“He that has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips: betrayal oozes out of him from every pore.” —Sigmund Freud
.
The atmosphere in the polygraph examination room was tense. A quiet pressure loomed over the Subject of the test and me. You could hear a pin drop. I had asked the test questions regarding contact with a foreign intelligence service and concealing contact with a foreign national. He consistently reacted significantly, indicating deception. His respiration was erratic, his heart rate up and his Electro-dermal Activity (EDA) was soaring. Something was wrong. During original questioning, he had been confident and outgoing.
As I finished the test and began questioning him on concealing contact with a foreign intelligence service, his demeanor changed. He became defensive and made excuses for his reaction. I tested him again. He failed again. During the questioning that followed, he began to stumble over his own fabrications. First, he was reacting because he had foreign relatives he rarely sees. Then, it was his foreign uncle who was causing him concern. I questioned him further using the Behavioral Analysis Technique. Subsequently, he admitted this “uncle” was the member of a foreign government (an intelligence adversary of the United States). Over the next two hours, I pressed him. He admitted his “uncle” was working with two other foreign government officials whom he met at a “family function.” He was getting tense and angry. He knew his story was unraveling and the truth was leaking out. Finally, he admitted his “uncle” and his government associates had sent him to the Agency to attempt to pass the polygraph test and gain inside access. As I left the room to examine his charts, he began to curse and swear. He was sweating profusely. The results of the test were “Significant Physiological Response,” i.e., Deception Indicated to counterintelligence questions.
By the end of the test he admitted he had been coached by members of a foreign intelligence service and sent to attempt to gain access to the CIA. He was shown the door and his application for employment was denied. An investigation began on names of the agents he turned over. I was exhausted, we had stopped another one.
During my tours in the CIA Counterintelligence Center (CIC) and the Office of Security (OS), Polygraph Division (PD), I was trained to be an expert in the detection of deception. I gained extensive experience on human behavioral analysis and the polygraph instrument. Performing polygraph examinations was a grueling and exhausting process for us all. The stakes were incredibly high and the scrutiny by CIA management was intense.
Successful tests were extremely gratifying, both in catching the deceptive and clearing the innocent. It was a good feeling to get a new applicant to the CIA, nervous and scared about the process, successfully through the test and off to his or her new career. It was a mixed feeling of fulfillment and outrage to catch a foreign agent attempting to penetrate the organization, or an individual who had committed a crime such as child sexual abuse.
The global network of espionage is a dark underworld, full of ruthless individuals, a moral vacuum where ego and self-gratification generally rule. Billions of dollars flow invisibly across continents to fund operations pitting countries against each other, and fund uncover individuals working against their own government. Even on the good side, there are individuals who are career-hungry for the next catch, even a small one, to further their reputation. Fortunately, there are a few who do it purely out of patriotism, especially in America.
The polygraph has always been the subject of fierce controversy regarding its use in government applicant screening, criminal cases and private investigations. The polygraph test has both strengths and weaknesses. It is a significant mistake for any federal agency or law enforcement entity to entertain the misconception that it is one hundred percent accurate.
As an expert in Forensic Psycho Physiology, I was intimately familiar with the polygraph instrument and its use. The employment of the test has continually been under tremendous scrutiny, as it should be in a democracy. Government use of any intrusive system penetrating the privacy of individuals must always have a good Constitutional foundation, and continually be under oversight by vigilant representatives of the public.
The incident described at the start of this chapter is an example of the strengths of the polygraph. Love it or hate it, the polygraph has been used many times to prevent foreign intelligence penetrations of our Intelligence Community and to vet informants and assets, to ensure they are providing truthful information. A foreign asset or defector providing fabricated information, to get the financial benefit, can have catastrophic consequences if the information is acted upon by the US government.
Iraq is a prime example of this. False information provided by Iraqi military officers was taken as legitimate and acted upon, when it was inaccurate and fabricated. This mistake cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars in “payments” to these individuals.
A second strength of the polygraph is its use in criminal cases. Multiple criminal cases involving child abduction, murder, theft and other heinous crimes have been solved based on admissions made during a polygraph examination. My hat goes off to the brave law enforcement men and women who successfully ran those tests. Very seldom is it reported in the press that these cases were solved from information derived during a polygraph test.
There are, however, some significant weaknesses with the polygraph test. First, the test is only as good as the examiner performing it. In reality, the real effectiveness of the test rests with the skills of the examiner. Second, studies show the test is wrong about 20% of the time. This is way too high to be relied upon as the sole screening tool. It is also the reason it is not and never should be admissible in a court of law. If it was admissible in court, most subjects would not voluntarily take it.
