Mr. Moss. The first one here is supposed to recall something years passed.

Mr. BACKSTER. Earlier in life; yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. The next one is to bear directly upon his guilt or his innocence.

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. The term guilt

Mr. BACKSTER. His later verified guilt.

Mr. Moss. You are asking him the question now and the chart is made now, and you are telling me this is on his later verified guilt. When is the chart made?

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, I am talking in regard to his deception to the target issue.

Mr. Moss. I can only hope that the course is far clearer than the responses have been. Mr. Reuss, do you think you might bring some order out of the chaos I have gotten myself into?

Mr. REUSS. I would like to ask one question. Look, whether he is an operator, an examiner, or whoever it is, there is just one human being there who asks the questions and operates the machine, is there not?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes; there is only one.

Mr. REUSS. In addition to that one fellow called a subject.

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REUSS. He is the fellow who is examined, so there is a total of two, is that correct?

Mr. BACKSTER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. REUSS. I think this unravels the mystery of the operator and the examiner. The same fellow.

Mr. Moss. Yes; I had elicited that, Mr. Reuss, but I have not yet been able to learn what is it they are given in the way of training in this 6 weeks to qualify them to draft questions to bring forth from anything as complex as a human being the specific types of reactions.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, I have this enumerated, in fact, the entire course breakdown, in the material given to you this morning, if I may refer to it.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Backster, if I had time to take the correspondence I would not have to call you in. That is why I had hoped you would be able to cut through some of the material that you have presented to me and clarify it.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, you have me at an unfair advantage. I can't answer that.

Mr. Moss. You mean

Mr. BACKSTER. You would consider it impertinent.

Mr. Moss. I what?

Mr. BACKSTER. You would consider my answer impertinent and I would not want that.

Mr. Moss. I would prefer you let me decide what is impertinent. If you are answering in good faith I will even tolerate impertinence. Mr. BACKSTER. I am answering in good faith.

Mr. Moss. Let us have it.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, the answer is: as a student I would find it much easier to deal with you than as a Congressman.

Mr. Moss. I would hope as a student I would find you much clearer than I have as a Congressman because if I did not, I would indeed fail the course. Let us take a look at the training curriculum. I think this is most important to try to get on this record, in some reasonably concise form, the nature of some of your instruction, again in view of the fact that yours is the more relevant procedure because it is the one most commonly employed in the training of those who operate polygraphs for the Federal Government. I can-at the risk of prejudging say that I have not been reinforced in my seeking assurance that the best technique has been employed. I assume that this is section D, polygraph question formulation:

This course section strongly emphasizes scientific selecting of the strongest possible examination target through evaluation of intensity, adequacy of available information, and distinctness of issue. Also emphasized are strict rules governing the formulation of the relevant questions covering the target selected. These rules involve singleness of issue, clarity of issue and literally touch upon the science of semantics. (See exhibit 6, p. 184.)

In 6 weeks.

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. The science of semantics. There are many who have regarded it as a lifetime study. "Adequate formulation of questions for reliable stimulation of the innocent is emphasized." Are the questions always made up ahead of time before a subject is hooked up to a polygraph?

Mr. BACKSTER. Most of the time, sir, they are made up with the subject before he is hooked up to the polygraph so that he may have the choice of taking or refusing the test.

Mr. Moss. Is there during the course of the presentation of these questions a conscious or unconscious evaluation by the operator of the probable guilt or innocence of the subject?

Mr. BACKSTER. I can speak for myself, sir, on that.

Mr. Moss. In your course, is care taken to insure that this does or does not happen?

Mr. BACKSTER. We take great care to insure that this does not happen, sir.

Mr. Moss. Because it is brought to my mind rather forcefully when it here refers to the stimulation of the innocent. "Adequate formulation of questions for reliable stimulation of the innocent is emphasized," which would indicate to me some prejudgement in the formulation of questions. If I am wrong I would like to have the record reflect the facts.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, there is prejudgment and you are not really wrong. But it is prejudgment by question purpose if that is the case it is implied by the relevant question also. Each eventuality is projected.

