Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Police Officer Indicted For Teaching How To Pass a Polygraph Test

Posted by timothy on from the government-hates-competition dept.

George Maschke (699175) writes On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment (2.6 mb PDF) of Douglas Gene Williams, a 69-year-old former Oklahoma City police polygraphist turned anti-polygraph activist for teaching two undercover agents posing as federal law enforcement applicants how to pass (or beat) a polygraph test. Williams offers instruction on how to pass polygraph tests through his website, Polygraph.com, which remains online. Marisa Taylor of McClatchy, who has been covering polygraph policy issues for several years, has written an informative report. This appears to be a case where an individual was targeted for criminal prosecution to suppress speech that the U.S. government dislikes. AntiPolygraph.org, which may also have been the target of an attempted entrapment, has a commentary.

13 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. First Post by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He screwed up.

    Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:First Post by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, often to get away your only choice is to lie to the cops.

      Big mistake. That will net you an obstruction charge. The only safe course of action is to refuse to speak to them at all. Give them your name, address, and the following statement: "I do not wish to make any statement without the benefit of counsel." If you have information that they want badly enough they'll give you immunity. Otherwise keep your fucking mouth shut.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:First Post by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is exactly right. He's not being charged with teaching people how to beat a polygraph. He's facing two counts of mail fraud (he conducted his business via the USPS) and three counts of witness tampering (advising people to lie to Federal investigators)

      One can discuss the theory of how the polygraph works. A simple Google search will reveal dozens of papers on the subject. What one can not do is advise people to lie to a sworn Federal law enforcement officer while charging money for said "advice" that is delivered via the USPS. I read through the whole indictment and I have zero sympathy for him. This gem stands out: WILLIAMS told Undercover A, "I haven't lived this long and fucked the government this long, and done such a controversial thing that I do for this long, and got away with it without any trouble whatsoever, by being a dumbass."

      Lesson Number One: Never say anything that would look damning if read back to you in a court of law, particularly to a total stranger that you're involved in a criminal conspiracy with.
      Lesson Number Two: You can't fuck Uncle Sam. It doesn't matter how clever you are. Uncle Sam gets to make an infinite number of mistakes. If you make a single one you go to jail. The only winning move is not to play.
      Lesson Number Three: Don't be a greedy dumbass. It's too much to cut and paste but if you read the indictment you'll see that he initially refused to help Undercover A, because Undercover A admitted to lying on his employment application. Williams said that he could only help those he assumed were being truthful but whom are nervous about the polygraph. This would have been a good place to stop. Of course, Williams decided to "sleep on it", then called Undercover A back and cooked up a scheme to transfer funds in a manner that couldn't be traced. The total amount of these funds? $5,000 plus travel expenses.

      That's right, he rolled the dice on rolling his freedom for a lousy $5,000. This brings to mind something a law enforcement friend told me once upon a time: "It's not that we're so smart, it's that the criminals are mind numbingly stupid."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re: First Post by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The better Breaking Bad scene is when Mike is listening to the DEA discuss him, via the bugs he placed in their office:

      He's been throwing every tail we put on him.
      The guy's a pro.       (Mike smiles)
      Yeah, well, even pros make mistakes.
      One of these days, our pal Ehrmantraut's gonna slip up.
      Just gotta be there when he does.       (The smile leaves Mike's face and is replaced by a look of consternation)

      This is one of my favorite scenes with Mike and he doesn't have a single word of dialogue. It's all facial expressions and body language. He knows that they're right; now that they're watching him it's only a matter of time before he screws up and goes to jail. That's the problem with being involved in crime. The authorities can make an unlimited number of mistakes; the criminal can't afford to make a single one.

      In this instance it appears that greed got the better of Mr. Williams. If you look at his website he's not doing anything wrong; he may be peddling snake oil but he's hardly the first one and that's not a crime. Read through the indictment and a different picture emerges. He counsels his clients to lie to Government investigators (witness tampering), arranges to receive the proceeds for this venture via the mail (mail fraud) and even ignores his own good judgment. When one of the undercover agents admits to lying on his employment application Williams cuts him off and says he can't work with him, he only works with people that are being truthful but whom are nervous about the test. This is in fact what his website says.

      Had he stopped there he would have been fine. Did he? Of course not! He decides to "sleep on it" and comes up with a hair brained scheme to transfer money in a supposedly untraceable manner. He then tells his would-be client to break contact and reestablish it under a different name so that he doesn't have to knowingly counsel someone to lie.

      The net proceeds of this particular venture? $5,000. The man is going to lose his freedom for a lousy five grand, all because greed overrode the little voice inside his head that said something was wrong. This is a life lesson that applies to everyone, criminal and honest citizen alike.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re: First Post by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      undercover agents don't have to answer that truthfully... it's just a misconception reinforced by hollywood

      Uniformed officers don't have to answer that truthfully either, although that would seem a rather poor strategy on their part.

