Law Enforcement Articles

The Focused Interviewing system of Interview and Interrogation has been completely re-structured into a FREE training course.

The new course will be delivered in 20 weekly installments to a person’s email address, all at no cost.

In this manner, small manageable doses of the material will be provided in a controlled manner, allowing time to digest the information and put it to use while in the learning process.

This is the first time a commercial Interview and Interrogation Course has been offered completely FREE.

To access this FREE training, CLICK HERE

The Polygraph Paradox
Lie detectors aren’t perfect. But, convicted sex offenders concede, they may be good enough
By LAURIE P. COHEN
March 22, 2008;

Klamath Falls, Ore.

The lie detector won’t die.

Polygraphy, the attempt to ferret out deception by monitoring changes in subjects’ breathing, sweating or pulse, has long been derided as “voodoo science.”

Confessions made under polygraph aren’t admitted as evidence in a vast majority of U.S. courts without the consent of the accused. The National Academy of Sciences says the technology isn’t accurate enough to be used for employee security screening.

Yet polygraph use is at the highest level in two decades. Government agencies from local police departments to the CIA are increasingly using the technology for job interviews. In U.S. courts lately, judges have expanded the instances in which polygraph testing is mandated or admitted as evidence.

In law enforcement, this lie-detector paradox is clearly on display. Polygraphy is a centerpiece in an expanding range of parole and probation programs that are designed to dissuade sex offenders and other felons from committing more crimes.

The recent experience of convicted gay pedophile Paul Duncan shows the polygraph’s contradictions and, its proponents argue, its promise. Last November, as part of a program in this southern Oregon town to monitor paroled sex offenders, Mr. Duncan sat in a small windowless room in a corrections center with polygraph sensors on his palm, chest, stomach and arm. Under the program, a parolee who fails the test, or admits to parole violations under the threat of a test, can be sent back to prison.

The machine’s operator asked: “Have you had sexual contact with a minor during the last six months?”

Mr. Duncan said he hadn’t. The polygrapher judged him to be lying. Mr. Duncan was sent to jail for 15 days.

In an interview after his release, the 33-year-old Mr. Duncan said reality had been more complicated. Mr. Duncan said he hadn’t, in fact, had contact with a minor. But he admitted he had violated his parole in another way — viewing online pornographic photos of young males, an activity he says had sparked his past pedophilic episodes.

Mr. Duncan says he believes that while the polygraph got the specifics wrong, it revealed a broader truth: His conscience was guilty.

“I didn’t disclose my deviant fantasies — and I deserved to fail,” Mr. Duncan said of the test. “Don’t believe anyone who tells you polygraph doesn’t work.”

Read the rest…

A measure of truth

1/21/2008 2:41:34 PM
Daily Journal

By Danza Johnson
Daily Journal
TUPELO – Cheating a polygraph test is easier said than done.

After being hooked up to the polygraph and asked to answer a simple question, which I failed, this reporter is a believer that the Law and Order version of taking a polygraph test is nothing like the real deal.

Deputy State Fire Marshal and licensed polygraph examiner Mike Ivy has been administering criminal specific polygraph tests for the state and Lee County for more than seven years. Ivy said in real life, a polygraph test can’t be done before the commercial break.

“It is nothing like it is portrayed on television,” said Ivy. “You just don’t sit down and fire questions at an unsuspecting suspect and the results come in to tell you whether a person is lying or not. One test takes about two hours and the suspect knows exactly what’s going on.”

In fact, Ivy said it is procedure to go over the questions and how the test works with the suspect before they are hooked up to the polygraph. And it doesn’t actually record lies, according to Ivy, but it records physiological data that can determine weather a person is being honest or not.

“We monitor blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration and the opening and closing of the sweat glands,” said Ivy. “You can’t turn these things on and off when you want to, so when you are not telling the truth, those areas will increase.”

After doing some Internet research on how to beat the polygraph test, I thought I had it all figured out. A list of counter measures like contracting of the sphincter muscles to cause yourself pain was supposed to be an easy way to throw the test off. Ivy agreed that causing pain to yourself would indeed throw the test off – that is if a sensitivity pad wasn’t recording your every move. That plan failed.

After the machine caught me in a simple lie, I was convinced of its accuracy.

Even though Ivy said the polygraph test is very accurate, it’s not perfect and that’s one reason they aren’t admissible in court, according to Jerry Crocker, Lee County investigator for the District Attorney’s office. Crocker is also a licensed polygraph examiner.

“If it were 100 percent we wouldn’t need trials or juries,” said Crocker. “The machine puts out the data, but people read, and whenever you’re dealing with people there is a chance for error.”

There biggest use is helping to investigate crimes, according to Ivy. He said the test can help investigators rule out witnesses and things to that nature on the investigative side.

Lying Is Exposed By Micro-Expressions We Can’t Control

Research into tiny muscle movements proves useful in anti-terror
investigations

BUFFALO, N.Y. — When trying to lie your way through any situation, keep a tight rein on your zygo maticus major and your orbicularis oculi.

They’ll give you away faster than a snitch.