Mr. Moss. In the 6 weeks, in 12 hours, we are going to get the science of the semantics.

Mr. BACKSTER. That is touched upon.

Mr. Moss. Then there is an evaluation made before the questions are in their final form.

Mr. BACKSTER. Evaluation of the questions; yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. No; of the subject.

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir. As far as his guilt or innocence is concerned, or his truth or deception.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Reporter, would you read back the answer to the question I asked over here?

(The question was read by the reporter.)

Mr. Moss. I asked the question because I find myself somewhat confused by your two answers. I asked very clearly if there was an evaluation and you said, yes, that I was not wrong. Then I repeated essentially the same question here in different context and received a different answer which was that I was wrong. Now, which is it? Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, during the pretest procedure and the formulation of the questions that are to be used during the examination, I had at all costs attempted to avoid any premature opinion as to the truthfulness or deception of the person in regard to the target issue. But I do evaluate the questions and apply rules to each of the questions to see if they will stand up against each eventuality, that the person be telling the truth and the person not be telling the truth to the target issue.

Mr. Moss. Now, is all of this taught in the 12-hour course?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes; it is in each note pack, outlined step by step where they check the list.

Mr. Moss. Do you realize, Mr. Backster, that you have in a 12-hour period of instruction undertaken to cover a very extensive field. You are going to teach them to formulate questions designed to bring forth a specific type of stimulation of the subject. I would imagine it would take a rather skilled psychiatrist, really, or it would take some instruction in psychology to do the kind of think you are planning here, and yet you achieve all this in 12 hours.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, I have given 20 courses and achieved it. We are on our 20th course now.

Mr. Moss. You have given 20 courses. How do How do you know you have achieved it?

Mr. BACKSTER. We do keep contact with these people when they go out on their field projects and they return for the advanced conferences we hold for them.

Mr. Moss. This is always an in-shop evaluation of your own people and your own system?

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, we would welcome one from outside the shop. Mr. Moss. But you have not had it?

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; we have not.

Mr. Moss. This, I think, is the thing that is significant here. You feel that the 6-week course is thoroughly adequate and that the high school diploma is a sufficient base upon which to build a career as a polygraph examiner.

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. Moss. Then what do you feel would be an absolute minimum for an adequately trained operator or examiner, whichever you prefer to use?

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, to give an absolute minimum and give anything other than 6 weeks that we are giving now would be in conflict with myself. I can give a suggested length for the course, but not considered as an absolute minimum.

Mr. Moss. Don't you have an idea after many years as to the absolute minimum to be desired in this type of instruction?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, sir. On an absolute minimum to be desired I have. That would be 6 months easily.

Mr. Moss. And the qualifications of the trainee?

Mr. BACKSTER. The qualification of the trainee, the more college the man had the better, the more investigative experience the better. Mr. Moss. Don't you have a minimum qualification? You are dealing here with a very important subject, the human being. I not only have a strong feeling that he has the rights granted under the law, but I think as our Constitution states God-given rights.

Mr. BACKSTER. I agree with you, sir.

Mr. Moss. There is an area where much damage and mischief can be done with the unskilled.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, this is an area in which I have worked harder than most to see that such damage is not done.

Mr. Moss. Then you must have an idea as to the absolute minimums to be desired to achieve the type of operator in whose hands we would entrust what could well be the individual fate of a human being.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, may I comment on what I think is a difference of opinion that really is not so if we think of it in terms of reality. Mr. Moss. I think it would be most helpful if you would respond to my question as to your judgment of the minimums.

Mr. BACKSTER. That is what I am trying to do, sir.

Mr. Moss. To that you may respond.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir. I think you have handicapped me where I can't. I was to talk of the disciplining of the examiner once he is operating in the field. There is a restriction of his behavior.

