Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

[Twoblock]

I rest my case!!!

[Administrator]

All are requested to please keep the discussion here civil and refrain from personal attacks. Any further posts should substantially address the original topic raised in this message thread.

[George W. Maschke]

It bears repeating that Dr. Richardson has not misrepresented his credentials. If any disagree, then please show where he has done so.

It is worth noting that Mark Johnson, whose declaration Paradiddle posted, is among those who polygraphed former FBI special agent Mark Mallah, whose career, like that of Rita Chiang, was ruined when he wrongly became a spy suspect following a false positive polygraph screening "test." Mallah, after obtaining his FBI records under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act, described his experience with Johnson in a 2001 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Background- One year into the investigation and grasping for theories, the FBI first raised their suspicion that I had classified documents stolen from a briefcase inside the trunk of my wife's car. The trunk was broken into on a Friday night while my wife and I joined some friends for a social outing. A non-FBI friend had his briefcase stolen as well, and we immediately reported the theft to the police. The FBI polygraphed me (the polygraph interrogator was Mark Johnson) on this incident, which had occurred about four years prior to this polygraph.

What I said- That I was sure there were no classified documents in the briefcase because it was my regular practice not to take classified documents out of the office, and it was on a Friday night, so even if my practice was otherwise, I would have no need for any classified documents over the weekend. Johnson polygraphed me, then insisted that I was showing deception on this issue. He challenged me as to how I could be so sure about it, especially when the incident was four years ago. Did I inventory the briefcase before it was stolen, he asked? I responded that I could look out the window and see it was daylight, but if I did not actually see the sun and he asked me if I was absolutely sure that the sun was really there, then no, I could not be 100% sure of that either, but I could be as sure as I could possibly be. The same with the absence of classified documents in the briefcase, I told him.

The FBI Version- "Mallah admitted that he could not be 100% certain that there were no classified documents in the briefcase the night it was stolen. Mallah stated that he had no specific knowledge of what classified document could have been in the briefcase."

Subsequent reporting on this issue, from a Special Agent in Charge of the New York Office at the time, Carson Dunbar, stated: "Prior to the polygraph, SA Mallah stated that 'to the best of his knowledge, he can 'categorically' state that there were no Bureau (FBI) documents, classified or otherwise, contained in that briefcase when it was stolen (end quotes missing). After being told that his polygram reflected that he was deceptive, Mallah stated that 'he could not be 100% certain that there were no classified documents in the briefcase the night it was stolen.'"

[EosJupiter]

Eos, sorry your bubble burst.

Wonder_Women, Paradiddle, whoever .....

No bubble burst here, I continue / remain a supporter of Dr. Drew Richardson. His PHD is real unlike many of your senior polygraphers who post bogus degrees. And one questionable document does not  even dent his credibility. Again I state to beat you requires nothing more than disbelief. The goal is to spread the word and make it mass disbelief. To this end I will continue. And seeing you all on the unemployment line is a worthy pursuit. I have beaten you, I have trained many to beat you, and I will continue until this fight is done. And best of all, their is nothing you can do about it.  8-)

Regards .....

[Sergeant1107]

I don't recall ever seeing Dr. Richardson post that he has conducted any number of exams at all.

I think that if he were really as bogus as the trolls would like us to believe, then his information would be worthless and easily seen as such.  I don't think he has misrepresented his qualifications at all, and I don't think his knowledge of polygraph theory and procedure is any less impressive because he hasn't conducted thousands of exams.

An expert on confidence games and scams is no less knowledgeable or credible simply because he has never personally cheated anyone himself.

The fact that there is such a dramatic smear campaign in progress suggests that the information Dr. Richardson provides is accurate.

[1904]

I don't recall ever seeing Dr. Richardson post that he has conducted any number of exams at all.

I think that if he were really as bogus as the trolls would like us to believe, then his information would be worthless and easily seen as such.  I don't think he has misrepresented his qualifications at all, and I don't think his knowledge of polygraph theory and procedure is any less impressive because he hasn't conducted thousands of exams.

An expert on confidence games and scams is no less knowledgeable or credible simply because he has never personally cheated anyone himself.

The fact that there is such a dramatic smear campaign in progress suggests that the information Dr. Richardson provides is accurate.

