Forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph: the formation period.
Yu. I. Kholodny
Doctor of Law, Candidate of Psychological Sciences (Bauman Moscow State Technical University)
Source: Bulletin of Criminalistics (issue 25.29)
Fifteen years ago, in March 1993, polygraph interviews (hereinafter referred to as OIP) were approved for use in operational-investigative activities (hereinafter referred to as OIA) on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Over the past years, the OIP method has confidently entered the arsenal of domestic forensic science tools, and the use of the polygraph in law enforcement practice has been steadily growing from year to year.
A convincing confirmation of this is the review «Generalization of the practice of using the capabilities of the polygraph in the investigation of crimes», prepared at the end of 2005 by the Criminalistics Department of the Main Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — CC MID GP RF).
In 2001, the military prosecutor's office bodies for the first time initiated the implementation of the IIP in the form of a forensic psychophysiological examination (hereinafter — SPPE), breaking the established point of view that this method is applicable exclusively for operational-search purposes and the results of the IIP cannot serve as evidence in the case.
By the beginning of 2008, there were already dozens of cases where the results of the IIP, carried out in the form of the SPFE, were recognized as evidence by courts of various instances, including the military collegium and the criminal cases collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Conducting surveys using a polygraph in the form of an examination: issues requiring resolution
Along with the obvious successes in the use of the polygraph, it should be noted that many issues of a legal, methodological, technical and other nature concerning the implementation of the OIP in procedural conditions have clearly not been sufficiently developed.
In this regard, for many polygraph specialists, the appearance in the spring of 2004 of the «State Requirements for the Minimum Content and Level of Requirements for Specialists to Obtain the Additional Qualification of «Forensic Expert for Conducting a Psychophysiological Study Using a Polygraph», approved by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, was unexpected.
«State requirements» were supplemented by «Model additional professional educational program for professional retraining of specialists to obtain additional qualification «Forensic expert for conducting psychophysiological research using a polygraph» with a volume of 1078 hours, recommended for implementation in practice by the Educational and Methodological Association of educational institutions of professional education in the field of forensic examination (hereinafter — UMO SE).
Soon after the above-mentioned «Model Additional Professional Educational Program», a group of authors prepared a «Model Additional Professional Educational Program for Retraining Specialists to Perform a New Type of Professional Activity — Conducting a Psychophysiological Study Using a Polygraph» (560 hours of work).
In the summer of 2005, the program was approved by the Forensic Science Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and was recommended for implementation by the Council 1 of the UMO SE.
In development of the above-mentioned “State Requirements”, a “Species Expert Methodology for Conducting a Psychophysiological Study Using a Polygraph” was also developed.
The emergence of the above-mentioned documents logically led to the idea that an extensive list of legal, methodological and other issues had already been successfully resolved and the time had come to begin large-scale training of forensic experts in the specified specialty, which law enforcement practice really desperately needs.
The Federal Interdepartmental Coordination and Methodology Council for Forensic Science and Expert Research (hereinafter referred to as the FICMS) promptly drew attention to the emergence of the above-mentioned regulatory legal acts and in the period 2004-2005 repeatedly considered the «problem of conducting research using a polygraph.»
In 2006, a meeting of the working group of the specialized section of the FMCMS on current issues of conducting forensic medical, forensic psychiatric and forensic psychological examinations was held, dedicated to the generalization of departmental methods for conducting forensic psychophysiological examinations using a polygraph.
The meeting came to the conclusion that «it can be agreed that the practice of these studies is permissible within the framework of operational investigative activities (provided that the legislation on operational investigative activities is amended accordingly). As for the possibility of using them as forensic evidence, this problem requires additional study.»
In development of the conclusions of the working group, the FMCMS instructed the author of this article «to create a special working group on the problems of conducting research using a polygraph, in particular to determine the subject, object and objectives of the research, and to consider a training program for polygraph specialists.»
By making such a decision, the FMCMS actually stated that the basic provisions of «polygraph research» — their subject and object, their tasks — do not currently have a generally accepted interpretation, and, as a consequence of this, the technology for training specialists in the OIP, presented in the above-mentioned regulatory acts, requires a critical re-evaluation.
In connection with the above, we will try to answer the questions posed by the FMCMS.
Introductory remarks
OIP is a non-traumatic and harmless to life and health technology of questioning a person, organized according to special methods, using control and evaluation of physiological reactions, which are recorded using polygraph sensors placed on the body of the person being questioned.
The most important part of OIP, its core, is a complex psychological and psychophysiological process — a pre-test conversation with the person being questioned and his subsequent testing on a polygraph (hereinafter — TnP).
In our previous works it was shown that the IPR is a forensic study aimed at detecting the presence (or absence) of ideal traces (mental images) of events in a person's memory7.
Human memory is a complex formation, which is a set of closely interconnected processes that ensure the perception, imprinting, storage and retrieval of information.
Personally significant events are remembered (imprinted in memory) much faster and are retained longer than subjectively insignificant ones. Memorization can be voluntary and involuntary.
Memorization of routine (for example, educational) material is carried out voluntarily and requires volitional efforts.
Vivid, impressive events or phenomena (for example, the presence of a witness at a crime scene) are remembered involuntarily and, as modern psychophysiology shows, are stored in the so-called emotional memory.
Memory is also characterized by forgetting — temporary loss (when a person needs to recall some element of information in order to reproduce it) or permanent loss of information (when the brain «lost» the path to finding information in memory or the information was destroyed as a result of a long absence of access to it).
An important property of ideal traces stored in human memory is that they are subject only to natural destruction (forgetting certain facts or their circumstances), but are inaccessible to their deliberate destruction: a person is not capable of deliberately forgetting some information.
The most personally significant piece of information for a person (for example, his participation in a crime or some circumstances of this crime that attracted his attention) can be stored in emotional memory against his will and desire for decades.
This is precisely what the effectiveness of the application of the OIP method in law enforcement practice is based on.
