February, 2010
SFC HEADQUARTERS DOCTRINE
"Read by Thousands Round' the World!"
26 February 2010: And a Hardy "Hiyo' Long John Silvers...AWAY!"
I know this essay will drive my business oriented friends crazy, as they will tell me I need to be a walking, talking 24/7, billboard of my business. But, here is my situation. I am a bit of a hermit when I have the chance. And let's face it - what I do full time is weird.
How many people do you know of that travel the world full time to teach martial material? 25? 50 people? I don’t know. I could guess. You would have to tell me. I would guess it is a very small group and a very tiny population. I myself get to 6 or 8 countries a year in 35 to 40 seminars a year. Not many folks do this. For years now. Stay with me because I am getting to a point.
Now, how many people lie about this? I mean, if you sat at a bar or sat next to someone on a plane and they told you that they traveled to 8 countries a year teaching citizens, martial artists and members of military and police forces how to fight, you would naturally think they are a big, fat liar. You should! Look at all the ads in magazines of jerk-offs who pretend this. I would be suspicious. It is normal. Odds are you are right.
Or, a stranger would be so star-crossed he might strike up a giant conversation. Even a citizen might greatly over-imagine what such a person like me does and be chock full of questions, (after telling me that they took Tae Kwon Do when they were 13 years old.) Herein lies my problem. If I tell strangers what I do? It’s a problem. I don't like strangers. Now since I travel a lot, I am a million miler with American Airlines but I don’t just fly American! This means I am exposed to hundreds, if not thousands of people each year in restaurants, hotels, airports and planes. Many of them are “Chatty Cathys and “Chatty Charlies.” I am not a chatty. Pretty much? Leave me alone.
When one travels, it often becomes apparent sometimes, amongst others, that someone like me flies a lot. Or, they don’t know and either way, after your elbows reluctantly touch on the skinny arm rest for the first ten minutes, they lean over and ask me,
“what do you do?”
“Where are you going?”
“Stopping here? Connecting a flight?”
“Business or pleasure.”
Even at the barber shop the hair cutter wants to chat and be sociable.
“Off today?
Why am I getting a haircut during daytime and weekdays? I understand the barbershop chair chat. Smiles and chats also leads to a tip and regular business. I am not much help beyond a, “crew cut. Clip size 3. All over,” remark. My verbal skills at the hair salon are now finished. Imagine my true answer:
“Oh, I travel to about 8 countries a year teaching tactics to citizens, martial artists, police and members of military.”
“Like business tactics” they ALWAYS ask.
“No, fighting. Ahhh, fighting tactics.” And the barrage of questions begin. So these last two years I have taken to lying. I first started telling people I was in the insurance business. I thought that would shut them up. Oh no! Car? Medical? Life? More questions...
“You know, I bought a premium not long...”
And I could not answer simple insurance questions! Who would lie about being an insurance man? Yet they knew I didn't know what I was talking about!
After lying about some other experimental mundane jobs I finally hit on a solution. Long John Silvers! Now in transit, when strangers ask me what do I do? I tell them I work for Long John Silvers. I tell them I travel and look for new locations for Long John Silvers. I have noticed that this shuts them up instantly. Once in awhile they do ask,
“oh, you're in real estate?” trying to help me sound important?
I just answer, “no. I look around.” Sweet silence at last. No one knows what to say to me. I can’t tell if they feel really sorry for me or what? Nothing against Long John Silvers! But thanks, it just shuts them right down.
At times I don't mind asking some people what they do and I get to steer the conversation away from me. Recently, I met an older couple from Texas up in Vancouver, Canada. I asked them why they were "way up here?" They were going on their second Alaskan cruise. I was interested in the curise. Being polite, they asked me the same question. I quickly told them I look for new locations for Long John Silvers. Worked again! The woman was almost sad looking. Roaming the Earth alone for LJS! They were not interested in me and Long John Silvers. Win-win! For the foreigners reading this? Long John Silvers is a fast food, seafood place. Like McDonalds only nowhere near as sucessful. It's kind of a greasy fish place...
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 21 February 2010: You can Hide Your Lying Eyes - Conclusion
Charlie would work on the weak spots in the story. Then I would join the discussion. If that did not produce a confession? Charlie would wire the person up again for another round at the polygraph. He’d ask the qualifier questions again and then just the troubling, deceptive ones. Still deception? He and I would try talking with the suspect again. This was a very organized and methodical process. The polygraph was the tool. Sometimes we’d get results and sometimes we wouldn’t.
Its all about the qualifier questions. Whether the suspect is "on the box" or not. How long or short, easy or hard, flowing or stuttering, the overall pace and tone of the true answers are to the false ones. With an attentive ear (and eye) an investigator should use these methods to hunt for the truth.