Hi Sgt,
I remember reading somewhere, that Dr R did conduct a few tests and then finalised his conclusions.

[Twoblock]

Wonder_Woman

I apologize for my loss of temper. However, you had no reason for the way you attacked me either. I have never directed a post to you. It showed the lack of self control on the part of us both. Even at my advanced age, when provoked, I lose it occasionally.

[Drew Richardson]

Paradiddle,

In answer to your question about the number of field exams I conducted, I would guess that number to be around a dozen.  Any shame associated with that number does not involve not having conducted hundreds/thousands more.   To do so would have been merely playing out a slight modification of the oft-quoted Einstein definition of stupidity—doing something over and over again hoping for a different result (that different result would have involved looking for and hoping for the emergence of some evidence of diagnostic validity).  The shame lies in the fact that I conducted the dozen.  I had known prior to conducting the first of these exams that the methodology of CQT polygraph examinations was severely flawed.  In fact, I had come to that conclusion before completing the basic examiner course at DoDPI.  Those that I give most credence to on matters of polygraph validity have never conducted a polygraph examination.  Amongst others, such a list would include David Lykken, Bill Iacono, John Furedy, Leonard Saxe, and Al Zelicoff.   I believe I have discussed all aspects of this matter before.  Perhaps you might care to read my previous posts.

On a separate but related matter and interestingly, the first of the two polygraph examiners I referred to in my last post (former senior Army CID polygraph examiner, FBI polygraph examiner, and apparent child sex abuser) was a much more skilled interviewer and interrogator than the second examiner and was much more well respected by his peers prior to his exposure (no pun intended).  Also of note--his alleged involvement in sex abuse occurred before he would have passed polygraph screening examinations for both groups.

[polyfool]

EosJupiter,

Although I appreciate your vote of confidence and would not normally respond to such nonsense, because it was presented in the form of a purportedly sworn statement, I will make an exception and provide comment.  Upon completing basic examiner training at the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), I did work with two "qualified" FBI examiners in conducting field examinations.  I say "qualified" in the sense that I am aware of at least one situation (not involving either of the aforementioned two) in which the Bureau's Polygraph Unit had declared an individual to be Bureau-qualified following this examiner's failing the DoDPI basic examiner training.   At no time did the Bureau or I ever intend for me to be a field polygraph examiner.  I have never indicated that I was a Bureau field examiner.  The purpose of the latter exercise was merely to enhance academic qualifications with some "real-world" experience and presumably allow for a better research product.  

After having conducted several exams with the first of these two examiners and upon notification of the arrest of that individual on charges on child sex abuse, I was assigned to work with a second examiner.  To the best of my memory, I conducted one examination in his presence.  I do not know what this individual recorded or reported relative to that examination.  I did orally report to one of the Polygraph Unit supervisors that his (the second examiner's) interaction with the examinee was one of the worst that I had witnessed involving an FBI employee and a member of the public.  With regard to other exams scheduled, it is correct that several were canceled-none by me.  The aforementioned second Bureau examiner informed me on such occasions that the examinee had cancelled these exams, but as I recall, did not do so until after I had arrived to administer the exams.  I have no idea what was Mr. Murphy's (James Murphy was then the Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit) opinion of any of these related matters.  I do not remember having discussed my interactions with this second examiner with Mr. Murphy.  It is certainly conceivable that Mr. Murphy would have, at this general time, been displeased with my criticisms regarding the validity of Bureau polygraph techniques and similar criticisms of plans to implement polygraph screening within the Bureau.  My reason for leaving the Bureau's polygraph research program was based on a conversation that I had with the then Assistant Director of the Laboratory Division regarding the problems with lie detection and a need for a serious and committed program dedicated to concealed information testing.  He offered that various criticisms that I had raised regarding polygraphy likely had merit, but stated that he was unprepared to make the changes that I had suggested simply based on my minority opinion.  I returned to work in a laboratory area that I had previously worked in.  

Mr. Murphy and I have worked together since that time and were retained as experts in a given case within the last year.

Okay, so let me get this straight...

Dr. Drew Richardson, the man who testified on capital hill as the self proclaimed "FBI's TOP polygraph expert," actually administered MAYBE one or two tests after the completion of polygraph school.  Then, as a result of either his less then steller performance (or piss-poor attitude?) during those examinations was encouraged by the FBI's polygraph director to seek employment elseware?

