I don't see how this could reasonably be characterized as anything less than an utter failure of the polygraph.



The subject lied about his name, lied about his backstory, was not on probation or parole, and stomped on a tack in his shoe on every question. He created a photoshopped police report and invented a nonexistent girlfriend. Ed Gelb was unable to detect any deception and was not even able to detect the fact that the guy was stomping on a tack in his shoe on every question.



I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that when Harmon was asked, "Do you plan to tell the truth on this test whether you knowingly used marijuana while on probation?" he answered truthfully because he did not use marijuana. Part of that question includes the fact that he was on probation, and Harmon most certainly knew that he wasn't on probation during the time period in question. By answering the question at all he would be lying, but Gelb couldn't pick up on that.



When Harmon was asked, "Did you do marijuana while on probation last January?" he again lied when he answered, since he wasn't on probation. Not to mention that none of us know if he actually used marijuana during the time in question. But I think that is irrelevant, since his whole story was a lie from start to finish.



If a clean-living friend of a police applicant fills in for them on their pre-employment polygraph, do you think a competent (by APA standards) polygraph examiner should be able to detect that they are not speaking to the actual applicant? Should the examiner be able to detect that the person they are testing is giving them a fictional history and is essentially basing their answers off a sizeable lie (i.e. - that they are not the person the examiner thinks they are)? Should the examiner be able to detect that the subject is stomping on a tack every time they are asked a question?



Or would it be more reasonable to dissect every answer and try to claim that certain answers to certain parts of certain questions were technically true, and therefore the polygraph functioned as advertised?



I think it is simply common sense that if a test subject is lying about his name, lying about his backstory, and stomping on a tack in his shoe on every question he should not "pass" a test that is supposedly able to detect deception.



Isn't a pre-test interview standard procedure? Isn't Ed Gelb a former police officer? Yet he was unable to detect anything unusual when he talked to "Hank" about an arrest that never occurred, and probation (or parole) that "Hank" was never on, and about a failed drug test that "Hank" never took?







