Module 8

RULES OF CHART INTERPRETATION AND EVALUATION OF POLYGRAPH RESULTS

Introduction

Polygraph Chart is about 100 feet long, 6 to 8 inches in width with ½ or .5-inch top and bottom
margins. Chart papers are imprinted with horizontal lines spaced at ¼ inch intervals or 20 divisions of the
vertical lines at 1/10 inch intervals with heavy lines at ½ or .5 inch intervals. Each ½ inch division of the
vertical lines represents 5 seconds of time. Pulse rate per minute may then be computed according to
number of beats per ½ divisions by 12.

Chart or Polygram Interpretation

The accuracy of instrumental detection of deception is dependent upon examiner’s ability to

diagnose truth or deception by reading and interpreting a subject’s charts. The polygraph chart is the
composite record of the pneumograph, cardiograph and galvanograph tracing from one series of
questions.

In every polygraph test chart there are two kinds of responses where deception may be traced
namely:

1. Normal Response – refers to the tracing of responses on the chart which does not deviates from
the norms of the subject’s psycho-physiological response the subject and usually appears when
the subject is being of irrelevant questions.

2. Specific Response – refers to any deviation from the normal tracing of the subject in the relevant
and control questions.

Pneumograph Tracing

It is normally found at the top of the chart. It is a record of a subject’s respiratory action during
the questioning process and is classified as normal or abnormal. The pneumograph pattern consists of
inhalation and exhalation strikes with a normal amplitude of form ½ to ¾ inches. The normal cyclic rate is
from 13 to 18 breaths per minute and may vary in reasons of exceptional physical build condition or
respiratory defect. The classification of abnormal is generally applied to those patterns that deviate from
the norm established by the individual.

Understanding the pneumograph tracing requires understanding of the Respiratory System which
is responsible for the taking of air into the lungs and also expelling carbon dioxide here from and the rest
of our body. This system, like the Nervous and Circulatory, is equally important to lie detection. It is well
known that we can live for 40 days or more without food, we can survive for three days without water,
but we die within minutes without oxygen. Its function is automatic.
It consists of the following:
 a. The Respiratory Tract which comprises the nose and mouth, pharynx, larynx, trachea, bronchi and
lungs;
b. The Bony Cage which includes the thoracic vertebrae, the ribs, and the breast bone or the
sternum.

As for the inspiration breathing pattern, the chest capacity is increase from front and back, from
side to side, and in the vertical plane (that is, the forward direction, the lateral direction and downward
direction).

Expiration is just the reverse of inspiration. The diaphragm and the intercostals muscles relax and
the ribs fall back in place. The air is then forced out of the lungs once chest capacity decreases.

The average breathing patterns are:

a. New Born – 50 to 70 cycles/minute

b. Children (1 to 5 years old) – 20 to 30 cycles/minute
c. Adults (without age consideration) – 15 to 20 cycles/minute

It should also be noted that men are deep breathers (they breath up to their stomach) while
women are shallow breathers (for they breath up to their chests).

The descriptive types of breathing are:

a. Normal
b. Rapid
c. Slow
d. Shallow
e. Deep
f. Serrated inhalation /both
g. Deviations caused by coughing and mechanics of answering

The pneumograph changes from the individual norm which may be indicative of deception are:

a. Change in rhythm or regularity

b. Change in amplitude or volume
c. Change in the inhalation or exhalation ratio
d. Notched or serrated inhalation or exhalation strokes
e. Change of base line; loss of base line
f. Hyperventilation
g. Suppression
h. Respiratory block

Respiration Blocks

Respiration deception response, a block or stoppage in respiration, occurring immediately

after a subject’s answer to a test question, occurring immediately after a subject’s answer to a
test question and lasting for several seconds from approximately 5 to 15 or even 20 seconds is a
very reliable symptom of deception.

Staircase Suppression

Respiration deception response, staircase suppression refers to the suppression of

respiration that assumes the appearance of staircase or upgrade set of step and which begins
immediately after the test question has been answered. Staircase suppression may occur in
several form, this is another very reliable criterion of deception.