Gee, and I thought there were minimum certification requirements in the federal government.  I thought the feds require among other things that a polygraph school graduate administer a minimum number of exams before his agency can certify him...

soooo...

It seems the infamous Dr. Drew Richardson, who testifies all over the place (including congress) as an "expert federal polygraph examiner" was not only NEVER CERTIFIED to conduct polygraph examinations, but was basically FIRED from the program after conducting only ONE OR TWO TESTS?

Wow, think of the tens of thousands of $$$ the FBI wasted training this loser.  As a taxpayer, I believe I am appalled...

Gee, finally this is all making sense.  I have met people like this Drew Richardson.  Guys who can't make it in the field, and spend the rest of their lives blaming everyone other than themselves.  People who's huge egos just can't accept the fact they failed at something....

You know,  I find myself feeling sorta sorry for this fellow....

Nonombre,

I find it interesting that someone who doesn't know the difference between capital and capitol is questioning another's intellectual prowess and on-the-job competence.

Of course Dr. Richardson hasn't conducted hundreds of polygraphs. Why would he? They're flawed with no scientific credibility. His lack of conducting hundreds of them for the Bureau demonstrates integrity while supporting his belief based on scientific research that they are unreliable and should not be used for preemployment screening.

 

[Paradiddle]

My goodness! I haven't seen concerted damage control like this since the last Republican gay scandal. Drew has been alleged to have been the worst examiner to be overseen in the history of a 20 yr vet examiner's career, plus he was "transferred" to polygraph research due to his "talents" in toxicology (?)---and then reputted to be lazy at DODPI, and then to emerge as some sort of expert on polygraphy, despite having never completed his Examiner certification ( a mere 20 tests.)

George chimes in with an irrelevant attack on Mark Johnson, for having ran an unsubstantiated false positive. George doesn't even kiss the notion that Drew was a phoned-in researcher that could have done great things---like solve CQT problems and weaknesses rather than his lackadaisical efforts  and his alleged habits of  bad mouthing his disfavorible tests and make lazy recommendations. Remember, read Mr. Sullivan's book to know the volume of spys and major leaks that were uncovered through polygraph---and then superimpose the whiny, bitter Drew Richardson over at DODPI.

Two block apologizes for telling a woman that she is a whore among other things ---the kind of post that was far worse than what Palerider was banned for---and further, that pathetic sexist masoginistic remark is left on the thread rather than in the "discarded post section." Could someone please translate what I just wrote to TwoBlock?

EosJupitor brags again over his prowess of teaching convicted sex offenders how to offer what amounts to be unempirically proven countermeasures on tests that he states are unscientific------a classic "black kettle call." To make matters worse, this seemingly brilliant man believes that his countermeasures "work"---thereby making him (in his mind) a 100% accomplice to every child who was sexually molested, raped, tortured, and killed while circumventing detection of deception tests. He and I can debate such another day.

Polyfool clearly believes that the end justifies the means. To codify, he states that if you don't believe in something, regardless of your limited experience with such, than it is ok to be aweful at it, and ignorant---while garnering great respect and a regal acclaim. I am sure Chiropractics has limitations due to the bad reputation and a less than 100% anecdotal success rate. But if anyone who isn't a master of Chiropractics (and other sciences like Orthopedics and Holistics) wants to burn the profession completely, I take issue and will readily call such warlike vendetta a witch hunt. To top off, he takes a type-o shot at Nonombre----like someone's OCD mother. Go wash your hands again Polyfool, you might have a germ.

Drew. hmmmm. I will save more remarks for later. I am loaded to the teeth.

[Mysterymeat]

Paradiddle,

This is perhaps the best post I have seen on this board. Dr. Drew can't put the spin on this one quick enough!

Regards,

[Paradiddle]

To call what we have seen here "spin" is slightly off of the mark---but great point Meat. I would characterize the distortions and obfuscations as SMOKE

[Wonder_Woman]

Welcome to the board mystery meat.    Paradiddle has summed it up quite well.  George and Drew are trying to deflect the attention by throwing the mud elsewhere....Mark Johnson, a PE that got sex charges...instead of just 'buckin' up.  

