdiction to the number of polygraphers in your agency? Just curious.
It seems rather disingenuous to refer to "the error rate" and yet be unable to cite what that error rate is. If you don't know what it is how can you be sure the error rate is not 80%? Or 50%? Or any other significantly high number?
I only bring this up because it seems to reinforce the belief that polygraph examiners simply believe their instrument is very accurate, which logically lends them no more credibility than people who believe the polygraph is not accurate.
Actually, since of the two people involved in any polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for certain if the results are accurate (barring any physical evidence that verifies the result), the examinee is a more credible judge of the polygraph's accuracy.
At the end of my first three polygraphs, the examiner believed I had been deceptive, whereas I knew I had been truthful. The examiners believed their process was accurate, whereas I knew it was not. Whose opinion should be given greater weight? Especially since you have already written about the difficulty of obtaining accurate results in test subjects in laboratory conditions for whom there is not really anything tangible at stake, isn't anectdotal evidence all we have left?
QuoteWhile the term Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart.
Anonymous too/Ed Earl (sancho panza/phil queeg?),
And just what the hell is supposedly used to determine the "results of the entire specific polygraph test"? Do polygraphers analyze the patterns on the chart, or the shape of the suspects toe nails?
You can't get around the fact that polygraphers claim the machine to be accurate in detecting deception. Claims of 98% accuracy in determining deception abound.
You can analyze chart patterns to your heart's content, submit it all to fancy computer algorithms, whatever, the underlying theory is that chart reactions indicate "deception". And, of course, that is a pseudo scientific falsehood! GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!
TC
P.S. What's with the cyber multi-personality disorder. Are you trying to make it appear that you are "many in number"? Is that really necessary to make your case?
Cullen Your arguments are overgeneralized and uninformed and your attacks are ad hominum. Kindly address the arguments or don't address me at all
Sergeant I didn't say I didn't know what they were, I told you where to find them. I simply declined to post them for you because it has been my experience that if I were to quote the numbers, instead of responding to the numbers the members of this board would simply attack my representation of the reasearch. So go read them yourself, they are not hard to find. Post them if you feel they support your position but I encourage you to ise the research and not someone elses characterization of the research.
I think that the real reason that you want to get into a numbers argument on error rate is that you have found yourself unable to refute my comments. I can certainly see why you would want to change the subject.
You are at the very least unwilling to respond to my questions about the way some cops and troopers seem to use deceipt and psychological manipulation to con drivers into waiving their rights.
One more thing Cullen responding to an accusation of overgeneralization with more generalization isn't really very effective.
Why do you suppose Columbus carried an astrolabe?
QuoteCullen Your arguments are overgeneralized and uninformed and your attacks are ad hominum. Kindly address the arguments or don't address me at all
Mr. Anonymous too, Ed, or whoever you are today,
You're argument that I am overgeneralizing, when I am actually just giving the general facts, is itself an overgeneralization.
TC
P.S. How can I be perpetrating "ad hominem" attacks when you use multiple anonymous, fictional or literary monikers? We don't actually know who you are. At any rate, even if you used your REAL name, I was just presenting you with the facts you eschew. OTOH, you falsely accused me of posting excerpts from the NAS report that you claimed didn't exist, which they did. IOW, you lied. Shame on you for such hypocrisies!
Columbus carried an astrolabe to gauge the height of STDs on his travels. Everyone knows that.
Quote from: Ed Earl on Mar 10, 2009, 08:02 PMSergeant I didn't say I didn't know what they were, I told you where to find them. I simply declined to post them for you because it has been my experience that if I were to quote the numbers, instead of responding to the numbers the members of this board would simply attack my representation of the reasearch. So go read them yourself, they are not hard to find. Post them if you feel they support your position but I encourage you to ise the research and not someone elses characterization of the research.
I think that the real reason that you want to get into a numbers argument on error rate is that you have found yourself unable to refute my comments. I can certainly see why you would want to change the subject.
You are at the very least unwilling to respond to my questions about the way some cops and troopers seem to use deceipt and psychological manipulation to con drivers into waiving their rights.
I see... You know but you won't say...
WIth regards to the tactics some police officers use when dealing with suspected drug couriers, that has nothing to do with the current topic under discussion. I can understand why you would seek to go off on a tangent and make the conversation about me, but I decline to do so.