Extensive foreign practice of using the polygraph, the author of this article's own long-term experience in performing OIP on individuals of various categories, and his theoretical and experimental studies have led to the idea that scientific and applied knowledge about identifying information that a person may be hiding using a polygraph form a new direction in forensic technology — forensic diagnostic research using a polygraph.
It should be noted that at the initial stage, the new direction in forensic technology was called forensic polygraphology.
This name united the entire body of knowledge about several particular forms of the psychophysiological method of «lie detection», based on very different methodological principles of detecting ideal traces in human memory and using various hardware and software tools for this purpose.
Subsequently, the author of this article moved away from this terminology as inadequate and overly expansive.
At present, the most acceptable name for the subject matter covering the theoretical and applied aspects of the IIP is forensic diagnostic research using a polygraph.
One of the urgent tasks of developing a new direction in forensic technology at the current stage is to introduce the IIP method into the practice of forensic examination.
In recent years, forensic examination has been enriched by the theoretical and applied works of T. V. Averianova, A. M. Zinin and N. P. Mailis, E. R. Rossiyskaya and other specialists, who convincingly presented the level of achievements of this branch of knowledge at the current stage of development.
Therefore, in an effort to define the subject, object and tasks of the SPFE, we will use the concepts, definitions and provisions that have become textbook in modern domestic forensic examination, and consider the OIP from the standpoint of the categorical apparatus of this science and the theory of forensic diagnostic research.
Subject of forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph
According to E. R. Rossinskaya, “the subject of a forensic examination consists of factual data (circumstances of the case) investigated and established in civil, administrative, criminal and constitutional proceedings on the basis of specialized knowledge in various fields of science and technology, art and craft.”
T. V. Averianova defines the subject of forensic examination as «establishing facts (factual data), judgments about a fact that are significant for a criminal, civil, arbitration case or cases of administrative offenses, by examining the objects of examination, which are material carriers of information about the event that occurred.»
The interpretation of the subject of examination remains, in principle, unchanged when it comes to expert studies of the human psyche, covering forensic psychological and forensic psychiatric examinations, which in the general classification of expert sciences belong to the same class and are considered as borderline generic expert disciplines.
This is determined by the unified focus of these sciences on the study of the characteristics of human mental functioning.
On the same basis, this class includes a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, derived from generic basic examinations.
Therefore, according to I. A. Kudryavtsev, «the subject of the class of all three examinations is to establish the influence of the characteristics of the mental state and personality on the quality of reflection and regulation of legally significant behavior of a person (subject to examination) at the moment of interest to the investigator (court)».
A similar point of view is held, in particular, by O. D. Sitkovskaya and her co-authors, who point out that the subject of forensic psychological examination “is the components of mental activity (psyche) in its integrity and unity, established on the basis of a study of a person’s mental activity and having significance for the justice authorities.”
The IPC studies ideal traces of past events stored in human memory, or, figuratively speaking, «virtual traceology».
Therefore, the subject of the IPC should have the characteristics of both the subject of an examination that studies material objects and the subject of an examination that studies the human psyche.
Thus, following the views of scientists set out above and projecting their position regarding the subject of examination onto the application of the method of the IPR in this form, it can be stated that the subject of the SPFE is the establishment of factual data that are significant for a criminal case, by examining the components of the human psyche, in particular — his memory.
The subject of a specific examination is “the establishment of the same factual data discussed above, but in contrast to their general characteristics, specific data are indicated here, conditioned by the content of a specific criminal case”, or, in other words, the “expert task that the expert must solve during and based on the results of the study based on the corresponding volume of special knowledge using the means and methods at his disposal”.
With regard to forensic psychological examination, F. S. Safuanov states that in each specific case, “the subject of the forensic psychologist-expert’s study is the patterns and features of the course and structure of mental processes (mental activity), which have legal significance and entail certain legal consequences”.
Following the approach we have chosen, we come to the conclusion that the subject of a specific SPFE is the establishment of factual data of interest to a specific criminal case and formulated in the form of specific questions that the polygraph examiner will have to answer as a result of the study of the memory of a specific person (subject to examination) during the OIP.
Polygraph interrogation as a method of forensic diagnostics
Considering the fact that the IPC deals with ideal traces of past events that are fundamentally not subject to identification, it becomes obvious that only diagnostic studies can be carried out during the SPFE.
Thus, it became necessary to carefully consider the technology of using a polygraph from the standpoint of the theory of forensic diagnostics21, and priority in this belongs to V. S. Mitrichev.
It is generally recognized that forensic diagnostic studies are aimed at establishing the states of objects, cognition of events, phenomena and processes.
It is also known that objects of forensic diagnostics, depending on their role in the diagnostic process, are divided into two classes — diagnosed and diagnosing. It was assumed that «the diagnosed object is the established condition (object, situation)».
In general, «the diagnosed is what needs to be recognized (property, state, other similar features, mechanisms); diagnostic — material traces (signs) of the crime event, reflecting externally the recognizable features, characteristics and mechanism.»
The above provisions made it possible to determine the objects of the diagnostic process when testing a person on a polygraph.
Thus, events (phenomena, objects, objects) of the external world are perceived by a person by various senses and are imprinted in his memory in the form of certain images, regardless of which analyzer they were perceived through.
In particular, visually perceived information as a result of the activity of various brain structures is transformed into the combined activity of many neurons, which form a neuronal trace of a particular event in the form of an engram (i.e. a memory trace formed as a result of receiving some information).
This neurophysiological reflection of a specific external event appears in the human consciousness as an image of this event.
Subsequently, when extracting information from memory, it can be assumed (with certain reservations and rather conditionally) that a person “reads” a visual image from memory, recreating it with the help of oral or written speech or a model (for example, depicting it in a drawing).
If any information comes through the auditory analyzer, then, in principle, the same process occurs: the human psyche, processing verbal material, extracts meaning, significance from it and stores it in the form of corresponding memory traces (engrams).
In order to see the specifics of the objects of the diagnostic process involved in the TnP, we will use the example of a real OIP conducted in the interests of searching for an anonymous person who made a telephone call.
In the questionnaires presented below, the features of the telephone call made, by which it was necessary to identify the wanted person, are underlined.