You know, on the subject of the mystique of the lie detector, many of the guys that trained me or I worked with were vets from the 1950s and 60s. Here is an interesting “lie detector” story from way, way back that further shows how such equipment might be a tool. This story goes so far back, few people saw or had access to the polygraph. Nor had they seen many...newfangled...copy machines!
In the 1960s, Two old detectives, who shall remain nameless here, knew that certain Mr. Charles had knowledge about a series of business burglaries and the burglars. They picked up the old gentleman and took him to the police station for questioning. Both told me that liked Mr. Charles and did not want to harshly interrogate him.
“Nozzah! Nozzah,” Mr. Charles insisted, "I don't knows nothin' about no kinda' burglars."
"Now Mr Charles, we know you know. And we have that new polygraph machine, a LIE DETECTOR! I am sure you've heard of it. We will test you on it to prove you know.”
“You what?”
The detectives rolled into the room, the first ever copy machine our agency ever had. They plugged the copy machine in and hit the start button. Mr Charles eyes widened.
“Now step up here Mr Charles.” They lifted the lid on the copy machine. “Put your palm right here on the glass.”
“Will this hurt?”
“No. Do you know about the burglaries and were the stolen property is?"
"Noozah!"
They hit the copy button. Mr. Charles' eyes widened as the machine bathed his hand in an almost religious, bright, white light.
“Here’s the report now, “a detective said, snatching out the photo copy of the hand from the machine's tray. He casually let Mr. Charles peek at the hand print.
“Hmmm. HM!” The detective said shaking his head. He showed the palm print to the other detective, pointing out parts of the hand to each other. They shook their heads.
“You are lying, Mr Charles.”
“Oh Lordy!”
Long story short for Mr. Charles, thinking he was caught in a lie, then took the detectives to a suspect’s house that contained the stolen property. So, even a copy machine in the right situation, the mysterious "box," can be a tool in the investigation! So goes the polygraph.
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 16 February 2010: You can Hide Your Lying Eyes - Part Four
Learning the base truth qualifier responses is a vital premise. If you expound upon that into a working concept it helps well beyond yes or no answers or a polygraph
"The made-up stories tended to be bare-bones narratives," Dr Geiselman says, professor of psychology at UCLA. "Actually, I expected just the opposite, figuring if I was going to tell a fabrication I'd want to add details to make it seem more authentic. But instead we found that the false stories typically were much shorter than the genuine accounts, offering only 'highlights' of the action that supposedly took place. Imagining more perhaps required too much additional effort." the good doctor goes on, "When lying, our subjects generally offered very few details or elaborations. Their truthful stories, in contrast, tended to be spontaneously embedded with contextual details--specific times and places were given, interactions with other people and impressions of what was going on were described, sights and sounds and other sensory stimuli were often mentioned."
Well, yes and no. I have to disagree. There’s more. I guess that is where the term “tended” fits in. I am no psychologist but I have interviewed thousands of criminals, complainants and witnesses, obtaining hundreds of confessions on everything from hubcap thefts to triple homicides. As with the polygraph qualifier questions, you first have to establish the pace and style of the interviewee’s true story. Once you establish how the interviewee tells a few real stories, they need to be compared with the suspect story. If the suspect tells very short true stories, then his longer, more detailed one is in question. What I mean to say is that an interviewer should not assume that all short, bare-bones stories are the made-up ones. It depends on the suspect and suspects often conjure up their alibis in great detail. The true story is the set-up qualifier, just like a polygraph session qualifier. Each session, each person is different.
And hey! There are stories within stories! More usual than not, suspects tell a story that in part is true and in part (usually the worst part for them) is untrue. Investigators often do not have the luxury of listening to entire true stories to establish a qualifier, then entire false stories to tell the difference. Sometimes the differences are inside one story, paragraph-to-paragraph. Attuned investigators understand this. In a pinch, the qualifiers may only be a line or two inside a paragraph of conversation. The suspect tells the truth with a certain physical presence, a certain pace and tone, then when you get to part "where the gun was fired," that presence, pace and tone might change. I hate to simplify a complicated thing such as this, but its true.
How do you get a true story qualifier? If I could have the time to, I would enter the room, sit down like I was talking to an old friend, if even it was a killer! And talk about much of nothing for starters. Even the Dallas Cowboys, or something about the guy that was totally unrelated to the crime. I would take note of this demeanor. Keep in mind, the usual model is to march in and read the suspect his Miranda rights. I am not saying there isn’t a time and place for that, there is. But it shouldn’t be mandatory. With this opening, casual approach you are getting a lot of information about the suspect and how he talks and he is not talking or confessing to the crime yet! What I am getting at is that all interviews and interrogations are quite fluid. Some of my best confessions and admissions came at restaurants, not interrogation rooms! Pick your setting.