For a polygraph supporter it must be difficult to come up with a logical reason or reasons to refute the idea that, barring any corroborative phsical evidence, the only one who knows if each polygraph result is accurate or not is the examinee, not the examiner. Yet examiners are the ones who claim to be the authority on the results of the tests and the accuracy of the process. It seems backwards to me, and is simply not logical on its face.
TWOBLOCK The height of STDs??? Interesting. Are you perhaps comfused concerning the difference between Astrolabe and Astrolube?
( the obvious ANALogous quips concerning your confusion would probably get me accused of an AD HOMINUM attack)
Oh well I'm not that surprised. Did you know there were people on here who think Columbus discovered the earth was round?
Sergeant, I not only told you where to find the numbers you asked for, I provided you numbers from the NAS study and the FBI and then explained them for you. If you are going to learn, you need to figure out how to look things uo.
Polygraphers have been repeatedly accused of lying and psychological manipulation on this board. I think a discussion about a nationwide program that teaches 100 or 1000 times more police officers how to lie and psychologically manipulate people into surrendering their rights not only germain to the topic. It also provides perspective. It isn't going off on a tangient at all. I'm sorry if it hits too close to home for you to provide a comfortable response, but the question was not about you. If you look at the questions I first asked about interdiction it was about your experience and knowledge of the program.
When a police officer suspects someone of drunk driving the driver is the only person who knows if they have been drinking too much or using drugs, but the officer still puts them through a screening test without even informing them that they have the right to refuse. He then uses a subjective "scoring system" to render an opinion as to whether or not the subject is under the influence. Without any further information the officer can handcuff them, tow their car and haul them off to jail. If a blood test is used, the suject is booked and in order to obtain release the subject has to post bond. weeks or months later if it turns out the subject was stone cold sober, He doesn't get an apology, he doesn't get back the money he paid his bondsman, and he doesn't get back the money he paid the towing company all because of a subjective opinion rendered as a result of an error ridden screening test. The only way he can get anything back is to file an expensive law suit that costs him more money and the same error ridden screening test is used to defend the officer from accusations of false arrest.
Everyone knows that there is no single or group of observable physical characteristics that only be attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication. Are there? Likewise there are no observable characteristics of a driver or vehicle moving down the highway that only be attributed to drug trafficking. An inderdiction officer screens the driver and vehicle and renders an opinion based on his observations. An applicant who fails a polygraph fills out another application and goes to work elsewhere. Isn't that what you did?
The only thing preventing you from seeing the similarities that exist in screenig drunk drivers, drug traffickers and liars is a set of blinders.
In any case the question that changed this line of discussion from a clear and convincing example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory, http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html (you should read this if you haven't. If it wasn't for polygraph this guy might have gone to work for your agency.) was this one:
QuoteGino, and you too George if your reading:
I'm going to leave you with one question. I'm betting I don't get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject. Here it is any way.
Why haven't you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?
George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself.
I am becoming more and more convinced that you guys are using the back end of this forum to plan response strategies. Unless of course some or all of you are just some of George's "alternate personas"
QuoteGeorge must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself.
Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again. I wasn't trying to divert your attention from anything, I didn't write about the efficacy of countermeasures, and I hardly think my posts regarding the "error rate" you referred to could reasonably be considered an "incessant demand" of any sort.
Maybe you will have a different response after rereading my earlier posts.
Sergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.
To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?
Quote from: Ed Earl on Mar 12, 2009, 08:46 AMSergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.
To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?
Please see my response at the top of this page. Your question about me have nothing to do with the topic of this thread and are irrelevant to my previous posts.
If you have an issue with someone accusing you of deception you should probably take it up with whomever is accusing you. I have not done so, but apparently my questions have nonetheless struck a nerve.
QuoteCullen you are AGAIN putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. You are in no position to know what "examiners" routinely do which adds a second fallacious argument to your comment by your uninformed opinion. While the term Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart.
Oh really?
Recent post from applicant today:
QuoteYes she specifically said "deception indicated". I then asked what questions showed reaction for my own knowledge and she said....All questions even the "known truth" questions. So.......if all questions were smiliar as for sensitivity wouldnt that still be considered "inconclusive" because technically you cant tell whether im lying or telling truth when the meter jumps on EVERY question. I know im not a polygraph expert but i dont understand. Undecided
Here's another posted just today:
QuoteI was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin. d today
"Deception indicated" is used routinely and to describe specific answers to specific questions. The above is an example.
You failure to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that polygraphers routinely claim the polygraph machine capable of "detecting deception" hurts your credibility. But by all means, keep it up.