The heavy reliance on the polygraph instrument in CIA applicant and internal investigation cases has caused erroneous investigation results in many cases and, in the case of the CIC internal investigation unit, which I used to be a part of, ruined many careers and many lives. Unfortunately, when the rest of a security system is weak, there tends to be an over-reliance on the polygraph test. This is a damaging mistake.
But, the CIA faces the daunting task of protecting extremely sensitive information. In recent years, the Agency has experienced serious internal espionage cases. There have been several since the 1980s, but two are significant in relation to the use of the polygraph.
CIA Officer Aldrich Ames Espionage Case
Despite its many successes, one of the most significant failures of the CIA polygraph program was the case of Aldrich “Rick” Ames. I was assigned to the newly reorganized CIC internal investigations unit, now collocated with the FBI Counterespionage Unit, in response to this crisis just after Ames’ arrest. CIC was undergoing a massive reorganization and had become priority one in the Agency’s internal investigation system.
Rick Ames was a former Counterintelligence officer assigned to Soviet Europe. Ames was disheveled in appearance and had several performance problems in previous positions. These were never documented, as his managers avoided this unpleasant task by transferring him from one position to the next with no paper trail revealing these problems. At the time, the CIC had been considered to be a dead-end job, much like it was in the FBI, until the Hanssen case.
In 1985, Ames began turning classified information over to the Soviets. He underwent his reinvestigation polygraph test in 1986. He failed the test.
During this period in the CIA, if a polygraph test brought results of “Deception Indicated” with no significant admissions, the person would be interviewed by a CIA security officer and undergo an Office of Medical Services (OMS) examination. If no noteworthy information was developed, the information was documented in the security file and the case was closed. Such was the case with Rick Ames.
Ames went through another polygraph test in 1991. He was coached by his Soviet handler before taking the test and knew if he made no confessions, there was nothing the Office of Security could do further. During this test, Ames exhibited a significant reaction to the question regarding concealing contact with foreign nationals. He explained this away, claiming it was because he had contact with foreign nationals as part of his professional duties. This explanation was accepted and Ames passed the test, despite the fact that he was on a CIA list of suspected moles.
Information previously collected by the CIA indicated secrets were being passed to the Soviets that could only have come from someone on the inside - a mole. Ames’ 1990 background investigation revealed he was living an extravagant lifestyle, well above his government salary, and had paid $540,000 in cash for his house in Arlington, Virginia. This information was never passed to the Polygraph Division.
The case of Rick Ames generated outrage in the Congress and Senate. The FBI was quick to point out the CIA had blown Ames’s polygraph test and it was clear the Agency could not conduct efficient counterintelligence investigations. A government security commission agreed and demanded a total restructuring of CIA counterintelligence.
CIA Officer Harold Nicholson Case
The second noteworthy case involving the polygraph was that of Harold James Nicholson. Nicholson broke all the profiles of a so-called spy. He was a high ranking GS 15 officer who had a sterling career record, a clean security file, no alcohol problems and no financial problems. He was popular and well thought of as a good instructor training incoming case officers. There were no external behavioral indicators that Nicholson was selling secrets to the Soviets.
In October 1995, Nicholson underwent his reinvestigation polygraph test. This would be the first of three tests he would take. He failed all three tests (using the new computerized instrument), with a score resulting in “Deception Indicated” to concealing contact with a foreign intelligence service, the most serious of the counterintelligence questions. Nicholson had been spying for the Russian government since 1994. The CIA was on to him during the time period he failed his 1995 polygraph examination.
Those who commit espionage often make several obvious mistakes, thinking they are too smart and will never get caught. Nicholson was arrested by the FBI for espionage as he transited Dulles Airport in November 1996. He had been coached by his Russian handler on ways to beat the polygraph test. Obviously, this coaching failed.
Following the Nicholson case, all CIA polygraph examiners were trained to recognize intentional attempts to beat the polygraph test. Despite websites that coach individuals on how to beat the test, we all caught them on a regular basis. These attempts ranged from tactics to penetrate the Agency for nefarious purposes, to young applicants who, for the thrill of it, wanted to see if they could beat the test. The training we all received, which I cannot discuss here, was exceptional and catching these people was relatively easy. All of them were immediately shown the door and can never apply to an intelligence agency again. My supervisor, whom I will call Mike D., a former Army CID examiner, and my co-worker, Henry M., also a former CID polygraph examiner, were extremely efficient at catching these sorts of people.
Attempting to beat the CIA polygraph test, despite what the internet pundits claim, is a silly thing to do, and only serves to document that the person cannot be trusted with our nation’s most important secrets.