The person who made the call knew where, when and where he was calling from, therefore the underlined questions were of high importance to him, and they caused him to have stable, pronounced physiological reactions.
For other persons subjected to TnP and not involved in this call, the underlined questions did not have such significance, and no stable, pronounced reactions arose to them.
Questionnaire 1
Are you aware that the telephone conversation involving confidential information was conducted:
1. from the CEO’s reception room?
2. from the company’s accounting department?
3. from the security staff’s room?
4. from the dispatchers’ room?
5. from the company’s garage?
6. from the company’s analytical department?
Questionnaire 2
Are you aware that the telephone conversation involving confidential information took place:
1. May 23?
2. May 25?
3. May 27?
4. May 29?
5. May 31?
6. June 1?
Questionnaire 3
Are you aware that the employee who transmitted confidential information called on the telephone number:
1. 121-30-20?
2. 131-40-50?
3. 141-60-70?
4. 151-80-90?
5. 161-10-80?
6. 171-70-40?
The questionnaires provided indicate that the objects being diagnosed, which one has to deal with during TnP, are ideal traces of previously occurring events, and to search for these traces in a person’s memory for diagnostic purposes, the following can be used:
— objects — in the case of visual perception (presented photographs of people, objects or areas of terrain, objects, maps, diagrams, documents, phone numbers, addresses written on cards, etc.);
— semantic concepts — in the case of auditory perception (test questions, each of which covers a separate element, circumstance or characteristic of an event).
The questionnaires indicate that in the case of an appeal during the TnP to a person's memory with the help of a diagnostic object aimed at finding traces of a criminally relevant event (characterized by a semantic concept describing this event or some of its circumstances), his psyche perceives this impact and reacts to it.
If such an appeal to memory occurs methodically correctly, and the person conceals the established criminally relevant act, which is obviously highly significant for him, the diagnosing object encounters the corresponding diagnosable object, and a comparison of their contents (meaning) occurs.
The result of such a comparison (as well as the objects themselves) is of an ideal (“virtual”) nature and is not subject to direct observation and evaluation from the outside.
At the same time, obtaining this result is accompanied by increased neural activity of the brain structures involved in this process, and, as a consequence, the polygraph registers more pronounced physiological reactions in a person, which appear independently of his will and desire and indicate the presence in the memory of an ideal trace of a criminally relevant act.
If the memory access is methodically correct, but the person is not involved in the criminally relevant act being established and does not hide anything about it during the TnP, the diagnosing object does not find the corresponding diagnosable object.
As a result, the neural structures of the brain involved in this process do not receive additional activation, and the polygraph does not register pronounced physiological reactions when the diagnosing object is presented to the person.
The condition of methodically correct access to the person's memory requires strict adherence to the norms and rules for performing the TnP, as well as the entire technology for conducting the OIP.
In the case of methodically incorrect access to human memory, the polygraph can register reactions that are not associated with the sought-after ideal traces of past events, and, as a consequence of this, the polygraph examiner will come to an erroneous judgment based on the results of the IIP.
The IIP technology has forced a new assessment of the content of the concepts of «diagnosed object» and «diagnosing object» in relation to the diagnosis of ideal traces and has provided the basis for two conclusions.
The first of these concerns the nature of diagnosing objects.
Extensive practice of the OIP has clearly shown that non-material objects — semantic concepts — can act as diagnostics.
In connection with the fact that the object containing traces of a crime (offence) is the human psyche, or more precisely, his memory, then any material or «ideal» object that can generate an image adequate to the purposes of diagnostics can act as a diagnostic.
As the above example shows, the circumstance of the crime — «the company's garage», being, undoubtedly, a material object, appears in the questionnaire as a semantic concept.
Telephone numbers, being mediated semantic concepts, appear in the course of the TnP as material objects-cards, but ultimately also generate a certain semantic concept in the human psyche.
The date of the crime (May 29) and other dates are purely semantic concepts, «ideal objects» both in real life and in the conditions of the TnP.
Thus, before the emergence of the IPC in forensic science, diagnostics were recognized exclusively as “signs that reflect in material form… the state, properties of an object, the mechanism of an incident”25, and a “virtual” group of diagnostic objects – semantic concepts – did not exist.
The emergence of a group of “virtual” diagnostic objects was quite natural, given that the “ideal traces” of past events act as diagnostic objects.
The second conclusion is as follows.
Practice has shown that the semantic concepts used in the course of TnP can be surnames, nicknames of people, addresses, names of settlements and regions, names of actions and much more.
This logically leads to the idea that not only diagnostic, but also diagnosed objects can be semantic concepts imprinted in a person's memory that unambiguously characterize events and phenomena of the external world.
V. A. Snetkov came very close to such an understanding of the objects being diagnosed, noting that such objects could be “reflections – both material (objective) and ideal (imprinted in the consciousness of people)”, but he limited himself to this and did not develop this idea further.
Object of forensic psychophysiological examination using a polygraph
Taking into account the above basic provisions of the theory of forensic diagnostics, let us consider the object of SPFE.
The object of expert research is a material object containing information necessary for solving an expert task.
This understanding of the object of expert research, set forth by R. S. Belkin, has become generally accepted and does not depend on the specific version of the definition of this concept given by certain scientists.
For example, Yu. K. Orlov considers the objects of expert examination to be “those information carriers that are subject to expert examination and by means of which the expert learns the circumstances included in the subject of the examination.” A. M. Zinin and N. P. Mailis distinguish “the object of forensic examination is general — a material carrier of information about the facts of interest to the investigation and the court, examined within the framework of the examination as a means of proof.”
The object of forensic examination is specific — an individually determined object presented for the production of an examination in a specific case.”
In relation to forensic psychological examination, F. S. Safuanov defines as the object of research of a forensic psychologist «the peculiarities of the mental activity of the subject in legally significant situations.»
Considering the urgent need to form a categorical apparatus of SPFE, an attempt has recently been made to characterize the object of expert research using a polygraph.
