Mark Doyal's story is unlikely. He claims:
"The polygraph exam was next, August 7, 1996, in San Antonio, Texas. I knew I had nothing to worry about, since I had never violated the FBI's drug policy and I had not lied on my application. The agent administering the polygraph noted during the pre-polygraph interview that I had attended a university that he believed was a 'party school' and that I needed to tell him what drugs I used when I went there. I stated that I had taken none, that I didn't live on campus, I lived in another city, and that I was an older student and wasn't influenced to do such things. He repeated that that couldn't be the case and told me again to tell him what illegal drugs I had done. I countered again that that just wasn't the case and that I was telling the truth. This went back and forth for about 10 minutes and he seemed to be getting upset that I wouldn't admit to taking drugs. Finally he stated that if I was lying he was about to find out. I was upset at the unbelievable accusations he was making. Up until that point I had been treated with the utmost professionalism by the FBI staff, now I was being treated like an accused criminal. After the polygraph was over, he told me I had failed. I almost passed out in disbelief.
"I wrote several letters to FBI Director Freeh, and in October of 1996 I was polygraphed again, by another agent with the first agent who polygraphed me present. The results were the same, he told me I had failed. I just could not believe it. I had not lied on the polygraph. Even the first agent that had polygraphed me told me as I was leaving that he now believed me, that I was telling the truth. I wrote the Director several more times to no avail, my application was terminated in November of that year. My dreams were shattered."
The behavior he attributes to the first polygrapher would have been unprofessional in the extreme. I can understand why that polygrapher might have thrown out the "party school" comment, but it would have made little sense for him to insist that Doyal must have used drugs there. Obviously, even at a "party school", many students would not have been drug users. So, I doubt if the polygrapher would have behaved in such an illogical manner. However, if he did and Doyal wrote even one letter to FBI Director Freeh about this, it's likely that Freeh would have launched an investigation of the polygrapher. At an absolute minimum, if Freeh thought that Doyal deserved another polygraph, why would Freeh have permitted the original polygrapher to be present for the second polygraph? And if was there and told Doyal he now believed Doyal, why did Doyal fail the second exam?
So, I suspect that there is far more to the story than Doyal is admitting. However, in the unlikely event that his story is accurate, it would indicate a highly flawed FBI process, as opposed to the polygraph itself being flawed.
Locknar said:
I'll go one step further, Doyal's story is total make-believe. Sure, this is how its done on TV...but anyone that has been through the process knows just how false this story is.
Hello everyone. I'm Mark C. Doyal, and I wrote that statement back in the late 90's.
I know I'm very late to this party here, this thread is 4 years old (it's amazing what a google search will give you).
As far as the statement goes, it is 100% accurate. I did not embellish or over exaggerate anything. The first individual that gave me the polygraph was somewhat hostile to me during the pre questioning session (you are told in advance what the questions are). During this pre-question discussion, he apparently thought he was doing me a favor by trying to get me to confess any "sins" before he hooked me up. Since I was already telling the truth, he was somewhat agitated when I didn't change my story. I believe his words were as he was hooking me up were "Well, we're about to find out if you are lying".
Another part of the story that I did not include was the baseline question. A baseline question is a question that they know you will lie about, or want you to lie about, then measure your response. Once the polygraph starts, any "response" that exceeds that baseline response is a lie, anything that doesn't is the truth. The baseline question he asked me concerned my speeding. He knew what kind of car I drove (300ZX Twin Turbo). The question he asked was "
Do you habitually violate traffic laws?" I gave him an honest answer: Yes. I remember him looking at me and asking it again, which I replied "Yes" again. After the 3rd repetition of this question, I finally understood he wanted me to say "No", as by answering truthfully he thought he wasn't getting a good baseline "lie".
So, based on his very strong "hint", I changed my answer to "No". I wasn't in a position at that moment to understand what he was doing, and I wanted to please him, and I trusted he was doing the right thing. At the time I thought it was some sort of joke. But the baseline question is supposed to be something that will trigger a nice "lie" response.
And that baseline answer apparently didn't register very high on his machine. We continued the Q&A, then repeated it. After it was over he told me I had failed.
A few months later I was given a second chance. They brought in a new agent who told me Director Freeh had personally directed him to fly to SA and administer the polygraph. The first polygraph administrator was present during this second polygraph. I was told that I was showing deception on all answers now.
That was along time ago and I have moved on. But, after reading the two above quotes I wanted it to be known that was exactly how it happened. The polygraph has some uses, but how it's being used in prescreening applicants is wrong and tragic.
Mark C. Doyal
