rss_2.0Sciendo RSS Feed for European Polygraphhttps://sciendo.com/journal/EPhttps://www.sciendo.comhttps://sciendo-parsed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/650a812bb429ff6411db056f/cover-image.jpghttps://sciendo.com/journal/EP140216https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-0002<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> <p>In Latin America, the investigative interview is still in its beginnings. Currently, most public and private investigators use interview and interrogation techniques aimed at obtaining admission or confession, instead of applying Investigative Interview techniques focused on information gathering. This document provides an overview of the Conversation Management Approach. This is an investigative interview technique used to interview uncooperative criminal suspects, such as those accused of feminicide. An example of how to apply the technique in a case of feminicide is shown, to serve as a guide to good practices. This technique consists of three phases that must be considered when administering and applying the interview. In the first, the behavior before the interview is reviewed, in which the planning and preparation of the interview was carried out. The second phase is the interview to elicit information, which consists of a variety of questioning style techniques, explanation of procedures and instructions to follow, rapport building, and clarification of information. The third phase is called the post-interview phase, which consists of closing and evaluating the entire interview process. The objective of this work is to provide Latin American interviewers with information on the best practices in investigative interviews used in other countries, to raise their aware of the need for training in this area. The correct application of investigative interview techniques is essential to investigate crime, and training of interviewers in this type of technique is necessary to improve the results obtained through interviews.</p> </abstract>ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-00022023-09-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-0001<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> <p>In polygraph history, Cleve Backster’s “numerical scoring chart analysis” is considered as revolutionizing the manner of polygraph charts analysis. Yet, earlier history of chart analysis, as being reviewed in this publication, lead to the conclusion that the “numerical scoring chart analysis” was more evolutionary rather than revolutionary.</p> </abstract>ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-00012023-09-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-0004ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-00042023-09-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-0003<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> <p>The authors of this article consider the advantages of using a visual version of CIT during polygraph examinations. The presentation of the rarely used CIT encourages to discussion about the possibility of implementation such tests in serious criminal cases. Their application takes a form similar to the police lineup. However, the main difference is that the suspect reviews photographs of possible crime victim. In the described case we are dealing with a so-called “reverse police lineup”. As the result, the visual CIT proved that the examinee knew the victim of the crime, despite the fact that he had previously denied this. Thanks to the examinee’s arousal recorded on the key question, it was also possible to obtain the desired psychological effect in the form of the perpetrator’s confession and the indication of other evidence proving his guilt.</p> </abstract>ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-00032023-09-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-0005ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2023-00052023-09-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0007ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00072016-02-12T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0008ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00082016-02-12T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0005<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title><p>This paper involves fifty-one re-examinations of original polygraph tests that resulted in conflicted outcomes and examinations where deliberate distortions were believed to have been employed. The Polygraph Validation Test (PVT) was successfully employed in these re-examinations to rectify the original problems and/or confirm attempts by examinees at countermeasures or augmentations.</p></abstract>ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00052015-12-04T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0006<abstract><title style='display:none'>Summary</title><p> The assessment of physiological parameters of the innocent subjects in the SPOT in the presented cases has its limits, while a comparison of these parameters with the charts of the perpetrators causes doubts as to the methodological soundness (lack of a sufficient number of cases). There are as many as four reasons hindering the assessment.</p><p>First of all, the number of presented charts of the innocent subjects is small; they are practically isolated cases and with tests featuring mainly names (given names, pseudonyms).</p><p>Secondly, I did not repeat the SPOT if it did not cause any reaction and at the same time the preliminary assessment of the CQT charts was positive for the subjects. Th is makes it impossible to compare physiological parameters of the subject in at least two SPOT charts in order to assess the evolution of the emotional activation. The parameters recorded during a SPOT were compared with the fi rst CQT chart, but this article does not present them.</p><p>Another problem results from the fact that the category of the ‘innocent’ includes the charts of two subjects (the witness of the behaviour of the possible perpetrator after the murder and the instigator of a murder). I included them in the groups of the ‘innocent’ only because the version before the examination assumed that they were the murderers, while their reactions to the control questions in the CQT were greater than those to the fundamental relevant question (‘Did you do it?’). As I mentioned above, physiological parameters of the two men in the consecutive CQT charts hinted at intensifi cation of emotions and the subjects themselves also displayed external manifestations of emotions. In principle, their charts should be presented in the group of ‘the perpetrators’. Although the manifestations of emotions were distinct, their assessment was subjective – and it cannot be verifi ed. Both subjects interfered with the examination: one refused to have his blood pressure and pulse recorded and the other interrupted the examination. This behaviour is typical for ‘the perpetrators’. Both subjects were involved in the cases, but not in the way the investigators had originally assumed. Let me add here that this is my opinion and it has not been backed by legal decisions.</p><p>Physiological parameters of the innocent subjects presented in the SPOT charts can only be assessed visually, because the Lafayette polygraphs which I used did not record them digitally. A visual assessment is not precise and to great extent subjective. Only one parameter – the pulse rate – lends itself to digital assessment, but with the reservations mentioned above.</p></abstract>ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00062015-12-04T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0003ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00032015-07-29T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0004ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00042015-07-29T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0002ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00022015-05-05T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-0001ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.1515/ep-2015-00012015-05-05T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0012ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00122015-02-06T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0013ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00132015-02-06T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0009ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00092014-12-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0010ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00102014-12-20T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0005ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00052014-08-15T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0006ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00062014-08-15T00:00:00.000+00:00https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-0008ARTICLEtruehttps://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ep-2014-00082014-08-15T00:00:00.000+00:00en-us-1