In particular, it was stated that “the object of expert examination, in a broad sense, is the physiological manifestations of the course of mental processes associated with the perception, consolidation, storage and subsequent reproduction by the subject of information about any event.”
Leaving aside the question of why the author of this definition considered the issues of expert examination using a polygraph in the chapter devoted to interrogation and confrontation tactics, let us pay attention to the interpretation of the object of the SPFE.
It should be noted that when performing TnP, the polygraph examiner is not interested in the course of mental processes associated with the perception, consolidation and subsequent reproduction by the subject of information about some event.
How the “perception” and, especially, “consolidation” of the information of interest to the investigation proceeds in each specific case is currently beyond the capabilities of objective (instrumental) observation and control.
Similarly, mental processes associated with the “subsequent reproduction by the subject of information about some event” are of no interest.
The polygraph examiner is interested in something else — the presence (or absence) in the memory of a specific person of ideal traces of past events that are of interest to the investigation and the court. When diagnosing the presence (absence) of such traces, the polygraph examiner uses the physiological reactions of a person as an indicator of the success of the diagnostic process.
It is fundamentally important to note that “physiological manifestations” (i.e. reactions recorded using a polygraph) are not the “object of expert examination,” but its tool, a means of visualizing the dynamics of a person’s mental activity when studying his memory.
Thus, the object of SPFE, in a broad sense, is a person’s memory as an integral part of his psyche, and the object of a specific SPFE is the memory of a person sent to conduct an examination on a specific case, as well as the materials of this case.
By the type of information carrier, objects of expert examination of forensic examination are divided into objects-subjects and objects-reflections.
The latter include material objects on which, as a result of the process of trace formation, understood in the broad sense of the word, information about another object, event or phenomenon is reflected.
Obviously, objects of forensic examination should be classified as objects-reflections.
Use of surveys using a polygraph in the disclosure and investigation of crimes
The need to use polygraph interrogations (hereinafter — IUP) in solving and investigating crimes does not arise in all cases.
The use of a polygraph depends on a number of factors and, in general, is determined by the investigative situation, i.e. «the conditions in which the investigation of the crime is currently being carried out.» It is obvious that each IUP has a unique, unrepeatable character.
According to the data of the polygraph specialists (hereinafter referred to as polygraph examiners) of the US Department of Defense, in the early 1980s the investigative bodies of the armed forces of this country used the polygraph in 17-19% of the criminal investigations conducted (annually — about 7000 polygraphs).
Such a low percentage indicates a differentiated approach to the application of this method.
In relatively simple investigative situations, the bodies of inquiry and investigation quite successfully manage without a polygraph, using traditional methods and means of investigating crimes. However, the polygraph is used in 95% of criminal investigations of especially serious crimes, the punishment for which provides for terms of 15 years or more.
Based on his own many years of experience in performing OIP in various situations of operational-search activities (hereinafter — ORA), as well as on the results of the undertaken analysis of domestic and foreign practice of using a polygraph, the author of this article at the turn of the 1980-1990s identified three groups of situations in which the use of a polygraph is especially effective and is indispensable in obtaining information necessary for ORA and investigation.
The first group includes situations «when it is completely impossible to obtain the required information without bypassing a specific person (for example, when the event of interest to the investigation can under no circumstances be confirmed/refuted/by documents or other persons)».
The second group includes situations in which “obtaining the necessary information is possible without a polygraph, but is associated with enormous expenditures of material resources and/or time, or requires the involvement of a significant number of people.”
Finally, the third group includes situations when “it is urgently necessary to obtain the necessary information (within one or two days or in a matter of hours) and no other
method except the OIP can ensure the required speed of response (a frequently encountered situation during investigations and official proceedings).”
The use of a polygraph in the three identified groups of situations is aimed at diagnosing the presence of ideal traces of past events in a person's memory: the OIP is carried out in conditions when, at a certain stage of the investigation, the investigator has exhausted the possibilities of obtaining the necessary information or verifying its reliability, or when the investigator encounters overt or covert resistance to establishing the truth on the part of a person who holds the information necessary for the investigation.
Thus, it is optimal to resort to the help of a polygraph in those cases when the search, inquiry or investigation agencies do not have any other — except for the OIP — opportunity to assess the reliability of the information reported by a specific person, and to make sure that the materialization of images stored in his memory is carried out by him without intentional distortion.
It is easy to see that the third group includes operational search situations, which often develop under conditions of obvious time pressure.
It is clear that in such situations it is very difficult to create the conditions necessary for performing the IIP in the form of a forensic psychophysiological examination (hereinafter — SPPE).
Performing the IIP in the form of SPPE is quite feasible in situations related to the second group, during which, nevertheless, preference should be given to traditional forensic examinations dealing with materially recorded traces of crimes.
Thus, the most preferable area of application of the IIP in the form of the SPFE is the first group of situations, when the only source of information necessary for the investigation is the memory of the person being examined using a polygraph.
Polygraph tests have been used for over 80 years.
Over these years, world practice has determined a list of typical situations for using a polygraph in solving and investigating crimes, and this list was reflected in the first domestic legal act (1993), which legalized the use of the IIP on the territory of the Russian Federation.
In 1997, the “Instructions on the Procedure for the Use of Polygraph Interviews by Federal Security Service Bodies,” agreed upon with the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, directly indicated that “conducting a polygraph interview in the context of operational investigative work facilitates:
a) assessing the reliability of information provided by the person being interviewed;
b) obtaining factual data from the person being interviewed that is important for the timely conduct of certain operational investigative activities;
c) identifying the involvement of the person being questioned in unlawful acts being prepared, committed or already committed;
d) narrowing the circle of persons who fall within the scope of operational-search activities.»
The established system of tasks that had to be solved with the help of a polygraph in the conditions of operational-search activities had an inevitable impact on the formulation of questions that in recent years have begun to be put to the polygraph examiner when performing SPFE.
In order to determine what the tasks of the SPFE are and to assess how correctly and reasonably certain questions are posed before a specific examination carried out using a polygraph, it seems appropriate to briefly recall some of the basic provisions of the theory of forensic examinations.
