Looking for exam transcripts

[Andy Balmer]

Hello everyone,

I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated.

Cheers! Andy Balmer

[Wandersmann]

I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy. One chapter deals with how polygraph examinations are used in interrogations. I have a few transcripts of interrogations but would like to collect more to support my analysis. If anyone has a transcript they could share with me (it can be anonymised) that would be hugely appreciated.

Are you speaking of transcripts similar to those in a court proceeding or verbatim recording of the interrogation?

[Ex Member]

I'm a British academic writing an academic book which is critical of polygraphy.

Why?

[John M.]

Why?

Ummm, because people need to be educated on its limitations.  Or, maybe to show how stupid our leaders are for relying on it.  Or, how about to show how individual rights can be infringed on by judging someone based solely on the results of 'it'.

A better question is why not?

[Dan Mangan]

A better question is why not?
                   

Precisely.

Here is a yet a new wrinkle to the pseudoscience of polygraph "testing"...

The latest issue of the APA's house organ Polygraph magazine features an article enthusiastically supporting the use of Bayes' Theorem in the analysis of polygraph "test" results.

Coincidentally, a newly published article -- Bayesian inference for interpretation of polygraph results in the courtroom -- appearing in Law, Probability & Risk, which publisher Oxford University Press describes as "a fully refereed journal which publishes papers dealing with topics on the interface of law and probabilistic reasoning," by polygraph critic Alan Zelicoff, co-authored by Steven E. Rigdon, apparently shoots holes in the argument espousing the use of Bayes' Theorem in connection with polygraph "testing."

Here's an excerpt from the publisher's abstract of the Zelicoff/Rigdon article:

Despite more than 80 years of field use, there is very limited data that may be applied to assess the diagnostic utility of the polygraph for purposes of establishing the innocence of a defendant. In this article, we present a fully Bayesian analysis of what is probably the largest and most realistic existing data set and we obtain the posterior distribution for the PPV (the probability of guilt conditioned on 'failing' the polygraph) and the NPV (the probability of innocence conditioned on 'passing' the polygraph). We show that these quantities have a high degree of uncertainty that is often unexpressed when just point estimates are given.

On its web site, the APA continues to make this claim:  "...APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."

Such boasting is misleading at best. Polygraph consumers worldwide should beware -- and look cautiously to any APA response to the Oxford article authored by Zelicoff and Rigdon.

Why do polygraph professionals continue to ignore the NAS report and characterize polygraph "test" accuracy in terms of a percentage? In my professional opinion -- and I'm a full member of the APA with 13 years of experience --polygraph "testing" is mainly about one thing: MONEY. Expressing polygraph accuracy in percentages is key to winning (and keeping) business.

When consumers grasp the reality of polygraph accuracy, they quickly lose interest in the "test."

As I see it, here's the bottom line: Even with the statistical contortions afforded by Bayes' Theorem, polygraph "testing" is still a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

[John M.]

Thank you Dan.

Probability.  That's what we're talking about here - plain and simple.

What is an acceptable ratio?  CBP has less than 40% pass rate. A recent Homeland Security OIG report estimated that 875,000 people will need to apply to meet current hiring goals.  That's a crap load of polygraphers polygraphing.

Bias and greed breed corruption.  Those involved cover for each other and hide under the guise of 'Office of Security', where records are 'classified'.

With HR 2213 and S1560 coming up for debate next session, it would be a great time to petition our Congressmen and Senators.

Or, just sue the crap out of them.  I had my individual rights violated by these corrupt officials and I know that I'm not the only one - because they told me so - in 'discovery'.  And that's just DIA.

Making an unfavorable judgement against someone based solely on the results of the 'polygraph' should be illegal - everywhere.

[Ex Member]

Problem is.. the question was not directed to you. Andy, please answer if you will.

[John M.]

Problem is

Who's got the problem?

[Ex Member]

I guess I do. I just want to know his experience which motivated him to write the book but have to endure you answering on his behalf.

[Wandersmann]

Problem is.. the question was not directed to you. Andy, please answer if you will.

Andy is incredibly rude.  He asks a question, generates all this discussion and never responds to people who take the time to respond to him.  Maybe he is just someone with disingenuous intent.   

[John M.]

have to endure you answering on his behalf

I was under the impression that this was a public message board.  If you feel that you have to endure answers on his behalf, perhaps you should use the private message function.

I have.

[Doug Williams]

"The latest issue of the APA's house organ Polygraph magazine features an article enthusiastically supporting the use of Bayes' Theorem in the analysis of polygraph "test" results."

This "Bayes' Theorem" bullshit put forth by the polygraph industry is a perfect example of what W.C. Fields meant when he famously said, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

And you are absolutely right, the polygraph "testing" serves no useful purpose.  It is simply a means to unjustly enrich the thugs who administer these "tests".

[Dan Mangan]

This "Bayes' Theorem" bullshit put forth by the polygraph industry is a perfect example of what W.C. Fields meant when he famously said, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

Doug, that is so true!

As you have maintained for decades, the polygraph "test" is a ruse.

From what I've observed since becoming a *certified* examiner in 2004, the "evidenced based" polygraph indu$try leaders are bent on espousing a scientific foundation, while intellectually whistling past the graveyard.

But let that go. People will believe what they want to believe.

IMHO, the polygraph scene is mainly about money.

Fun fact: After working at a state prison for 5+ years doing polygraphs on sex offenders, I discovered the truth about the "test" -- and how easy it is to beat it.

The secret is simple, so simple.

I am continually amazed seeing the expressions on peoples' faces when I explain the so-called science behind polygraph "testing" to them.

But I digress...

Bayes theorem applied to polygraph "te$ting" is nothing but a marketing gimmick -- at least in my professional opinion.

No matter how it's packaged, polygraph is just a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.

Don't believe otherwise.

Anyone got questions?

I have answers.

603-801-5179

[Andy Balmer]

Hello everyone,

Thank you for the responses. Please accept an apology for the slow response. I have been deep in the writing of the book and I mistakenly thought I'd get an email if anyone responded. I will be sure to check more frequently, now.

To answer the question about what I am looking for:

I want the verbatim transcripts from the actual polygraph interrogations/interviews with police officers/examiners. I have a lot of court opinions and the odd trial transcript but the actual examination transcripts are much harder to find. I am happy to receive documents, or audio/video files which I can transcribe myself.

To answer the question as to why I am writing the book:

I wrote my PhD thesis on lie detection, critically engaging with the scientific account and with the social history of the polygraph's use. I also wrote about the emergence of sex offender lie detection in a journal article and have written a paper about the social history of the polygraph machine. I am now writing a monograph about it. It is a mix of social history, socio-legal studies and 'science and technology studies' (a field which examines how science works from a sociological perspective). In the book, I have a chapter about polygraph interrogations, explaining how examiners manipulating subjects into providing information, how the line is blurred between exam and interrogation, and how the techniques employed by examiners can produce false confessions. To improve my analysis I was hoping to get access to some more transcripts, to see how different examiners implement the same kinds of techniques.

I hope that explains a bit more about what I'm up to. Apologies for the delay once again.

Cheers,
Andy

[Dan Mangan]

Andy, have you been following the pro-polygraph writings of your fellow countryman Dr. Don Grubin? It seems he's had great success.

Perhaps Dr. Grubin would be willing to share videos of his polygraph exams with you.

In my professional opinion -- and I'm a full member of the APA with 13 years of experience, over five of them doing polygraph "tests" on convicted sex offenders in a prison setting -- the polygraph "test" is a sick joke.

Polygraph is mainly about money, at least from what I've experienced.

That's the key message you need to expose.

Contact me for more damning info.