Respiration Baseline Rise

Respiration deception response, the rise in the respiration baseline at the time a question
is asked is another very reliable symptom of deception. As illustrated the rise usually last for 15
or 20 seconds after which the baseline ordinary returns to its normal level.

Ordinary Suppression

Respiration deception response, ordinary suppression does not possess any very
distinctive characteristics such as a block, a staircase, or in baseline, but it nevertheless constitutes
a reliable criterion of deception which is equally significant as the foregoing responses in the form
of suppression in respiration that cannot be categorized except as ordinary. Some of the tracings
combine minor scale characteristics of blocks, staircase and baseline rise, but the only truly
distinctive quality is a general form of suppression.

Respiration Cycle Change

Respiration deception response, respiration cycle change the changes would be slower,
faster, or heavier respiration cycle. This is a change in respiration cycle after asking of a relevant
question is another dependable criterion of deception.

Post-Deception Respiration Relief

Respiration deception response, post-deception respiration relief this is a sign of heavier

breathing after a crucial question or even at the end of the test itself and without being preceded
by any obvious suppression, is another reliable criterion of deception.

Erratic Specific Responses

Respiration deception response erratic specific responses, aside from the previously
illustrated sets of specific responses, various forms of erratic breathing during the relevant test
question interval may reflect deception. Contrary to what is sometimes is assumed, erratic
breathing of the types shown is not due ordinarily to deliberate efforts on the part of the subject.
It is the apparent results solely from his own natural disturbance over the fact of lying.
 Pseudo-Deception Anticipatory Response In Respiration

The previously illustrated specific responses in respiration assume significance only when
they appear and continue after the answering of question or at most not any earlier than a one
cycle interval before the question is answered. If response occurs prior thereto, it ordinarily is not
indicative of deception and maybe considered a pseudo-deception response. The examiner
started to ask relevant question at Q the question was not answered until at the point marked A,
unless a response of the type shown between Q and A occurs after the subject’s answer. In cases
where subject is indulging in intentional attempts to distort the respiration tracing, an exception
to the above rule is to be made.
It is vital to note that this applies only to the respiration tracing and not to blood pressure-
pulse. A blood pressure-pulse change that occurs during the asking of a question and before the
subject’s answer nevertheless be essential as a deception response. Perhaps the difference in
significance results from the fact that respiration response to lying is sometimes due to a
conscious effort to exert control over internal disturbances at the moment a lie has been told,
while blood pressure pulse changes involve an unmanageable phenomenon that reflects tension
during the telling of a lie as well as in anticipation of the lie itself.

Generally Erratic Respiration

Respiration deception response generally erratic respiration, these generally erratic

patterns may result from excessively slow or excessively fast breathing as reflected in figures A
and B respectively. When in this form they are usually the result of deliberate effort on the part
of the subject to mislead the examiner.

Another respiration indication of deception is a fluctuating baseline throughout the entire

record and without any relationship to particular questions. In other words, the kind of baseline
change as illustrated earlier may be found throughout the record and not just as a specific
question response.

Cardiosphygmograph Tracing

It is normally found at the bottom of the chart showing the three physiological phenomena, a
systolic stroke, a diastolic strokes and a dichotic notch. Normal pulse rate of the average individual is 72
to 80 beats per minute and may vary due to the emotional tone of the subject. Amplitude or volume is
also subject to variation and dictated by the physiological structure of the person and the cuff pressure.