Keeping the previously chosen approach, we will use concepts and definitions that, thanks to the work of leading domestic scientists and specialists in this field, have now become textbook.
Expert tasks: basic provisions
According to established concepts, “forensic examinations are associated with the identification and study of the properties and characteristics of objects, which, as a result of subject-practical and cognitive activity, allow us to establish some previously occurring events or other fragments of reality.”
As noted in our previous article,37 the OIP method deals with ideal traces of past events, possibly stored in human memory, which are fundamentally not subject to identification.
In this regard, leaving aside identification tasks, we will focus exclusively on diagnostic expert tasks, which consist of “identifying: the mechanism of an event, time, method and sequence of action, events, phenomena… that are not subject to direct perception.”
Diagnostic expert tasks are divided into simple and complex according to their degree of complexity.
The first group includes, in particular, diagnostic studies of the properties and states of objects based on their mappings, including at the moment these mappings arise.
Complex diagnostic tasks include, among other things, determining the «ability to predict the mechanism and circumstances of an event based on its results (mappings).»
Diagnostic expert tasks are also divided into direct and inverse. At the same time, «the majority of complex expert tasks resolved by forensic diagnostics are inverse, i.e., those where the search for a solution is conducted from the effect to the cause.»
It is obvious that the complexity of achieving the set goal increases from simple direct (standard) expert problems to complex inverse expert problems, in which case “a solution according to certain rules is either completely impossible, or the expert can act in accordance with them only up to a certain limit, and then an independent search for a way to solve the problem («heuristics») is required.”
Experts draw attention to the fact that any expert task is aimed at transforming potential evidentiary information contained in the case materials submitted for examination as initial data into relevant evidentiary information that can be used to correctly resolve the case.
In this case, the task can be interpreted as a question that requires resolution based on the expert's special knowledge of the data provided by the investigator (court). These two concepts — the task of the examination and the question posed to the expert — are very similar.
In a certain sense, the task is a scientifically generalized explanation of the meaning of the most typical questions.
Questions submitted for decision during the SPFE: data from practice
What questions are of interest to the investigation and the court when they have a need to conduct an IPR in the form of a SPFE?
In order to answer the question posed and assess what interests practitioners who order the conduct of SPFE, an analysis was undertaken of the opinions of nine experts from state institutions and non-governmental organizations who performed 56 examinations in the period 2001-2008 in the interests of 40 prosecutor's offices (26 of which were divisions of the military prosecutor's office), investigative departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (3 SPFE), the FSB (9 SPFE), the Federal Drug Control Service (1 SPFE) and courts of various instances (3 SPFE).
Leaving aside a detailed review of the specified sample of examinations, we will focus on only one aspect of the undertaken analysis — the questions that the investigation and the court posed to the SPFE.
The analysis showed that during one examination, the polygraph examiner was asked from 1 to 28 questions, and in total, during the 56 SPFEs, the investigators and courts asked 188 questions.
Before two of the 56 SPFEs, the investigators asked 42 questions (28 and 14, respectively), i.e. 22% of the total number of questions analyzed. These two examinations were excluded from the analysis.
Reducing the two examinations reduced the total number of questions analyzed to 146. As a result, it turned out that before the examinations of this sample, the investigators and courts asked an average of 3 questions.
The analysis of the questions allowed us to divide them into a number of groups.
1. The most representative group turned out to be the one that included questions about whether the subject of the examination (hereinafter referred to as — PE) performed any actions (85, or 58.2%. of 146 questions).
These questions were aimed at finding out:
— whether PE took something out of somewhere (for example — «Did A. take official information out of the facility?»);
— did Pe give something to someone (e.g. — «Did B-v give machine guns to D-v?» or «Did N- sell drugs to Ch?»);
— did Pe take something from someone, somewhere, or at some time (e.g. — «Did X- buy any shells in 2003?»);
— did Pe say something to someone or about someone (e.g. — «Who did Yu- tell about S-'s murder?»), and so on.
It should be noted that 31 questions in this group (i.e. 36% of the 85 questions, or almost every fifth of the 146 questions) were aimed at establishing:
— whether P. stabbed with a knife, screwdriver, hands, etc. (for example — «Did N. stab Mr. Ch. with a knife?») or
— whether he fired shots that resulted in bodily harm or death of a person (for example — «Did F. take direct part in firing a shot from any installation?»).
2. The next group included questions (34 out of 146, or 23.3% of questions) that were used to establish whether Pe knew something or someone (for example, «Did S know that the parcel he was transporting in the car contained a narcotic substance?»).
3. Another group consisted of questions (17 out of 146, or 11.6% of questions) aimed at determining whether Pe was (was present, was) in a certain place (for example, «Was G. in apartment 3?» or «Did P. enter the shopping center building?»).
4. The fourth group included questions about whether Pe saw something or someone: there were 7 of them (i.e. 4.8% of the 146 questions). These were questions like “Did K. see the receipt for the money he received for the house he sold?”.
5. The list was closed by a group of questions about Pe’s motives: 3 questions (2% of the 146 questions). These were, for example, questions like “Is it possible to conclude that G., P., L., and A. came to the café to rescue K.?”.
Proposed innovations in the formulation of questions intended to be resolved during the SPFE.
The overwhelming majority of questions in the above-mentioned examinations were formulated outside of any specialized recommendations for the implementation of the SPFE, relied on common sense and were based on well-known, established requirements in forensic practice.
The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia drew attention to the fact that, «when compiling the operative part of the resolution on the appointment of an examination, special attention must be paid to the formulation of questions to be resolved by expert means.»
Therefore, at present, the position that «questions put to the expert must be specific, concrete, if possible brief, excluding the possibility of their dual interpretation» has become a textbook one.
For example, during a forensic technical examination of documents, «questions of a diagnostic nature are resolved: … Was the document prepared in one go and in a natural sequence? . Does the date of the document correspond to the time of its preparation; in what year was it prepared?» etc.
During trace examination of locks, diagnostic questions may be asked for resolution: was the lock opened with a counterfeit key, master key or other object; was the lock in use; was the lock damaged in the locked or unlocked state; what type of tool damaged the lock.
