0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views5 pages

Computerized Polygraph Exam Results

The confidential polygraph examination report summarizes a polygraph test conducted on April 22, 2016 regarding a 2014 incident. The examinee was asked four relevant questions and showed no deception in their answers. The examiner concluded the examinee was likely telling the truth in their responses. The report details the pre-test interview, acquaintance test, comparison question test, and evaluation of the polygraph charts.

Uploaded by

api-511601193
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
11 views5 pages

Computerized Polygraph Exam Results

The confidential polygraph examination report summarizes a polygraph test conducted on April 22, 2016 regarding a 2014 incident. The examinee was asked four relevant questions and showed no deception in their answers. The examiner concluded the examinee was likely telling the truth in their responses. The report details the pre-test interview, acquaintance test, comparison question test, and evaluation of the polygraph charts.

Uploaded by

api-511601193
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

 

 
 

Confidential Report 
 
 
   

                                            
 
 
 
 

Computerized Polygraph Examination: 
 

Hee Young Noh 
 
 
Conducted April 22, 2016 
 
[Link]​   (818) 883­6969 
 
 
 

 
 
April 22, 2016   
 
three pages 
 
                Polygraph Examination conducted on April 22, 2016 
 
 
Interested Parties: 
 
      Pursuant to a request, I conducted a computerized Psychophysiological 
Detection of Deception Test (a computerized polygraph examination) with 
this examinee, in regards to a 2014 incident involving 1832 Arlington 
Avenue in Los Angeles. He presented California C6462186 as identification. 
 
 
     During a paralinguistic pre­test interview, the examinee and I thoroughly 
discussed the relevant issues (listed below as questions). All terms and 
words to be used in the relevant questions were understood by the examinee 
and then defined by the examinee to my satisfaction.   
 
 
     At the conclusion of the pre­test interview, an acquaintance test was 
conducted.  This test was used to prove to both the examinee and to myself 
that the examinee was suitable for a polygraph examination. Adequate 
recordings of the examinee’s physiology were obtained during this portion 
of the examination, so the testing continued. 
 
 

 
 
 

     A comparison­question test was then conducted using methods developed 
and validated by the U.S. government’s polygraph institute and approved by 
three national polygraph organizations. A computerized polygraph 
instrument was used to record the cardio/pulse responses, upper and lower 
respiration, and electrodermal skin conductance tracings. The instrument 
was functionality­checked for factory operation for the day of this 
examination; all functions were satisfactory. Multiple charts were collected. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                       page 2 of 3 
                                                                                                 POLYGRAPH 
 
 
 
 
The examinee was asked the following requested ​pre­written​ relevant 
questions on each chart (shown with the examinee’s given answers): 
 
 
1) On January 26 2014 did you get assaulted by Mr Johnson in 
front of white guy Charle’s house? 
 
       (Examinee’s answer: ​YES​) 
 
 
2) Has any LAPD interviewed you regarding your 911 call of 
serious chest pain due to assault by Mr Johnson? 
 
       (Examinee’s answer: ​NO​) 
 
 

 
 
 

3) ​Has LAFD Captain Knighten investigated your complaint only 
to end up calling your public defender to dismiss your case? 
 
       (Examinee’s answer: ​YES​) 
 
 
4​) Have you ever touched the face of the accusing paramedic to 
cause any wound as shown as criminal evidence? 
 
    (Examinee’s answer: ​NO​) 
 
 
 
                                                                                                        page 3 of 3 
                                                                                                  POLYGRAPH 
 
 
EVALUATION / OPINION: 
 
 
     After carefully reviewing and analyzing the polygraph charts, it is the 
opinion of the examiner that there was ​no deception​ ​indicated​ during this 
polygraph examination.   
 
 
     These results indicate that the examinee was likely telling the 
truth when answering the questions above in that he believes his 
answers to be truthful and was not being purposefully deceptive. 
 
 
     If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
John Grogan, Senior Polygraph Examiner 

 
 
 

(818) 883­6969 
Visit​ [Link] 
COPE #260422 
 
   
      ​28 years experience; if for a filed court matter, a current CV can be issued. 
   

                                  


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

You might also like