How the Polygraph Works
There are two questions most people ask about the polygraph test: What exactly is the polygraph test, and how does the polygraph instrument work? Webster’s definition of the polygraph instrument is:
“Lie detector, n. 1. A polygraph for detecting physiological evidence (as change in heart rate) of the tension that accompanies lying.”
First, it must be noted the polygraph instrument is not a “lie detector.” The instrument does not detect lies; it simply monitors a subject’s physiological responses during a specific set of questions. The polygraph’s actual function is merely to monitor changes in the body’s Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) activity. These physiological responses include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, respiration and skin conductivity. All these changes are signs of emotional arousal, not necessarily lying.
The polygraph instrument consists of three sets of components: two pneumatic tubes placed on the chest, which monitor changes in respiration; a medical blood pressure cuff, which monitors changes in blood pressure and heart rate; and a set of two finger plates attached to the fingers of one hand, which monitor Electro Dermal Activity (EDA) (formerly called Galvanic Skin Response, or GSR); electrical conductivity at the skin’s subcutaneous level (see Figure 1).
Most polygraph examinations are now conducted using the new computerized polygraph system. Although the parameters are monitored via computer, the charts still must be scored by a trained examiner.
The polygraph examination consists of three major types of tests:
• The Guilty Knowledge test, or Peak of Tension test, consisting of questions to which only the guilty will react.
• The Zone Comparison Test, which compares responses of comparison questions with a significant issue question.
• The Relevant/Irrelevant Test, which compares responses to irrelevant questions with responses to significant issue questions. Many intelligence agencies use the Relevant/Irrelevant Test for applicant screening. These tests consist of a set of questions regarding the subject’s lifestyle, or suitability, and a set of questions regarding counterintelligence. In my view, this is probably the most difficult test to administer and interpret because it is so broad in scope.
US military criminal investigation units largely use the Zone Comparison Test with relatively good success in ferreting out criminal activity. Law enforcement regularly uses the Guilty Knowledge Test. In my experience and based on studies I have read, the Guilty Knowledge Test is by far the most accurate polygraph test. It is the most focused and the easiest to administer. If all other tests are done away with in an organization, this is the one test that should remain and can withstand scientific scrutiny.
A Brief History of the Polygraph
The first attempts to discover technical methods to detect deception date back to the 1800s. Among the pioneers were Cesare Lomroso, who in 1895 used fluctuations in blood pressure to detect lying, Vittorio Benussi used variations in respiration as an indicator of deception in 1914, and after him William Marston used blood pressure, respiration and perspiration changes to detect deception. Marston was followed by John Larson, who developed an instrument to simultaneously monitor all three parameters. Finally, Leonard Keeler constructed the instrument that was the precursor to the modern polygraph instrument today. Modern polygraph procedures, question construction and chart scoring are the result of the work of John E. Reid, who is considered the father of modern polygraph.
Detecting Deception
Detecting deception can, at a more macro level, be observed through a person’s body language as well. Studies show human communication is 65% nonverbal, 17% verbal, 12% voice quality, and 6% a mixture of interrelated chemical changes, body odors and miniscule variations too small to see with the naked eye. In fact, 90% of all of the decisions we make are based on emotion. We justify them with reason. Thus, nonverbal behavior communicates the majority of what we “tell,” to use the poker player’s term for reading behavior.
Although most people view lying as an immoral practice, lying is commonplace in our society. Parents lie to their children, adolescents lie to their parents, doctors lie to patients, teachers lie to students, husbands lie to wives, boyfriends lie to girlfriends and vice versa, clients lie to lawyers, witnesses lie to juries, salespeople lie to customers, and on and on it goes. This is an unfortunate reality of the human condition. Lying is a part of our society’s culture.
Each of us displays a “psychological fingerprint.” This fingerprint consists of four behavioral communication channels: nonverbal behavior; speech and words; voice quality; and “micro signals”—for example, fleeting facial expressions (a concept discovered by psychologist Paul Ekman).
In most normal people, deception causes stress, which is involuntarily displayed by the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS). There are 1,400 different responses involved in this process, including a complex chemical “dump” that occurs in the bloodstream.
Six negative stress responses are related to intentional deception: the fear/anxiety, or “flight” response; anger, or the “fight” response; depression, which is aggression turned inward; bargaining; disguising reality or trying to alter the other’s opinion; and, acknowledgement—when the person is prepared to take responsibility for his or her actions.
Behavioral Clues to Lying
It is clear behavioral clues will indicate the presence of the negative stress response. These clues reveal themselves in behavioral “tells,” as noted above. The signals show the presence of three stress response mechanisms. The first is the ANS physiological response, which is involuntary, uncontrollable, and results in dramatic changes in heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, breathing and muscle tone.