Similar examples can be given for other types and kinds of examinations.
Thus, the theory and practice of forensic examination clearly demonstrate that when solving expert problems (including diagnostic ones), the formulation of the relevant questions is of a very specific nature.
In this regard, it seems appropriate to consider the proposals for formulating questions for SPFE, set out in the «Specific expert methodology for conducting a psychophysiological study using a polygraph» (hereinafter — «Specific methodology»).
This document, in particular, states that the tasks solved in the SPFE «can be defined in the form of questions of the following content:
1. Are reactions revealed during a psychophysiological study using a polygraph that indicate that citizen (name) has information about the details of what happened?
2. As a result of what circumstances could the person being examined have received this information? Could it have been received at the time of the event?»
Recommendations for formulating questions proposed by the «Species Method» have gained some popularity among polygraph examiners who perform SPFE, and have also attracted the attention of criminologists, proceduralists, and other specialists in the field of legal knowledge.
Moreover, a number of provisions of the «Species Method» have recently been reflected in educational and methodological literature, and some authors claim that «the formulation of questions to an expert conducting a PFE is supported by many authors in this form.»
Therefore, it seems appropriate to evaluate the wording of the proposed questions from the standpoint of the requirements imposed on the questions decided during the examination.
Analyzing question No. 1, it is easy to notice that it consists of two parts:
a) initial (“are reactions revealed during the psychophysiological examination using a polygraph that indicate that…”)
b) final (“that the citizen has information about the details of what happened?”).
In our opinion, question No. 1 is formulated poorly.
When a fingerprint examination is ordered, questions of a diagnostic (e.g. “Are there fingerprints on the presented object?”) or identification nature (e.g. “Were fingerprints left by a specific person?”51) are formulated clearly and unambiguously.
If we use the logic of the «Species Method», the questions presented above would probably acquire the following wording: «Does the fingerprint examination reveal any arc, loop or whorl patterns indicating that there are fingerprints on the presented object?» or «Does the fingerprint examination reveal any arc, loop or whorl patterns indicating that fingerprints were left by a specific person?»
Such additions are not used in questions, since they provide nothing practically useful.
If the investigation or the court decide to resort to the help of a polygraph, they are not interested in the reactions of the subject that the polygraph examiner records during the SPFE, but in how, with the help of these reactions and his special knowledge, the polygraph examiner can help clarify the essence of the investigation.
Therefore, the first drawback of question No. 1 is its introductory part: it does not carry any semantic load and only reminds that the polygraph examiner makes his decisions based on the analysis of the physiological reactions of the subject.
The second drawback of the question under consideration is much more significant than the first. It consists in the fact that the final part of question X° I is vague: it does not indicate what exactly is meant by “happened” and what “details” of the unknown event the polygraph examiner must establish.
A potential subject of the SPFE conducted during the investigation of a murder may be in various role statuses in relation to the event being established, namely:
a) a person suspected or accused of committing a murder;
b) a person who contributed to its commission;
c) a witness to the murder;
d) a person who learned the circumstances of the incident from third parties.
Being in any of the listed role statuses, the subject of the examination already has some information about some details of the event under investigation to a greater or lesser extent before the start of the SPFE. Therefore, posing question No. 1 in the stated wording is meaningless, since the answer to it is already known.
Moreover, the final part of question #1 is an unexpected innovation for expert practice. Instead of receiving a specific question from the investigation or the court, the polygraph examiner receives something amorphous, formed according to the principle of «catch what you catch»: the specialist, in fact, must figure out what to do and what to examine during the SPFE.
Question #2, proposed by the «Species Method», is no better composed.
For some unknown reason, it combines two independent questions. For the convenience of further analysis, these two questions will be designated by numbers 2a and 26, respectively.
Both of these questions (question 2a — «As a result of what circumstances could the person being examined have received this information?» and question 26 — «Could it (i.e. the information — Yu. Kh.) have been received (by the subject — Yu. Kh.) at the time of the event?») are poorly worded: the comment made above in relation to question No. 1 fully applies to them.
The flaws in the formulation of questions for the SPFE, set out in the “Species Method”, are due to the fact that its authors52 incorrectly defined the object of the SPFE, choosing as it “physiological manifestations of the course of mental processes associated with the perception, consolidation, storage and subsequent reproduction by a person of information about any event”53.
The erroneousness of the object of the SPFE presented by the “Species Method” was analyzed by us in the previous article54.
It should be noted that some of the authors of the “Species Method” subsequently changed their opinion about the object of the SPFE, indicating that in quality (instead of physiological manifestations) “it is necessary to consider a personally defined person — a participant in criminal proceedings, sent for research within the framework of the PFE”55 (i.e. SPFE. — 10. X).
But the change of opinion that had begun ended there. Having mentioned that “the object of examination is a source of information, and the most diverse one at that, and the subject of examination is the information itself, obtained in the process of studying the object”56, the authors of the teaching aid returned to the fact that “taking into account the ideas about the object and subject of PFE, the tasks for the expert should be set in the form of a question about the presence (absence) during the study of a specific person of psychophysiological reactions, indicating the existence in his memory of ideal traces of the corresponding event or phenomenon.”
One of the conclusions of polygraph experts, which is given in the cited teaching aid, can be used to judge how such questions look in practical implementation during the implementation of the SPFE.
This conclusion, in particular, states that “the following questions were put to the experts for resolution:
1. Are psychophysiological reactions revealed during the study using a polygraph, indicating that P. has information about the details of what happened, and if so, what information exactly might he have?
2. Under what circumstances could I. have received this information?
Could it have been received at the time of the incident?”
The cited expert opinion deserves a separate discussion, but in this article we will limit ourselves to analyzing only the conclusions presented therein.
So, answering the questions posed, the experts presented the following “conclusions:
1, 2. In the course of the study, reactions were revealed that indicate that P. has information about the details of what happened. The information that P. has was probably obtained by him at the time of the incident as a result of reflecting on the circumstances associated with his infliction of bodily harm on Mr. O. «.
