If you are faced with a situation where you would like to know is someone was deceptive or dishonest, or when you would prefer to exclude a person from suspicion – what would you prefer: A report saying “there is a 90 percent possibility of deception,” a report reading “results are inconclusive,” one that
says “no deception detected” or one that includes a video recorded confession or an extensive report, outlining the reasons for reporting truth?
Polygraphy is a science that many prefer to use. So is voice stress analysis and a variety of other “technologies.” The simple fact is that most of these rely on a set of learned responses or baseline measurements. They all have on thing in common: they cannot actually “detect a lie.” They can certainly indicate that there was a measured physiological response to a speciﬁc stimuli (or question), but the fact remains that none of these technologies are accepted as proof of deception or fact in criminal trials.
There is a reason for this. And this reason is directly linked to the nature of the test, the likelihood of “false positives” and the concerns about “false negatives.”
When we investigate a matter – ranging from vehicle-based theft, illegal vehicle use and/or collision-related fact-determination – we prefer to use cognitive interrogation techniques based on intelligence-driven and human-factor processes. Our techniques are not limited to three questions, are not rigid in structure and are not based on un-proven technologies or on pre-deﬁned “base-line measurements.”
Before we interview or interrogate a driver, a passenger, a suspect or a victim, we complete our investigation and perform a due diligence on the facts ﬁrst. This places us in a position to determine and identify facts about the matter that would not typically be included in the preparation of a rehearsed deception narrative.
A typical interview would be conducted in person, would involve video recording of the whole interview and could even be done in writing, since our process typically involves as many as 200 questions, or more – all designed to prime the subject, to establish and separate facts recovered from real memory from those that are improvised and to isolate any speciﬁc spheres of inﬂuence on those memories.
In our experience, our method has yielded regular confessions, our detection skills have enabled us to identify truthfulness almost immediately and to eliminate unnecessary stress to innocent or truthful parties.