So says social psychologist Mark Frank, whose revolutionary research on human facial expressions in situations of high stakes deception debunks myths that have permeated police and security training for decades.

His work has come to be recognized by security officials in the U.S. and abroad as very useful tool in the identification and interrogation of terrorism suspects.

By applying computer technology to the emotion-driven nature of nonverbal communication, Frank, a professor of communication in the School of Informatics at the University at Buffalo, has devised methods to recognize and accurately read the conscious and unconscious behavioral cues that suggest deceit.

His research already is employed by investigative bodies around the world and, Frank says, “It can be applied to the training of security checkpoint personnel to help them identify and decode ‘hot spots,’ the subtle conversational cues and fleeting flashes of expression that betray buried emotions or suggest lines of additional inquiry.”

Frank notes that a large body of prior research has elaborated and sharpened Darwin’s observations about the evolutionarily-derived nature of emotion and its expression.

In fact, Frank’s mentor during his post-doctoral years at the University of California, San Francisco, was Paul Ekman, the world’s foremost expert in reading facial expressions. Ekman
conducted extensive cross-cultural research and found that a wide range of facial expressions related to specific emotions are identical from culture to culture.

He found that subjects’ tics, furrows, smirks, frowns, smiles and wrinkles as they emerge in assorted combinations offer surprisingly accurate windows to the emotions.

“Fleeting facial expressions are expressed by minute and unconscious movements of facial muscles like the frontalis, corregator and risorius,” Frank says, “and these micro-movements,
when provoked by underlying emotions, are almost impossible for us to control.”

Ekman and his colleague Wallace Friesen came up with a numbering system for all of these movements: for example, left and right eyebrows up is 1; down, 2; eyebrows pulled together, 4; upper eyelid raised, 5, and so on and related them to expressions of various emotion that are found the world over.

Building on their research, Frank has identified and isolated specific and sometimes involuntary movements of the 44 human facial muscles linked to fear, distrust, distress and other emotions related to deception.
Read the rest…

Currently, there are several television and radio shows aired which depict polygraphs as a fun, entertaining novelty.

I see polygraphs being portrayed as omnipotent and akin to star-gazing, able to tell the future.

As a polygraph examiner, I feel compelled to dispel the myths surrounding the current carnival-like atmosphere of the polygraph programs.

One such show asked questions of the person being “examined” such as “If my daughter gained 200 pounds, would you still love her” and “Do you consider yourself to be a good husband” and my personal favorite “Have you ever even thought about cheating on me?“

With the popularity of these types of programs, coupled with the entertainment industry’s well-documented penchant for producers copying each other’s work, we expect to see more shows such as these cropping up in time for the next ratings war.

Now, entertainment is entertainment and real life is real life. What is being portrayed in the media is absolutely unlike what actually occurs in modern, professional polygraph examinations. For example:

* Polygraphs do not test a person’s hopes, wishes or desires. (”Do you wish your wife would drop dead?“)
* Polygraphs do not test acts which may or may not occur in the future (”If my daughter gains 200 lbs, will you still love her“)
* Polygraphs are not meant to test opinions (”Do you consider yourself to be a good husband?“)
* Polygraphs are not meant to test intent (”When you told that girl you loved her, did you mean it?“)

What polygraphs excel at is testing specific acts already committed.

For example, polygraphers would never test someone who thinks they might commit a crime in the future: the proper test would be to test someone to see if they had already committed a specific criminal act.

To people watching media-enhanced shows about the polygraph examination process, the difference between wanting to commit a crime and committing a crime may be insignificant, but it is crucial to the successful, accurate administration of the polygraph examination.

My fear is that by trivializing polygraphy, the general perception amongst the populace will be that polygraph examinations are some kind of parlor trick.

Essentially, there are two types of interviews conducted by law enforcement officers, structured (formal) and non-structured (informal) interviews.

The structured interview is what we think of as a classic interview setting and is certainly what is portrayed on television and the movies as the most prevalent form of interviewing in police work.

Usually (on television), the interview takes place in a police station interrogation room and at least two officers (usually Detectives) take turns grilling some hapless suspect until he/she finally gives in, usually out of exhaustion.

Most interview and interrogation training in the past has dealt with developing techniques dealing with the structured interview process, including a detailed examination of such topics as the correct placement of furniture in an interrogation room, the most psychologically advantageous color to paint the walls, the height of chairs, etc.

Although structured interviews do indeed take place every day in agencies throughout the world, they represent only a tiny fraction of the total number of interviews being conducted by law enforcement.

The overwhelming majority of citizen contacts and interviews are conducted on the street by front line law enforcement officers in non-structured settings.

Think about the very nature of police work; for every formal interview being conducted in a police station by Detectives, how many officers are out there on the street talking with suspects, witnesses and victims?

If the vast majority of interviews are being conducted in non-structured settings, we should direct the upgrading of our interviewing techniques toward the informal interview.
The beauty of non-confrontational interviewing methods is that the concept works equally well in structured and non-structured settings.

Non-confrontational interviewing is designed to work quickly, to work in an emotionally charged atmosphere, to work in the presence of outside distractions and to work without any memorization of techniques on the part of the interviewer.