Charlie’s only setting, was his polygraph room. When Charlie sat in with the suspect after his preliminary test much of this groundwork was done by way of the test process itself. The suspect always wanted to know how he did on the test. They were ready to engage. And Charlie would light up a cigarette and tell them the news. It might be that they flat failed, or the common remark, there was "deception" here and there. “Now there was deception on question 7. The one about you ___________ . Can you think of any reason why that question would be a problem. Lets talk about it.”
Deception doesn't sound like a bonifide lie. Deception is a vague word with wiggle room. The wiggle means more talking. The talking means more opportunities to stab at the truth with your small salad fork or pitchfork.
So the polygraph would be used as a tool to stick a fork in the meat over and over again. Without the set-up of the room, the scary machine itself, the seemingly medical process and the results showing “deception,” there would be no fork and the meat was done. Part 5 coming soon....
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
13 February 2010: You Can Hide Your Lying Eyes - Part Three
Charlie would book one polygraph in the morning and one in the afternoon, so that he would have a good four hours with each one if he needed to. I, and any other investigators coming in for appointments, would sit in the room with him and we’d discuss the case. He’d fire up a cigarette any chance he could and he’d listen to the story in a stream of smoke.
The subject, if voluntary, would sit outside for this. If in custody, I’d try to to bring another officer with me. Often I’d ask a patrol officer involved with a case to come down with me so he or she could observe a process they never see. Or a new detective. Or a reserve officer. I wished someone had down that with me when I was on training wheels. This patrol officer would baby sit the suspect while Charlie and I went over the case inside. If there was a holding room for the suspect in Charlie’s wing of the building? I just can’t remember. I have memories of driving arrested suspects down to Garland DPS alone, but then I am fuzzy on where we put them.
Charlie had been a state trooper, a state detective and was nearing 60 years old. He’d been a polygraph examiner for almost 16 years at that point and there was hardly a story he hadn’t seen or heard of. I was about 27 years old at the time and I like to think I later reached something of that point myself when I got way older. After my own 16 years of 20-plus cases each month, you start to get a handle on all-things-human-nature and all-things-crime. When a double or triple homicide starts looking like a single homicide with collateral extras, and worse - when all that begins to get a bit boring? Maybe its time to slip the noose and change jobs? (Which I did in the late 1990s.)
Running the cases by Charlie you could see him pigeon-hole and file-filter the case in his mind. He’d flip open and shut his metal cigarette lighter with his thumb.
“SO...what you need me to do is see if this kid was witness or an accomplice?” He’d usually get to the point.
“Yeah, Charlie. That’s about it!”
He would design a few key lines of questioning on a yellow pad and run them by me. I'd add something or not. The questions were brief and concise. Things like... 1: “On the night of....”
2: “Did you rape (rob, kill...pillage...whatever) Wanda Jones. Simple questions like that.
3: Then he’d ask specific, nuanced questions that mattered in the overall. "Pertinent" I believe is the legal term.
Next I’d bring the person in and sit him in the exam chair. Then I would take my seat in the observation room behind the two-way mirror. Yup. Just like on TV! Charlie would methodically explain the machine in his slow, droning kind of way. Seated, he would discuss the case and slowly read the questions he/we had designed. I could see him study their faces as he asked them if they completely understood each question. This alone created a certain stress factor. Each question was made to seem vital, and the person would soon be expecting “Difficult Question 9” as he answered “Regular Question 3.” 9 was coming! And often, you could see the building crescendo during the test.
Then Charlie would rubber tube and wire the person up. He’d turn on the machine and tinker with it like he was setting a difficult radio station or to a test taker, setting a complicated MRI to perhaps peer into his brain and soul. Of course that’s a medical impossibility, but when YOU are in the chair and the juices in your “hidden brain” starts squirting...Like all examiners he would start with the qualifier questions. This sets the base line for the absolute truth with questions like:
“Your name is....”
“You live at....”
Yes or no answers. This is what the machine and Charlie will perceive as true responses. Then he would begin the prepared line of questioning. Just designing the questions was a help to me from a training perspective. I admired Charlie’s way of quickly dissecting each situation down to the root. Sort of getting everything down to a “yes” or “no.” I learned that this is a great way to layout and pace the interview. I know this sounds simple and obvious, but crimes and people can sometimes be emotional, confusing and distracting. Basic events. Timing. Pacing. That’s something we can read or talk about, but its not unlike a hitting a great note in a super song, or smacking a fast pitch over the fence in the 9th inning. Hey! Its all kung fu, man.
He’d finish the test questions. This usually didn’t take too long. He’d unhook the person and asked him to wait as he left the room. He’d come in to see me and fire up a Marlboro. He’d look at the guy through the glass and take a draw, then say, “the ol’ boy is lying,” or not, or if he couldn’t decide.