Mr. Moss. I think it most important that you have certain basic training rather than go into a period of self-evaluation.

Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; self-regulation.

Mr. Moss. Or an evaluation by the same system that produced you in the first place.

Mr. BACKSTER. Sir, I am speaking of self-regulation. Regulatory measures to be sure that these things do not happen.

Mr. Moss. The basic question here is whether there is sufficiently established as a science, a skill, or a field of knowledge, to be dependent upon to the extent it is now being dependent upon by agencies of the Federal Government. So it is an evaluation of it as it is, and the things it should be if it is not now adequate. You have responded to my request as to whether you regard the 6-week training period as adequate by saying that you do not.

Mr. BACKSTER. I do not consider it as-I can't

Mr. Moss. You either do or you don't, Mr. Backster.

Mr. BACKSTER. Under the circumstances I do consider it to be.

Mr. Moss. Under what circumstances?

Mr. BACKSTER. Under the circumstances that do not allow collegegrade people to be available at police departments to train them at the present time and they cannot be away 6 months.

Mr. Moss. If a minimum requires a college education to do an adequate job, then we should not be satisfied with less than adequate because if we are we are abusing people. If you have strong convictions as to the rights of individuals, certainly you can see that. Do you have a personal opinion as to the minimums?

Mr. BACKSTER. Yes, I have a personal opinion by desire.
Mr. Moss. Do you desire to have this record reflect?
Mr. BACKSTER. Certainly.

31-647-64-7

Mr. Moss. Then state it.

Mr. BACKSTER. As quickly as it can be accomplished and where the police departments are having available to them or avail themselves of college graduates in sufficient quantity to satisfy this college requirement I feel they should do so. In the meantime they should not terminate all their services because they do not have a college level examiner. As far as the basic experience is concerned, prior to training, I think the more investigative experience a person has the greater. The University of the State of New York has not chosen to put a minimum on that. I only can offer what they have asked or imposed upon us through their State board.

Mr. Moss. In other words, you feel that the end justifies the means? Mr. BACKSTER. No, sir; I am the last to think that.

Mr. Moss. I wonder if we might have some comments from you, Mr. John Reid, again getting more specifically into this question of qualifications which you have set forth-no, Mr. Lindberg, I believe you set it forth-about five points this morning, if I recall correctly.

Mr. LINDBERG. Yes.

Mr. Moss. Do you feel that constitutes an adequate minimum for operators of the polygraph?

Mr. LINDBERG. The points I brought forth this morning?

Mr. Moss. Yes.

Mr. LINDBERG. Yes. This is our present opinion.

Mr. Moss. And that additional knowledge as to the physiology of the human body is not required beyond that.

Mr. LINDBERG. No, I don't believe that at all. I pointed out in these comments that the training facility which, of course, forms the examiner, and my point (d) it must be one which includes supplementing the standard college courses in the fields of physiology and psychology with specific information from these sciences as it relates to the detection of deception.

Mr. Moss. Would there be any difference in the responses you might receive from a person who has this smoking habit as badly as I have and one who does not have it at all?

Mr. LINDBERG. We don't find any relationship.

Mr. Moss. Have you undertaken a study to determine whether there is?

Mr. LINDBERG. Not specifically, no.

Mr. Moss. Yet we are told that this has quite an effect on the physilogy of the body, particularly blood pressure, and respiration. If you had a subject who had been a heavy smoker and was in the middle of a test and was not smoking at the time, what might it do to his responses?

Mr. LINDBERG. Our experience_reflects the fact that it does nothing relevant to our recordings. It does not result in any erroneous

responses.

Mr. Moss. Sometimes when I go someplace where I can't have a cigarette now and then, and I am not particularly enthused about the proceeding I find I become very restless.

Mr. LINDBERG. I do also.

Mr. Moss. Isn't it reasonable to assume, then, that it would have some very definite effect?