The cardiograph tracing taking the form of specific responses indicative of deception are:

a. Increase or decrease in blood pressure

b. Increase or decrease in pulse rate
c. Increase or decrease in amplitude
d. Change in position or disappearance of dichotic notch
e. Extra systoles
 In the interpretation and analysis of charts taken in a Peak of Tension Test, the following area
considered in the evaluation of the level tracings:

a. An increase or decrease to point of deception then a level of tracing

b. An increase to point of deception and an increase
c. A decrease to point of deception and then an increase
d. Level tracing to point of deception and then a decrease or increase
e. Erratic to point of deception and then an erratic tracing
f. Smooth to point of deception and then an erratic tracing
g. Any changes that may occur at point of deception

Other factors that specific response to be considered as possible deceptions in chart evaluation
are:

a. Distribution of reaction
b. Degree of reactions
c. Trend of gross curve
d. Rate of change of the curve
e. Latent period of reaction
f. Duration of reaction

Galvanograph Tracing

It is normally located at the center position. When properly balanced, it takes the form of a slightly
wavering line across the middle portion of the chart with a minor response to spoken stimuli.

To further understand the galvanograph tracings, it requires understanding about the skin or the
Excretory System. The skin is defined as the external covering of the body consisting essentially of the
epidermis, dermis, and the corium. The anatomical compositions of the epidermis have four layers of
stratified ephithelium, while the corium is composed of connective tissue containing lymphatic nerves
and nerve ending, blood vessels, sebaceous and sweat glands and elastic fibers.

The skin has the following basic functions:

a. Protection against injuries and parasitic invasions.

b. Regulation of body temperature.
c. An aid in the elimination of bodily wastes products.

Galvanic Skin Response or reflex (GSR) tests records changes in subject’s increase or decrease
resistance to a constant electrical current generated through the amplifier, recording galvanometer, and
rectifier of the polygraph. Since recording of this response comes from the stimuli causing a change in
sweat glands activity, the theory behind it is that, it applies the fingers, hands and palms, forehead,
armpits, anus area and the bottom of the feet as target areas. Sweat varies according to different
circumstances such as muscular exercises, nausea, pain, mental excitement, nervousness, dyspnea,
asthma, other diseases, including certain drugs which somehow affect sweating activity. Temperature and
humidity affects the sweat glands. Cold environment decreases sweating, enhances urination and
dehydration.
 The galvanic tracings which may be indicative of deception are:

a. Vertical rise at point of deception

b. Double saddle response
c. Long duration and / or degree of response following point of deception
d. Plugging salvo tracing

Comparative Setting on Polygraph Use and Admissibility

United States – polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states since 2007, and subject to
the discretion of the trial judge in the federal courts. The use polygraph in court testimony remains
controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders.
While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations, no defendant or witness can be forced
to undergo the test. The Employee Polygraph Protection act of 1988 generally prevents employers from
using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. Also,
the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. While in
other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings.

Europe – in most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not
generally used by the police forces. Courts themselves do not order or pay for polygraph tests. In most
cases, polygraph test is voluntarily taken by a defendant in order to substantiate his or her claims. The
Federal Court of Justice of Germany has ruled that polygraph evidence is not admissible in court.

Canada – in Canada, the polygraph is regularly used as a forensic tool in the investigation of criminal acts
and sometimes employed in the screening of employees for government organizations. In the 1987
decision of R. v. Beland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence
in court. This decision did not however affect the use of the polygraph in criminal investigations. The
polygraph continues to be used as an investigative tool.

Australia – the High Court of Australia has not yet considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence. The
New South Wales District Court rejected the use of the device in a criminal trial.

Israel – the High Court of Israel in Civil Appeal ruled that as the polygraph has not been recognized as a
reliable device, polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in a civil trial. In other decisions, polygraph
results were ruled inadmissible in criminal trials. However, some insurance companies attempt to include
a clause in insurance contracts, in which the beneficiary agrees that polygraph results be admissible as
evidence. In such cases, where the beneficiary has willingly agreed to such a clause, signed the contract,
and taken the test, the courts will honor the contract, and take the polygraph results into consideration.
Interestingly, it is common practice for lawyers to advise people who signed such contracts to refuse to
take the test. Depending on whether or not the beneficiary signed an agreements clause and whether the
test was already taken, or not, such a refusal usually has no ill effects; at worst, the court will simply order
the person to take the test as agreed. At best, the court will cancel the clause and release the person from
taking the test, or rule the evidence inadmissible.