If we analyze the first and second sentences of the conclusions, we can discover something curious62. Thus, from the first sentence of the conclusion it follows that the polygraph examiners
for the study during the SPFE, the «happening» was chosen not to verify the fact that «P. is a witness to what happened», stated in the introductory part of the expert opinion, but the infliction of bodily harm on citizen O. by P. himself. Further, having indicated that the subject of the examination «has information about the details of what happened», the experts did not provide the investigation with new information.
Having found himself involved in the ongoing investigation, P., regardless of his procedural status, inevitably had at least some «information about the details of what happened».
Thus, the inclusion of the first sentence in the text of the conclusions violated the principle of their qualification, which “means that an expert can formulate only those conclusions for the construction of which a sufficiently high qualification and corresponding special knowledge are necessary.
Questions that do not require such knowledge, which can be resolved on the basis of simple everyday experience, should not be put before the expert and resolved by him, and if they are resolved, then the conclusions on them have no evidentiary value”63.
The second sentence of the conclusions is formulated in a convoluted manner and raises questions. For example, how should we understand «information that P. has»? What is this «information» about and what exactly does it consist of?
Or how to understand — «…as a result of the reflection of the circumstances related to the infliction of bodily harm to citizen O.»? Should «circumstances» be understood in the procedural sense (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) or in the everyday sense? If «circumstances» are understood in the procedural sense, then how do they relate to the «details of the incident» mentioned in question No. I and in the next sentence of the conclusions? If «details» and «circumstances*) are different concepts, then what is the difference between them? And if these concepts are identical, what is the purpose of the multiplication of terminology? Finally, what is the content of «circumstances related to the infliction of bodily harm to citizen O.»? What do these circumstances consist of?
In other words, the second sentence of the conclusions is also not formulated entirely correctly, violating the principle of certainty, according to which “vague, ambiguous conclusions that allow for different interpretations are unacceptable”65. Nevertheless, the experts ultimately came to the conclusion that the bodily injuries to citizen O. were inflicted by P.
Thus, the intricacy of the wording of the experts’ conclusions conceals the answer to the question assigned to the first group, which we identified above as a result of the analysis of the SPFE sample.
In concluding the analysis of the recommendations of the “Species Methodology” for formulating questions for the SPFE, we consider it necessary to draw the reader’s attention to one more important aspect.
In particular, it was interesting to discover that the above formulations of questions (I, 2a-2b) are proposed to be used “in a situation where a person (suspect, accused, witness or victim) conceals his knowledge of the circumstances of the crime under investigation.”
In a situation where a person demonstrates cooperation with the investigative bodies and gives testimony on the circumstances of the case, but there are doubts about their reliability, the question can be put in a different form:
—Do the psychophysiological reactions of citizen N. revealed during the examination and use of the polygraph agree with his testimony about the circumstances… (the characteristics of the crime are indicated), namely, that… (the testimony requiring verification is indicated)?
In the history of domestic investigative and judicial practice, unfortunately, there are far from isolated cases when one or another person was unjustifiably suspected of concealing “knowledge of the circumstances of the crime under investigation” or, on the contrary, misled the investigation and the court, precisely by demonstrating “cooperation with the investigative bodies and testifying on the circumstances of the case,” thereby concealing something more serious.
In this regard, it seems incorrect and unacceptable to choose the wording of questions submitted to the SPFE, depending on the initial trust or mistrust of the investigation or the court in a specific subject.
Tasks solved during the SPFE
The questions submitted for decision by the SPFE in accordance with the recommendations of the «Species Method» are, in our opinion, formulated incorrectly, and this, as a consequence, entails incorrect formulations of conclusions.
At the same time, the authors of the «Species Method» proceed from the fact that:
— «formulating a conclusion about the existence of an event or individual circumstances of a crime is not within the competence of a polygraph examiner»;
— «in accordance with Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,» an expert opinion is a source of information on the basis of which the presence or absence of circumstances subject to proof during the proceedings of a criminal case, as well as other circumstances that are significant for the criminal case, are established by the court, prosecutor, investigator, or inquiry officer in the manner established by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.»
Having correctly chosen the initial provisions, the authors of the «Species Method», surprisingly, come to a not entirely correct conclusion, claiming that «the polygraph examiner's competence includes formulating a conclusion about the degree of awareness of the examined person about the event, its details. interest> of the initiator of the PFI. conditioned by the presence (absence) in the person's memory of images formed in connection with what happened.»
The authors of the «Species Method», unfortunately, «forgot» to report what is meant by the «degree of awareness» of the examined person and how to determine this «degree».
Following the chosen logic, the authors of the «Species Method» find themselves in a curious situation: if we again turn to the conclusions of the expert's report presented above, it turns out that it is impossible to indicate in the conclusion «the bodily injuries to citizen O. were probably inflicted by P.», since this is not within the competence of the polygraph examiner. But, by using wordiness and writing «the information that P. has was probably obtained by him at the time of the incident as a result of reflecting the circumstances associated with the infliction of bodily injuries by him on citizen O,» the polygraph examiner did not go beyond the scope of his competence.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the «Species Method» comes to the formulation of, in our opinion, very controversial expert tasks:
1. Making a judgment about the degree of awareness of the subject about the event (its details) that served as the reason for conducting the psychophysiological study.
2. Making a judgment about the circumstances of the subject’s receipt of information about the event (its details) that served as the reason for conducting the psychophysiological study.”
It is known that an examination «aims to establish circumstances that are part of the subject of proof in a criminal case or that have the significance of evidentiary facts.»
Article 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, defining the circumstances subject to proof, states:
«1. In criminal proceedings, the following are subject to proof: 1) the event of a crime (time, place, method and other circumstances of the commission of a crime); 2) the guilt of a person in committing a crime, the form of his guilt and motives…».
When solving the problems of examination, «in the process of the expert's cognition of the studied carrier of certain information about past events, it is possible to establish an objective fact that is part of the subject of the study and is of practical significance.»