      Cops can lie to you under a broad range of circumstances, so the best strategy is not to engage them at all./P

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re: First Post by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this instance it appears that greed got the better of Mr. Williams. If you look at his website he's not doing anything wrong; he may be peddling snake oil but he's hardly the first one and that's not a crime. Read through the indictment and a different picture emerges. He counsels his clients to lie to Government investigators (witness tampering), arranges to receive the proceeds for this venture via the mail (mail fraud) and even ignores his own good judgment. When one of the undercover agents admits to lying on his employment application Williams cuts him off and says he can't work with him, he only works with people that are being truthful but whom are nervous about the test. This is in fact what his website says.

      Had he stopped there he would have been fine. Did he? Of course not! He decides to "sleep on it" and comes up with a hair brained scheme to transfer money in a supposedly untraceable manner. He then tells his would-be client to break contact and reestablish it under a different name so that he doesn't have to knowingly counsel someone to lie.

      The net proceeds of this particular venture? $5,000. The man is going to lose his freedom for a lousy five grand, all because greed overrode the little voice inside his head that said something was wrong. This is a life lesson that applies to everyone, criminal and honest citizen alike.

      You are exactly right. I just read that indictment. I can't understand how Williams would take a chance like that.

      He's been taunting the feds. They do a lot of stings like that, and it's prudent to be prepared for one. Even if the undercover agent's story had been true, the agent might have been prosecuted and might as well inform on Williams in hope of a better deal.

      He said

      You don't have to turn around and say, "Yeah, like I told you, I'm a lying son of a bitch." What the fuck was the reason for that, unless you wanted it on record that I was knowingly teaching someone how to lie and cheat...?

      Williams knew what was happening. How could he make a stupid mistake like that? Is it the decline of age?

      His line was, "The lie detector is bullshit, they can't catch criminals and then can accuse innocent people, I'm going to teach you how to pass the test. I don't want to hear about crimes. I'm not a lawyer and I can't give you lawyer-client privilege. If you want to talk about crimes, get a lawyer."

      If he had stuck to that, he would have been OK.

  2. Well, I for one feel safer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    knowing that the federal government is protecting the sanctity of the occult practice of using a ouija board to determine if someone should be given a security clearance.

  3. Re:Not as simple as teaching how to ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're quite right, of course, but the thought of a 21st century government defending voodoo pseudo science still seems horribly anachronistic.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. What? by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Polygraph tests generally can't be used as evidence in court, so they're nothing more than very weak probable cause tools. Meanwhile, probable cause is so cheap and easy to come by in front of today's judges that polygraph is a relic that isn't even needed anymore. It's science fiction.

    The whole idea behind polygraph is that when you lie, your heart rate changes and you sweat more, so the conductivity of your skin changes. But this is false in both directions. Heart rate and skin conductivity can change due to other stimuli, such as (perhaps) sitting in a chair being subjected to a deeply flawed test that will help to determine whether you to prison despite innocence. In the other direction, some people can lie without exhibiting any kind of physiological "tell".

    The polygraph test is and always has been a bogus fortune-teller's tool. They might as well indict somebody for explaining why astrology doesn't work.

  5. Re:You don't have it straight ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.

  6. Perception is a tool ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A logical government would take this as evidence that the polygraph itself is a bullshit test, and dump it. However, we have a bunch of petulant man-children in charge who just prefer to stamp their feet and hit somebody over the head instead of thinking.

    Investigators often rely on intimidation. A polygraph is a tool of intimidation. It does not matter so much if it in fact works reliably. All that matters is that the subject fears that it will work reliably. It may lead such subjects to being more honest, to crack under pressure or to avoid circumstances where they will face a polygraph.

    It doesn't matter if its a con to the gov't, as long as it tends to modify behavior in the desired direction.

  7. YouTube vids: Idiot's guide to remaining an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The surprise is that anyone would pay money to take a "class" when all you need to do is watch some entertaining videos.

    Perhaps learning a skill involves practice and feedback on your performance during that practice.

    YouTube videos - The Idiot's guide to remaining an idiot.

  8. Bunk science is bunk science by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The polygraph is just a modern version of Trial by Ordeal. Where about the only thing modernized is the type of witchcraft it detects.

    It has the reliability and reputation of tealeaf-reading. Actually, more people probably believe in mysticism than lie detectors.

    Under these circumstances, any organization relying on polygraph testing deserves everything it suffers. Believe Mystic Meg's advice on lottery numbers? You aren't entitled to a refund on either. Same applies here. Such devices should have been consigned to the scrap yard (and/or the museum of failed criminology) decades ago.

    It's no more easy to be sympathetic to the ex-cop. The fact that he's basically correct is irrelevant. First, he's milking the market. Ten greenbacks for a digital book that's likely to be yanked by officialdom. Even Dangermouse was content with one. Besides, most of the tricks are well-known and meditation can take care of the rest.

    From the looks of it, the guy also harasses negative reviewers. That's definitely strike two.

    And I'm willing to bet that he has abused authority a few times himself. That's becoming par for the course.

    Nonetheless, despite despising the lot, police harassment and the de-facto classification of failings within authority are absolute no-go areas and that supersedes my dislike of Doug Williams and his profiteering.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)