When in doubt, he'd always say, “let me take a crack at him.” Which meant he would sit in there face-to-face with the subject at the small table, position his cigarettes and lighter on the table top, and try out his interview, kung fu on him... Part 4 coming soon....
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9 February 2010: You Can Hide Your Lying Eyes - Part Two As a patrol officer, military or otherwise, thinking about or using polygraphs is just not a daily priority. When I started working for MPI - Military Police Investigations and then later, MDDS - Marijuana and Dangerous Drug Section, despite what should have been the obvious need for polygaphing, the lie detector was some sort of elusive device that required all kinds of OKs and approval up a chain of command. I never saw anyone use it. I am sure we could have forced one into play. And I am sure that if a MP colonel lost his left sock, we’d all be drawn, quartered and polygraphed by the hundreds to find a culprit.
No, it was not until a became a rookie detective in Texas that I learned a polygraph test was just a phone call away and I could muster one up with reasonable cause. Very early on I was assigned my first money-theft case at a bank in our city and the main suspect was an employee. The woman denied any knowledge of the theft, yet many elelments of the case pointed to her.
One afternoon I sat at my CID Sergeant Howard Kelly's desk and we were talking about cases and crime. I mentioned my stalemate on this, my first bank case. “Sounds like you need to polygraph her," Kelly said.
“Won’t that cost a lot?” my virgin self asked, still haunted by the stigma of the military process.
“If we hire somebody it'll cost and probably the bank would pay. If ya’ get the State to do it? Its free.”
“Free?”
“Hell, yeah. Call DPS in Garland and ask for Charlie in Polygraph. It’s free if the State does it. We can hire examiners that we like to use in some special cases, but DPS will do it for free. Just about any case.”
Kelly opened up his desk drawer, shuffled through some business cards and handed me one. Then he stood up to leave, shoving his .45 inside his tooled, leather beltline. I looked over this Charlie’s card from the Department of Public Safety headquarters in Garland.
“Hard to pass. Easy to fail,” Kelly said over his shoulder as he left the office. Hard to pass. Easy to fail. I never forgot those simple words and that about sums up the polygraph’s position in the legal system. Card in hand, I walked back to my desk and dailed the number.
“DPS Polygraph. Charlie,” the man himself answered and within a minute I had a polygraph scheduled for four days later. So much for red tape!
I drove the bank employee down there at the specified time and date, and met this Charlie. Charlie. BUT, you see this story isn’t about the bank’s money loss, or if this employee got caught lying while strapped into the machine, or really even about polygraphs exactly. It was my way to drive you down to see and meet Charlie! Its really about ol’ Charlie and how he was the most influential learning experience for me on how to successfully interrogate people I‘d ever known. And all those educational interrogations/interviews Charlie conducted right AFTER the first run of the polygraph, when the suspect was unhooked and free of all devices. The polygraph was just a tool! Which defines my earlier premise - the polygraph is just a tool to saw off the subterfuge, hammer in the pace and file down the story. Charlie was such a craftsmen, and here is what he taught me. Well, he didn’t set out to teach me anything actually, he let me...observe.
Part 3 coming soon.
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5 February 2010: You Can Hide Your Lying Eyes - Part One
When you are on the very cusp of taking a lie detector test, as in for a new job, or a routine "checkup" for an existing security job, or even a crime, you will often be talking up the subject of polygraphs. How good are they?" "Can I beat them?" Etc? "I am innocent and will one make me look guilty?" A common argument is "well if its not admissible in court, then you shouldn’t have to...."
Before the internet there were often overlooked paperback books in the back of stores on the subject. Now the web is wide open for all kinds of science, junk science and the debate on the weird little box and the quirky funny men who work them. Who can forget the scene in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still when Keanu Reeves wipes out the weird red-headed polygraph examiner?
The polygraph test compares the physiological responses breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates between clear base questions and ..."questionable" questions. If I were charged with a crime I did not commit, would I take a polygraph? Probably not. It would really depend on the circumstances. These days suspects who are smart and rich enough, pay to take a secret polygraph by a reputable pro. If they fail? It's a secret. If they pass? The government might not like the this method, but the defense can wave this pro examiner around to investigators and the media, maybe even show a film of the test, etc. Why would I hesitate to take one? Read on....
The polygraph has been inadmissible for as long as I can remember, but the expert, veteran investigators and examiners always told me that the polygraph was just a "tool." A tool. I never really understood that concept while I was I was a patrolman. But, when I became an investigator I began to...
Part Two coming soon...
Adios, Amigos
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 February 2010: Get Thee to a Nunnery (a photo from the Buffalo Nickels gallery) 
Please don't look here! Buffalo Nickels . We are NOT responsible for anything the Buff says or does!
|