BTW Eos, I too (along with 100's of examiners) am appalled at ANYONE that is a phony and claims a bogus ph.d.  I am sure we could look at any profession and find this happening.  As for your other comment, I try to protect children - whereas, you try to edcuate perpetrators to beat polygraphs...I would rather be on my side.

Polyfool, don't make comments about mis-spelled words.  Most of us are typing without spell check and if you want I could point out all the mis-spellings through out all these postings (including mine)...Capitol vs Capital   There vs Their...get it.

[nonombre]

My goodness! I haven't seen concerted damage control like this since the last Republican gay scandal. Drew has been alleged to have been the worst examiner to be overseen in the history of a 20 yr vet examiner's career, plus he was "transferred" to polygraph research due to his "talents" in toxicology (?)---and then reputted to be lazy at DODPI, and then to emerge as some sort of expert on polygraphy, despite having never completed his Examiner certification ( a mere 20 tests.)

George chimes in with an irrelevant attack on Mark Johnson, for having ran an unsubstantiated false positive. George doesn't even kiss the notion that Drew was a phoned-in researcher that could have done great things---like solve CQT problems and weaknesses rather than his lackadaisical efforts  and his alleged habits of  bad mouthing his disfavorible tests and make lazy recommendations. Remember, read Mr. Sullivan's book to know the volume of spys and major leaks that were uncovered through polygraph---and then superimpose the whiny, bitter Drew Richardson over at DODPI.

Two block apologizes for telling a woman that she is a whore among other things ---the kind of post that was far worse than what Palerider was banned for---and further, that pathetic sexist masoginistic remark is left on the thread rather than in the "discarded post section." Could someone please translate what I just wrote to TwoBlock?

EosJupitor brags again over his prowess of teaching convicted sex offenders how to offer what amounts to be unempirically proven countermeasures on tests that he states are unscientific------a classic "black kettle call." To make matters worse, this seemingly brilliant man believes that his countermeasures "work"---thereby making him (in his mind) a 100% accomplice to every child who was sexually molested, raped, tortured, and killed while circumventing detection of deception tests. He and I can debate such another day.

Polyfool clearly believes that the end justifies the means. To codify, he states that if you don't believe in something, regardless of your limited experience with such, than it is ok to be aweful at it, and ignorant---while garnering great respect and a regal acclaim. I am sure Chiropractics has limitations due to the bad reputation and a less than 100% anecdotal success rate. But if anyone who isn't a master of Chiropractics (and other sciences like Orthopedics and Holistics) wants to burn the profession completely, I take issue and will readily call such warlike vendetta a witch hunt. To top off, he takes a type-o shot at Nonombre----like someone's OCD mother. Go wash your hands again Polyfool, you might have a germ.

Drew. hmmmm. I will save more remarks for later. I am loaded to the teeth.

Very good post, Paradiddle.  Truly one of the best written I have seen on this site.  Don't believe you will get any traction though.  Remember, the name of this site will NEVER be "let's have a fair discussion of the polygraph.org."

Regards,

Nonombre... 8-)

[EosJupiter]

Nonombre, Paradiddle, Wonder_Women, whoever ......

Making the assuptions and you assuming that I help lower life forms such as Pedophiles or Sex offenders dodge and beat the polygraph,  Actually helps them more than I could ever do. By giving me credibility that I have gone beyond countermeasures to the crux of your machine. Having torn down a polygraph from analog sensor to Pen, and now from Analog sensor, thru the A to D, into USB/SCSI port, I scare you and your kind the most. It is dangerous to piss off scientists, and when I was accused and hammered with a false positive, polygraphy made a very powerful enemy.  I state for the record, that I have never helped a pedophile or sex offender ( to my knowlege), and will never (to the best of my ability) help them. Those I have tutored have been those seeking employment, no more. The venue of the employment, well lets just say I will keep those secrets to myself. And personnally I could care less if your opinion remains that I help them. Those that know me, know I help those in need. You may change question formats, you may even change tactics of interrogation, but the flaws of your process remain the same. Mass disbelief is my greatest weapon, and your greatest fear. And no fear means no responses, at worst its always inconclusive !!


Regards ...