pens to be the counsel, I mean the attorney for the city and for the police department. As regards the privileged communication, one may arise as the result of that fact. That is, the fact that we did respond to the attorney for the city.

Mr. MONAGAN. It is rather surprising and somewhat shocking to realize that this exists. First of all, I don't think that you should put a dollar tag on the question of whether or not you are going to report a crime, and secondly, it does seem to establish a sort of seal of a confessional or a new privileged relationship and puts the question of whether or not a report is made either upon the examiner, or if you identify him with his employer, upon the employer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.

Mr. Moss. Briefly, back to the perpetrator of 400 burglaries and 50 holdups.

Mr. LINDBERG. Robberies.

Mr. Moss. Robberies. A rather impressive record. Could this young man have been a psychotic who just sort of expanded upon fancy and had a field day for himself?

Mr. LINDBERG. We were concerned about that. I am not qualified as a psychiatrist to speak as to whether he is a psychotic or not. He has shown no indications of that and he did verify the locations of certain of these burglaries, and certain of the robberies, and also certain routes of armored cars which he planned to "tip over," as he used the phrase.

Mr. Moss. Isn't it true that there are a great many people who come forward every year and impose burdens on police departments by confessions of crimes never committed?

Mr. LINDBERG. That is correct.

Mr. Moss. And this could occur in the course of a polygraph examination?

Mr. LINDBERG. It certainly could.

Mr. Moss. The polygraph, and I think this is what we must look at, is essentially an instrument that undertakes to measure certain physiological responses of a human being. In that sense it is a scientific instrument. In that sense, it is an accurate instrument. It measures the blood pressure, it measures the respiration, and it gives you a reaction on a galvanometer of certain surface responses. It may have other measurements that it takes. In this sense it is no different than the electrocardiogram, or as you indicated Dr. Inbau, the stethoscope. So, there is no lie detector as an instrument; is that correct?

Mr. INBAU. Yes; there is no instrument that automatically does that.

Mr. Moss. The lie detector is a human being. One of the things he relies upon is an instrument giving him a series of graphs indicating physiological reactions of a human being. Mr. Backster, in your folder you apparently endorse the use of the galvanic skin meter: Is that correct?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. Moss. And the electrical impulses that are transmitted to the instrument you feel are adequate in the hands of an operator with a high-school diploma, 6 weeks of training, and 2 years of supervised case experience to make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of another individual?

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; I do not maintain that at all. In the first place, in applicant screening, and especially in the specific type screening, I feel it is not the capacity of the polygraph examiner to determine the guilt or innocence of any one. That is the capacity of our court system and review systems, and God Almighty, perhaps.

Mr. Moss. Then we will say the honesty or dishonesty.

Mr. BACKSTER. Let us say the truth or falsity and that would be the extent of my particular findings in a specific case.

Mr. Moss. A response to this one instrument is adequate to determine truth or falsity?

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; it is not.

Mr. Moss. You didn't let me finish.

Mr. BACKSTER. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. Moss. When used under the conditions I have stated, those in the hands of an operator or with a high school diploma, 6 weeks of training, and 2 years of supervised field work.

Mr. BACKSTER. I repeat, no, sir, it is not.

Mr. Moss. All right, then, you add the other conditions.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir; in the first place, the picture here is a schematic of galvanic skin response and there is always the breathing tracing at a minimum accompanying it. Unfortunately, in printing this, the word "schematic" that was printed on the chart itself was covered over with one of the overlays. But aside from that, with breathing and with galvanic skin response properly used, the result can be used only as an interview guide during a pre-employment exam and never to determine even deception, let alone guilt.

Mr. Moss. All right, then, you are saying that the use of these two indices, that of respiration, and the surface reactions of the skin are adequate in the hands of an operator with the training previously mentioned?

Mr. BACKSTER. Adequate in what regard, sir?

Mr. Moss. To develop the truthfulness of an individual.
Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; they are not adequate to do that.

Mr. Moss. What do you require in addition to this? How significant are the readings that you take from the polygraph in the determination made by the operator?

Mr. BACKSTER. In the determination made on a preemployment test that involves more than one issue in the same chart you are no longer running a direct question-type test in which you can determine the truthfulness or the falsity of the individual concerning that particular question, but you are then running a probing peak of tension test to which the subject may respond only to the one problem area that bothers him most. He may be bothered by other problem areas. In the long run in determining whether he was telling the truth or was attempting a deception by some other method, it may be found that he was attempting deception and showed nothing on the polygraph tracings.

Mr. Moss. The basic determination goes back to the readings of the polygraph in the hands of the operator?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir, as a guide.

Mr. Moss. That is what I am getting at, sir.

Mr. BACKSTER. As a guide in interrogation only, not as an indication. Mr. Moss. You have expanded on this guide. You fall back to the readings from the polygraph?

Mr. BACKSTER. In making a report, sir?

Mr. Moss. In your statement.

Mr. BACKSTER. In any pre-employment report, not one report in 17 years of continuous usage of these indices, have I ever reported that an applicant was attempting deception.

Mr. Moss. I didn't ask you that.

Mr. BACKSTER. Or an applicant truthful either.

Mr. Moss. I didn't ask you that either.

Mr. BACKSTER. What is the question?

Mr. Moss. I asked you in your determination of the truthfulness of the person, these were significant. Then you went on to elaborate-I could have the reporter read it back-and you said that the "peaks," I believe is the term you used, become significant. That is the question I asked you.

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes.

Mr. Moss. In the determination of the operator.

Mr. BACKSTER. In what determination, sir? That is where we are at odds.

Mr. Moss. What determination is he there to make?

