Ex-FBI Agent Pleads Guilty to Child Abuse

[Fair Chance]

Marty,

As an applicant who "placed all of his cards on the table", my third polygraph examiner seemed to take it all in stride.  I would tend to think that any applicant who has gone through two polygraphs, was completely honest, and accused would investigate accordingly.  The FBI wants the best and brightest with experience and spirit.  How could they not expect the applicant to dig and research the polygraph to understand the whole complexity of the accusations without concrete evidence.  To say that one has not investigated polygraph procedure by this point would almost insure that the examiner would not believe your statement.  

It is wrong to assume anything.  The government does many things to many people for many years that is wrong and it takes quite alot of effort and work to make long lasting changes.  In the Valley of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is King, and the government sometimes needs glasses for its one good eye.

Make your votes count this November.   I will defend the Constitution and your right to change it as long as people play within the guidelines.  Somethings need changing and the right to deny someone employment solely based on polygraph pre-screening results needs to be changed.

Regards as always.

[Marty]

Marty,

As an applicant who "placed all of his cards on the table", my third polygraph examiner seemed to take it all in stride.  I would tend to think that any applicant who has gone through two polygraphs, was completely honest, and accused would investigate accordingly.

Fair Chance,

I have enormous respect for the up front way you dealt with the poly and I quite agree with your assumption. Further, I think in some cases where examinees have reason to be suspicious of the poly such investigation would precede the first poly. The "60 minutes" segment alone would have been more than enough for me to look into it if I were an applicant. Additionally, people with something to hide would also be more likely to investigate it.

So long as the polygraph procedures extant assume examinee ignorance of the considerable conditioning and manipulation polygraphers employ one remains extremely skeptical of the claims that polygraphy can be as reliably utilized against the knowledgable.

As for your third test, did you notice modifications in the test process vs the first two as a result of your open and friendly discussion with the polygrapher?

-Marty

[Fair Chance]

Marty,

I third experience was almost a mirror of my first.  Same style, same questions, no displayed hostility or disrespect.  My second one was combative during the whole experience.

To the best of my memory, the third felt exactly like the first which would make me wonder why the first one was not acceptable.

The whole process is so subjective to personal interpretation which certainly does not lead to confidence in it as a "scientific test."

I just have to wonder if the few confessions they get are worth the slander of reputations to false positives and the hard feelings generated toward the FBI as a "Defender of Constitutional Rights" by those who know they are innocent but cannot "prove" it.  All public employees have to get it through their heads that they serve the public and not the other way around.

[Marty]

Marty,

I third experience was almost a mirror of my first.  Same style, same questions, no displayed hostility or disrespect.

Fair Chance,

Did you identify the "controls" to the examiner during the pretest review or simply react as you would have had you not known the purpose? It seems odd the examiner would simply repeat the CQT with a probable lie question rather than giving you a directed lie test version.  OTOH, I have read that the FBI uses chart only scoring on the polygraph rather than the Reid global approach as it makes quality control possible. That being the case they may have little choice other than give the standard CQT. Perhaps Ray can shed some light or maybe he isn't so constrained.

-Marty

[Fair Chance]

Marty,

Definitely not directed lie questioning.  Absolutely CQT type questioning.  I was able to easily identify all control questions but did not try to supplement any physical responses.

The chart only response by the "board review" in Washington, D.C., is a definite possibility.  My second examiner could have skewed my results enough that a "chart only" review could have caused a false positive.  My second examiner was doing everything he could to "hype" my responses and cause me to over react (possibly to input from my first polygraph that I was not reactive enough).

I was absolutely accused of using countermeasures during my second polygraph which I did not use.  This could have been a reaction to a passing polygraph with too perfect a score (speculation on my part since I was not using any countermeasures) after having an inconclusive score (not responsive enough).

They could have used a comparitive chart from my first exam and my last exam to decide that the first "almost pass" was close enough to reactions on the third exam to "pass" me by comparison but not by direct score.

This is how unscientific the interpretations are.  As my father would say, "Liars can figure, and figures can lie."  

From a statistical or logical point of analysis, I cannot make heads of tales of the whole process.    The more I read and study the situation, the less I can understand the reasoning of the final evaluation.

Frustrating to say the least.

Regards.