The second behavioral clue is the emotional response, which is extremely difficult to control or falsify without overcompensating. And finally, the third behavioral tell is the cognitive response, which occurs when the person who is lying has to stall while he makes up a plausible lie in his mind, or obviously controls his responses as he thinks inwardly about how he is going to mislead the questioner without making a blunder. All of these activities generate observable behavioral activity. This is the same activity the polygraph instrument monitors on a much more micro scale.
Flight or Flight Response
A classic example of ANS activity generated by a person who is lying is the “fight or flight response.” During this involuntary response, there are several changes that occur in the ANS. These changes result in an increase in heart rate (observed by flushed skin or pulsating arteries), respiration (observed by the increased raising and lowering of the chest), and perspiration (observed by an obvious increase of sweat on the upper lip, forehead and the palms of the hands). Other changes include pupil dilation (the involuntary widening of the dark center of the eye—the reason some poker players wear sunglasses), increase in blood flow to the capillaries in the surface of the skin (redness in the face, neck and upper chest), and tension in the visceral cavity muscles (affecting posture).
When people lie, they “leak.” The involuntary ANS activity generated by conscious lying must leak out somewhere for the mind and body to gain relief. These leakage channels consist of the person’s words and statements (incomplete or clipped words and sentences), the quality and pitch of the voice (usually higher during deception), the individual’s body language (arms and legs crossed, body tilted towards the exit in an unconscious effort to flee, hiding the hands under the thighs or in the pockets, etc.), and written statements (adding or deleting certain words—for example, “I” or “we”—to attempt to avoid ownership of the issue).
Some polygraph parameters can be visually observed on the macro level by a trained eye. Increase in cardiac activity, respiration, perspiration and ANS-produced anxiety can be detected by a person who has mastered this skill and understands deception may be present if these changes happen when discussing a specific issue, while decreasing when the issue is changed. The polygraph simply records these changes more accurately, detecting changes smaller than can be seen by the naked eye, and using a computer program to amplify the signals picked up by the sensors.
The subject of detecting deception is a fascinating one and the topic of a large volume of research—too large to fully cover in this chapter. In a course I developed, titled the “Detection of Deception Seminar,” I go into much more detail on the subject, covering sixteen hours of forensic psycho physiology.
Pre-Attack Recognition
As a result of my tours in the CIA/CIC, Counterterrorism Center (CTC) and Polygraph Division, I have developed a course titled “Criminal and Terrorist Behavioral Analysis and Attack Recognition.” The research I conducted indicates trained observers, and potentially certain computer programs, can accurately read the ANS behavioral cues of a criminal or terrorist about to carry out a crime or an attack. I have used this technique successfully in the field, including large gatherings in sports stadiums for private clients. The material is too sensitive to describe in detail in this book (we do not want potential terrorists to have access to it). I am convinced it is an essential tool for law enforcement in crime prevention and in countering terrorist attacks. The information is available to counterterrorism, law enforcement and private security organizations by several credible professionals who are experts in this field.
In a variety of intelligence operations, detecting deception is critical. The CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Department of State all gather intelligence of various types depending on their mission. It is extremely important that the veracity of, or the intentional deception by, the human source of the information is verified. In addition, part of detecting possible deception is examining the information provided by the source for validity and other external information surrounding the source, such as contacts, lifestyle, outside activities, etc.
In the case of the CIA, this could not be more important than in the evaluation of embassy walk-ins, or defectors. In the past, these defectors have provided both legitimate and false information. Federal agents dealing with these types of sources must be trained to be experts in the detection of deception and truth verification. The same applies to law enforcement officers conducting interrogations of subjects or debriefing witnesses. In these cases, the officer must have a distinct set of parameters he or she is trained to use to determine, with about an 80% certainty, the subject is being truthful or deceptive.
Finally, reporters conducting high-risk media interviews, such as the Susan Smith case involving the drowning of her children, must have these skills to assist them in making the decision whether or not to publish the interviewee’s statements as truthful. In the Smith case, the reporter published her statements of innocence as fact when, in reality, Smith was guilty of the murders of her children. The indicators of Smith’s deception were there in both her verbal statements and in her written accounts.
All of these examples point to the utility and value of expertise in detecting deception. As Shakespeare said, “All the world is a stage.” A humorous sign posted in one of my CIA offices read, “Trust in God; polygraph everyone else.” Our society is prone to falsity as a usual part of everyday life. In criminal and espionage cases, the purpose is nefarious and the consequences can be catastrophic.
Figure 1: Computerized polygraph screen and psycho physiological responses the instrument monitors. These responses can also be detected by reading behavior, speech and body language at the macro level.