India – recently, an Indian court adopted the brain electrical oscillations signature test as evidence to
convict a woman, who was accused of murdering her fiancé. It is the first time that the result of the
polygraph was used as evidence in court. On May 5, 2010, the Supreme Court of India declared use of
narcoanalysis, brain mapping and polygraph tests on suspects as illegal and against the constitution.
Polygraph tests are still legal if the defendant requests one, however. The Supreme Court on 15 February
2006, afforded polygraph results judicial notice of acceptance with certain requirements that assure the
reliability of the test and protect the rights of the defendant/examinee.

England – the current legal position, with respect to the second Bonython requirement, is that, for expert
evidence to be admissible in England and Wales, it must be sufficiently well-established to pass the
ordinary tests of relevance and reliability that is to say, the expert witness’s evidence must be sufficiently
reliable to be fit for a jury to consider.

Japan – on April 21, 1982, the Tokyo High Court admitted a written expert opinion of polygraph
examination as evidence. The polygraphist had used both Concealed Information Test and the Control
Question Technique. The judged decided that the result of the CIT method itself was reliable enough. The
CQT result was questioned not because the CQT method itself was unreliable, but because the
questionnaire used in this case was not in standard format. On October 25, 1989 – Urawa District Court,
the defendant demanded the conduct of polygraph examinations as to who was lying, he or the
interrogator. His application was rejected because of two reasons: (a) the CIT, called The Peak of Tension
Test in main text of the judgment, was inapplicable in that situation, and (b) the CQT was unreliable and
not at all admissible.

Current Status of Polygraph in the Philippines

In the Philippines, polygraph evidence was first discussed by the Supreme Court in 1978 in People
v. Daniel ( G.R. No. L-40330 Nov. 20, 1978). In this case, the accused submitted to the trial court the results
of a polygraph test to show that he was innocent of the crime of rape. The trial court rejected the results
as evidence. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court’s ruling. It held that a polygraph test is unreliable
considering that the subject took the test after the trial was over. The court reasoned that the subject no
longer felt any fear or emotional distress that would allow any finding that he committed the crime
charged. It said the accuracy of a polygraph test depended largely on the time and place of the test, and
if the subject was already distanced from the commission of the crime, the results were bound to fail.

In 1999, the Supreme Court was again confronted with polygraph evidence in People v Adoviso,
309 SCRA 1. In this case, Pablo Adoviso was convicted of two counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court
of Camarines Sur. He was identified by the two witnesses as the perpetrator of the crimes. Among the
evidence offered was the testimony of a polygraph examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation who
conducted polygraph test on Adoviso. The polygraph examiner opined that Adoviso’s polygrams revealed
that there were no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to the
investigation of the crimes. Despite this finding, the trial court found Adoviso guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The Supreme Court disregarded the negative results of the polygraph examination, stating that
American courts almost uniformly rejected the results of the polygraph tests when offered as evidence
for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or
the prosecution sought its introduction, for the reason that the polygraph had not yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable tool for ascertaining truth or deception.

On June 2000, the ruling in the Adoviso case was reiterated in People v. Reanzares, G.R. No.
130656, 29 where the Supreme Court disregarded the attempt of an accused to undermine the credibility
of a prosecution witness who refused to take the lie detector test. The court reiterated that a lie detector
test has never been accepted in our jurisdiction as a means of ascertaining the truth.
 On April 2001, the Supreme Court reiterated the same rule in People v. Carpo, G.R. No. 132676,
further stating that the court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test inasmuch as
it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception.

Polygraph evidence is consistently rejected by our Supreme Court for being unreliable and
inconclusive in determining the truth, thus, the polygraph instrument is only useful as a valuable criminal
investigative tool in the Philippines.

The major law enforcement and investigation agencies in the Philippines such as the National
Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police have been using the modern method of
polygraph testing in their respective criminal function.