Mr. BACKSTER. He is not there to make a determination by this technique of truth or falsity.

Mr. Moss. What is he to determine?

Mr. BACKSTER. He is to use the chart indices as a guide in his interview procedure in the pursuit of the interview of that individual. Mr. Moss. For what objective?

Mr. BACKSTER. With the objective in mind of finding out if the person does have some serious consideration that falls within bonding company realm that is bothering him concerning a particular background topic.

Mr. Moss. What are they concerned with?

Mr. BACKSTER. They are concerned with the topics you have outlined here on this sample report. Indebtedness to see if there are financial pressures that would cause a person to be tempted to steal. Marital tranquillity only to the point of whether there is complete tranquillity, or pursuit for alimony, support, garnishees of wages, because of this; but only to a degree that does not become ultrapersonal. The extent of gambling, if this is done to a promiscuous extent. Extensive drinking if it is done to excessive extent.

Mr. Moss. This is a psychiatric examination.

Mr. BACKSTER. So is every personal interview, then.
Mr. Moss. What does the psychiatrist attempt to do?
Mr. BACKSTER. I do not feel qualified to answer that.
Mr. Moss. Behavioral problems; isn't it?

Mr. BACKSTER. You are the psychiatrist.

Mr. Moss. I am not a psychiatrist.

Mr. BACKSTER. Did I understand you right that you had psychiatric training?

Mr. Moss. No, sir. What you overheard me comment this morning to a member of my staff

Mr. BACKSTER. This was yesterday, sir.

Mr. Moss. Yesterday, that he had supplied me with a very dry bit of reading.

Mr. BACKSTER. That was today.

Mr. Moss. Entitled, "The Manipulation of Human Behavior" by Biderman and Zimmer. I manfully waded through it. I qualified myself yesterday, I thought rather pointedly, by acknowledging that I was a layman both in law and medicine.

Mr. BACKSTER. That is what I heard. May I clarify one mistake that many people make in regard to preemployment type screening? It is the very one that I fear a number of committee members may have in mind. They may think that preemployment exams are for the purpose of determining truth or deception regarding any given target

area.

Mr. Moss. Do you deal only in preemployment type examinations? Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir.

Mr. Moss. Do you deal in examinations of the type where a determination of truthfulness is the end objective?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir; I certainly do.

Mr. Moss. All right, let us confine ourselves for the moment to that type of case.

Mr. BACKSTER. All right, sir. That would be a specific incidenttype examination.

Mr. Moss. What use do you make of the instrument and what type of instrument do you utilize in those cases?

Mr. BACKSTER. During the type of examination where you are attempting to determine the truthfulness or the falsity of the individual regarding a given target that is being pursued during this type examination at a very minimum the three indices should be used without exception and preferably more than the three basic indices. Mr. Moss. All three should be used?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Blood pressure?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, and the breathing and the GSR.
Mr. Moss. And the breathing and skin response?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Have you determined what other physiological problems of a person could produce similar responses to those which show up on these graphs, and would have a bearing on the operator's interpretation?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir; I have pursued that at great length.
Mr. Moss. Through what type of training?

Mr. BACKSTER. May I start in by stating that the very basis of the procedure that is being used is not based on allowing extraneous factors to distort the examination results to any degree of consistent fashion by the very nature of the intercomparisons and the number of intercomparisons that are used throughout the examination procedure.

Mr. Moss. You know, Mr. Backster, you remind me of a hearing I had last year where we were inquiring into television ratings, and audience measurement. We had instruments there and they were very important. They formed the basis of one system and under examination they were not important, and then they were important. They either have or have not a significance.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, in this case, I think it may be of importance because this is the same system that I am talking of that is used as a standard at the Fort Gordon school.

Mr. Moss. I think it is most important and that is why I started my line of questions with you, because in the presence of this committee, you stated that you aided in establishing the system used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. And you were, I believe, the adviser in the establishment of the system now used at Fort Gordon?

Mr. BACKSTER. That is right.

Mr. Moss. For the training of polygraph operators for the Federal Government?

Mr. BACKSTER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Moss. So I am interested in your system to find out the role the polygraph plays.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, may I ask you a question? I have just several colored slides that would take a few seconds to project that could help you greatly in understanding this.

Mr. Moss. I think you could explain it, can't you?

Mr. BACKSTER. I will try to. It involves chart interpretation. Where you gentlemen yourself, within a few minutes, could interpret charts that are the product of the propert technique leading up to chart interpretation.

Mr. Moss. This is the thing that I find disturbing. It seems to me that when we start to take readings of physiological changes in anything as complex as a human being, it is inconceivable to me that within 6 months' time

Mr. BACKSTER. Six weeks, sir.

Mr. Moss. Six weeks, I believe. Six months in deference to the others. That in 6 months a person with a minimum educational background which has been the concensus of the three gentlemen in one instance and the high school qualification which you accept as adequate, that these people can take, with any degree of reliability, and fall back upon these physiological responses, unless they are fully conversant with all of the things that could go wrong in that body, the differences between human beings, which could produce similar responses. Whether the person before you is one who has, we will say, been long under tension? Maybe he is not even aware of it. Whether it is a very relaxed person? Whether it is a person who has some serious illness undetected which could have an impact upon the physiological responses? I don't see how, lacking this basic training, a person is really competent to rely upon physiological changes and indication of those changes as having pertinency to their truthfulness in responding to questions put by the operator, again who has no particular training in the field of psychology. Mr. BACKSTER. May I comment?

Mr. Moss. Yes, you can comment.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, I wish only for the opportunity to be able to convince you and the gentlemen with you that this can be done. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Backster referred to some slides. Do you have them here with you?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. MEADER. Why don't we see them?