Repost: Advanced Knowledge Of Polygraph Procedures (Questioning)

[Sergeant1107]

after asserting I had not stolen anything from the army, I had admitted to having a few old rifle mags in a box that was shipped home from the army

So were you failed as a result of your admission or on a call of deception?

During one part of the interview, the examiner asked me if I had stolen anything from the army while I was in.  I said that I hadn't. 

Later on (during what was obviously the post-test interview) I was asked if any "junk" had come home with me from the army.  I said that I had some tent pegs and canteens and stuff like that.  The examiner specifically asked me if I had any magazines, and I said that I did.  That was pretty much the end of the interview, though there was nothing said to tip me off that I had just failed.

The detective doing my background told me I had failed because I had lied; I originally said I had not stolen anything from the army, but under further questioning I had admitted to "stealing" magazines.  Not "having" magazines, but "stealing" magazines, which is an outright lie on the part of the examiner.  There is no way on earth I would have ever admitted to stealing magazines because that is not what happened.  I think any reasonable person would call that a gross mischaracterization of what had happened.

When I went back to the same examiner for another polygraph for another agency, I asked why I had been characterized as having lied.  The examiner told me that lots of people steal magazines so they can sell them in the civilian market.  After I explained that magazines, tent pegs, canteens, and the like are not accountable items in the army and that anything I brought home with me was still sitting in boxes in my parents' attic because it was essentially "junk" that I never had the slightest inkling to sell or do anything else with, the examiner simply said that they now understood my position.  No apologies, no "Gee, I guess I shouldn't have assumed that anyone with magazines is a thief and a liar," nothing.  This time through the examiner asked me specifically if I had taken any equipment home from the army with the intent of selling it, which is something that certainly should have been asked before incorrectly labeling me a liar the first time through.

After clearing up the examiner's incorrect assumptions that were obviously due to a complete lack of knowledge of all things military, I passed that polygraph.  I should have passed the previous one, too, since all of my answers were the same and I didn't lie or withhold information in either of them.

So I'm sure you can see why the idea of examiners assuming things to start off interviews is not one that sits well with me.

It certainly makes me wonder how many other veterans were "failed" by this examiner because they said they had magazines and therefore, according to this examiner's faulty logic and ignorance, they must have "stolen" them.

How many people fail when they truthfully say they have never driven drunk, or used marijuana, simply because the examiner assumes everyone has driven drunk and/or tried marijuana at least once?

[CrimsonCavalier]

anyone that cares,

Polygraph knowledge is only the tip of the iceberg in learning to defeat the examiner. And its always the examiner you beat. As I explained to the famous Dr. Rovner on a few occasions the true tricks of the polygraph examiner is the selling of the machine, that it does work. Now the 47 individuals we have trained,  not one has been detected as being deceptive or accused of using countermeasures. The best countermeasure of all is the subject knowing the tricks and the interrogation process. If the examiners show is not sold then the worst result is always inconclusive. And a subject so trained bests the polygraph every time.

good luck to you all  -  TheCorp