TC
Ed Earl,
It is a simple fact that no polygrapher has ever adduced any evidence that departments or agencies that use pre-employment screening have workforces that are in any way better than those of agencies that do not.
As I pointed out here (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=4242.msg32337#msg32337), it would be easy to obtain such information, but polies don't do so and don't even care about doing so. That is strong evidence that their claims to want to improve the personnel at these places is bunk--they just care about their own enrichment and aggrandizement.
If you do have actual statistical data that pre-employment screenings improve the quality of a places workforce in any meaningful way, you will do us all the greatest favor by sharing it. I'm not going to hold my breath.
Lethe,
Ed "E.B." Van Arsdale, Ponca City, OK. (aka Ed Earl, Sancho Panza, Anonymous too, Phillip Queeg) was banned again. So you are posting to a ghost.
Give him a call and schedule a polygraph! Talk over old times. Just do not squeeze your (or his) cheeks!
TC
Why was Ed banned? He made a lot of sense in his arguments and was getting the best of Mr. Cullen and others most of the time.
Ed provides some pretty good advice to attorney client prospects trying to decide on whether or not to have THEIR clients voluntarily submit to a police polygraph:
1. If the police polygraph examiner becomes "aggressive or accusatory", IMEDIATELY TERMINATE the polygraph.
2. Do NOT submit to a POST TEST INTERROGATION.
This speaks volumes coming from a retired police polygrapher/detective.
Of course it only applies to police polygraphs not employment polygraphs,
TC
P.S. He denied vehemently while posting here under his many aliases that the polygraph was an INTERROGATION.
That doesn't explain why he was banned. Multiple aliases, I suspect, are also used by administrators of this forum, but that doesn't affect the validity of an argument. The only time that would be a reason for banning someone would be if one alias was communicating with another alias (all by the same person) in a dishonest effort to support an argument while pretending to be two or more people.
Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
He (Mr. Van Arsdale Queeg Panza) was banned months ago when posting as Sancho Panza. I forget why. So he had already been banned before coming back under new aliases.
QuoteAlso, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
Sounds reasonable to me. So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Apr 22, 2009, 09:05 PMAlso, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy, which has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml), is all about interrogation.
Polygraphers would have you believe that unless there is a "post test interrogation", the polygraph is not an interrogation. However.....
During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated.
Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the chart was indicating I was being deceptive. "Why is that Tom? Why would you be having trouble with that question? Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts? Is there anything you have to tell me?!"
It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators. Duh?
This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory. Which they usually do?
Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?
Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game. To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE!
TC
There should be no reason why a polygraph examiner would typically stop between question sets and "interrogate" the examinee. In fact, doing so before the data collection phase of the exam is finished would likely have the effect of sensitizing the examinee to the relevant questions, which any polygraph examiner worth his salt would know to avoid doing. The fact that you claim this occurred during every polygraph you have taken suggests a defect in the polygrapher's training or his own methods. There should be no interrogation during the data collection phase of a polygraph. Such practice reflects poorly on the individual examiner, not on the polygraph itself. I'm curious. Was your polygrapher at the federal or state level?
While Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all. The other methods of evidence collecting DO often lead to interrogation of a subject because they point an investigator in the right direction and encourage the investigator that he/she is on the right track. Likewise, the polygraph, if you accept it as having a scientific basis, which many of you on this forum don't but which almost all polygraphers do, then it also points the investigator in the right direction. Feeling that he/she now has evidence against a subject, the polygrapher will, and should, go into interrogation mode.
QuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
It makes no sense, because that is not what he posted.
He posted:
"If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests."TC
Perhaps if you're talking about independent polygraphers, Mr. Cullen. But not when you're talking about polygraphers who are part of a police department or federal agency, where they are often themselves investigators for their departments or agencies.
Now, before you talk about conflicts of interest, let me continue. One thing that the "Anti-" crowd on this forum never talks about--and perhaps doesn't realize--is that most good polygraphers go into every exam with an impartial viewpoint. You have to not care one way or the other whether your examinee, even an accused defendant, passes or fails the exam. A good polygrapher will tell the investigators, the attorneys, and the examinee that the polygrapher is not there to pre-judge the examinee. In fact, prior to all such exams I've conducted, I've always told everyone, including the examinee, that I don't care one way or the other how the exam turns out. It is not the polygrapher's job--prior to the end of the data collection phase of the exam--to pass judgment or to even interrogate the examinee.
