<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper involves fifty-one re-examinations of original polygraph tests that resulted in conflicted outcomes and examinations where deliberate distortions were believed to have been employed. The Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) was successfully employed in these re-examinations to rectify the original problems and/or confirm attempts by examinees at countermeasures or augmentations.</abstract>

Using the Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) in Solving Conflicted Polygraph Results and Confirming Deliberate Distortions by Examinees

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> The assessment of physiological parameters of the innocent subjects in the SPOT in the presented cases has its limits, while a comparison of these parameters with the charts of the perpetrators causes doubts as to the methodological soundness (lack of a sufficient number of cases). There are as many as four reasons hindering the assessment.First of all, the number of presented charts of the innocent subjects is small; they are practically isolated cases and with tests featuring mainly names (given names, pseudonyms).Secondly, I did not repeat the SPOT if it did not cause any reaction and at the same time the preliminary assessment of the CQT charts was positive for the subjects. Th is makes it impossible to compare physiological parameters of the subject in at least two SPOT charts in order to assess the evolution of the emotional activation. The parameters recorded during a SPOT were compared with the fi rst CQT chart, but this article does not present them.Another problem results from the fact that the category of the ‘innocent’ includes the charts of two subjects (the witness of the behaviour of the possible perpetrator after the murder and the instigator of a murder). I included them in the groups of the ‘innocent’ only because the version before the examination assumed that they were the murderers, while their reactions to the control questions in the CQT were greater than those to the fundamental relevant question (‘Did you do it?’). As I mentioned above, physiological parameters of the two men in the consecutive CQT charts hinted at intensifi cation of emotions and the subjects themselves also displayed external manifestations of emotions. In principle, their charts should be presented in the group of ‘the perpetrators’. Although the manifestations of emotions were distinct, their assessment was subjective – and it cannot be verifi ed. Both subjects interfered with the examination: one refused to have his blood pressure and pulse recorded and the other interrupted the examination. This behaviour is typical for ‘the perpetrators’. Both subjects were involved in the cases, but not in the way the investigators had originally assumed. Let me add here that this is my opinion and it has not been backed by legal decisions.Physiological parameters of the innocent subjects presented in the SPOT charts can only be assessed visually, because the Lafayette polygraphs which I used did not record them digitally. A visual assessment is not precise and to great extent subjective. Only one parameter – the pulse rate – lends itself to digital assessment, but with the reservations mentioned above.</abstract>

Charts of the ‘Innocent’ Subjects in the Searching Peak of Tension Tests

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 2 (December 2023)

Volume 17 (2023): Issue 1 (September 2023)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 16 (2022): Issue 1 (October 2022)

Volume 15 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 15 (2021): Issue 1 (April 2021)

Volume 14 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 14 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 13 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 13 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 13 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 13 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 12 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 12 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 12 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 12 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 11 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 11 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 11 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 11 (2017): Issue 1 (March 2017)

Volume 10 (2016): Issue 4 (December 2016)

Volume 10 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 10 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 10 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 9 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 9 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Volume 9 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 9 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)

Volume 8 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 8 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 8 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 8 (2014): Issue 1 (March 2014)

European Polygraph

 European Polygraph is an international journal devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries, and book reviews on the subject of polygraph examinations. These include jurisprudence, forensic sciences, psychology, forensic psychology, psychophysiology, psychopathology, and other aspects of polygraph examinations.  Rejection Rate  &gt;35%  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process.  Target group  Researchers and experts in the field of criminal law

European Polygraph

Volume 9 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Using the Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) in Solving Conflicted Polygraph Results and Confirming Deliberate Distortions by Examinees

Charts of the ‘Innocent’ Subjects in the Searching Peak of Tension Tests

Buscar

Todos los volúmenes y ediciones en esta revista