Now, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved. Just as the CSI investigators who work for departments or agencies, who conduct those other types of evidence collection are an extension of the investigative process, so are polygraphers, but only after an examinee has broken his/her promise to be truthful during the exam.
QuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
So did George really make that claim or not?
TC
Whoops, hit save by accident
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 24, 2009, 05:24 PMQuoteWhile Mr. Maschke (in his last post on this thread) claims that if the polygraph had a scientific basis there would be no need to interrogate a subject, this makes no sense at all.
So did George really make that claim or not?
QuoteNow, once an examinee has clearly failed an exam, things will and should change, whether the polygrapher represents his/her department or agency, or the polygrapher is independent. At that point, unless there has been some kind of pre-exam agreement between attorneys, the polygrapher will definitely want to get to the bottom of the examinee's lies, and in fact will generally be expected to attempt to do so by all parties involved.
Examinee lies? How do you know that the examinee actually lied?
Why would Sancho be against allowing one of his fellow polygrapher operators getting to the bottom of these ALLEGED lies?
TC
Yes, he did make that claim. He said that polygraphers should have no role in interrogating those they test. Why do you keep asking the same question? I thought I was clear, but apparently not clear enough.
How do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely. And no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.
Sorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?
QuoteHow do I "know" he lied? Well, if he's a subject in one of my polygraph exams and he failed, it's certainly possible that he's a false positive, but extremely unlikely.
How do you know it is "extremely unlikely" for a person to be a false positive?
The fact is, you don't know whether a person has lied or told the truth based on the results of a polygraph.
QuoteAnd no, I don't want to once again get into a big discussion about this study and that study with one more person on this forum who has absolutely no experience as a polygraph examiner but who will open his smelly box of old, worn-out tennis shoes he borrowed from someone else who has no experience either, so please don't expect me to waste my time that way.
In other words, you make a very weak argument that falls to dust after being asked to answer some simple questions to back up your claims. Namely, that false positives are "extremely unlikely", and that a person who fails a polygraph (which only measures some rudimentary physiological data) is lying and must be interrogated to "get to the bottom of those lies".
But we woldn't want to waste your precious time.
QuoteSorry, Mr. Cullen. I don't hang around this forum all the time, so I have no idea who "Sancho" is, nor do I care. Am I supposed to back him up? Did you misunderstand him too?
You were the one who brought up the topic of his banning. But you don't know who he is, nor care? Ah, okay. That makes as much sense as anything else you've posted here.
TC
We could go round and round on this, Mr. Cullen. I could point out studies that show what I believe, and you could point out studies that show what you believe. None of the studies would be conclusive, and there are definite problems with trying to correlate lab studies with real-life. I've argued studies before, and it's like two people from different religions trying to convince each other that theirs is right.
But I ask potential polygraph examinees this question: Who do you think is more credible--someone who can point out questionable studies but who has absolutely no experience in conducting polygraph exams, or someone who can also point out questionable studies, but who has the experience of having conducted a very large number of polygraphs?
And about "Sancho." I asked why Ed Earl was banned. I've never read anything posted by "Sancho." Are they one and the same? One thing's for sure, though: Mr. Earl (if indeed that's his real name) had you running in circles like a dog chasing its tail. Very impressive, banned or not.
@ Ed Earl
Ed Earl,
You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.
Quote from: 597C763354130 on Nov 20, 2019, 11:03 PM@ Ed Earl
Ed Earl,
You are a complete idiot with that example of police using a field sobriety test. Field sobriety test can be denied by the person and then given a test of a breathalyzer that IS scientific to determine their intoxication level. When you take a poly, you are fully at the control of the examiner and there is no disagreement allowed and no way to take something SCIENTIFIC to verify the results of the poly. I would assume you are/were a polygrapher, and I just want to say it is a joke profession that ruins many good applicants from working great jobs. You should or should have gotten a real job rather than making subjective opinions about examinees based on pseudoscience.
You are quite correct, a polygraph is based entirely on pseudo science – in short, it's nothing but a fraud. It's a massive, evil fraud which is perpetrated by thugs and charlatans who don't give a damn how many people they hurt as long as they can continue to unjustly enrich themselves. But there may be a time coming when they will be held accountable. I've got the beginnings of an idea about a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied employment or falsely accused of deception based on this pseudo-scientific test. Check this out and let me know if there's anything you can help me with by way of suggestion. Anyone is welcome to chime in. https://polygraph.com/sue-the-bastards.html