Therefore, generalizing the weight of what was said above in this article and taking into account that the expert deals with ideal traces of past events stored in the memory of a specific person, it can be stated that the general expert tasks of SPFE are the definition, or more precisely — diagnosis:
— the commission of actions by the subject of the expert related to the event of a crime;
— the subject's awareness of any circumstances of the criminal event;
— the motives of the subject's actions related to the criminal event.
The specified SPFE74 tasks belong to the category of complex reverse diagnostic tasks, when the search for a solution is conducted from the effect to the cause.
Literature.
1 The documents listed above are published in the manual: Komissarova Ya. V., Kilesso K. G., Perch V. O. Forensic Science + Forensic Experts = Experience in Combating Crime. Moscow, 2005. pp. 163-188.
2 Komissarova Ya. V. Applied Aspects of Using a Polygraph in Criminal Proceedings in Russia //Instrumental Lie Detection: Realities and Prospects of Use in Combating Crime. Saratov, 2006. p. 7.
3 Instrumental Lie Detection: Realities and Prospects of Use in Combating Crime. 2006. pp. 90-96.
4 As the review of the Criminal Code of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Civil Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation shows, the effectiveness of the use of the polygraph during operational investigative activities currently no longer requires confirmation. Obviously, the desire of specialists to clearly regulate the use of forensic methods or tools in practice, including the method of the polygraph, should be welcomed. However, as the experience accumulated over fifteen years has shown, it is hardly correct to consider the admissibility of using a polygraph depending on whether «relevant amendments to the legislation on operational investigative activities» will be made.
5 Bulletin of the Federal Interdepartmental Coordination and Methodological Council for Forensic Science and Expert Research. 2006. No. 2(17). P. 16.
6 Ibid. P. 4-5.
7 Kholodny Yu. I. Polygraph Interview and Mental Reflection //Bulletin of the Volga University named after V.N. Tatishchev. Series «Jurisprudence». Issue 18. Tolyatti, 2001. P. 205-209.
8 Kholodny Yu. I., Podshibyakin A. S. Forensic polygraph science — a new direction in forensic science, engaged in the study of «ideal traces» //Forensic science: current issues of theory and practice: Collection of materials for the 200th anniversary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. R. n/D, 2002. Pp. 295-296; Kholodny 10. I. Forensic polygraph science as a new direction in the section «Forensic technology» //Theory and practice of forensic science and forensic examination. Moscow, 2003. Pp. 71-74; Ditto. Interview using a polygraph and its natural scientific foundations //Bulletin of forensic science. 2005. Issue 1 (13). Pp. 39-48; Issue 2 (14). Pp. 47-57; etc.
9 Kholodny Yu. I. Forensic polygraph science and its application in law enforcement practice //Information bulletin No. 21 based on the materials of the Forensic readings “Practical requests are the driving force behind the development of forensic science and forensic examination”. Moscow, 2003. Pp. 14-19.
10 Kholodny Yu. I. Forensic diagnostic studies using a polygraph //Forensic science: Textbook./Ed. by prof. F. V. Volynsky and V. P. Lavrov. Moscow, 2008. Pp. 302-317.
11 Averianova T. V. Forensic examination. Course of general theory. Moscow, 2006.
12 Zinin A. M., Mailis N. P. Forensic examination: Textbook. M., 2002.
13 Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic examination in civil, arbitration, administrative and criminal proceedings. M., 2005.
14 Ibid. P. 24.
15 Averianova T. V. Op. cit. P. 77
16 Kudryavtsev I. A. Comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination: Scientific and practical guide. M., 1999. P. 23.
17 Sitkovskaya O. D., Konysheva L. P., Kochenov M. M. New directions in forensic psychological examination. M., 2000. P. 7.
18 Averianova T. V. Op. cit. P. 77.
19 Zinin A. M., Mailis N. P. Op. cit. P. 20.
20 Safuanov F. S. Forensic Psychological Examination in Criminal Procedure: Scientific and Practical Manual. Moscow, 1998. P. 37.
21 Podshibyakin A. S, Kholodny /O. I. On Clarification and Supplementation of Objects of Forensic Diagnostics //Russian Legal Doctrine in the 21st Century: Problems and Ways to Solve Them: Proceedings of the Scientific and Practical Conference. Saratov, 2001. P. 225-227.
22 Mitrichev V. S., Kholodny Yu. I. Polygraph as a means of obtaining orienting forensic information//Notes of criminalists. Moscow, 1993. Issue I. P. 173-180.
23 Averyanova G. V., Belkin R. S., Korukhov Yu. G., Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic Science Moscow, 1999. P. 110.
24 Yablokov N. P. Forensic Science. Moscow, 2000. P. 74.
25 Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic Science. Moscow, 1999. P. 39.
26 Snetkov V. A. Forensic diagnostics in the activities of forensic units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on the use of forensic methods and tools. Moscow, 1998. Page 7.
27 Orlov Yu. K. Expert opinion and its assessment. Moscow, 1995. Page 11.
28 Zinin A. M., Mailis N. P. Forensic examination: Textbook. Moscow, 2002. Pages 21-22.
29 Safuanov F. S. Op. cit. Page 186.
30 Komissarova Ya. V. Interrogation and confrontation tactics //Forensic science: Textbook./Ed. by prof. E. P. Ishchenko. M., 2008. P. 337-338.
31 Incorrect interpretation of the object of expert examination led to a violation of logic and contradiction: the general “object of expert examination” is “physiological manifestations”, and “the object of study in each specific case is material objects containing information necessary for solving specific expert problems” (Ibid.).
32 The content of the subject and object of the SPFE was discussed and approved at a meeting of the special working group of the Federal Criminal-Moscow International Society on the problems of conducting research using a polygraph, which was held in May 2007 at the Institute of Criminalistics of the Center for Special Equipment of the FSB of Russia.
33 Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic examination in civil, arbitration, administrative and criminal proceedings.
34 Forensic science: Textbook for universities/Ed. by prof. A. F. Volynsky. Moscow, 2000, p. 159.
35 The accuracy and utility of polygraph testing (Department of Defense. Washington, DC) //Polygraph. 1984. V. 13. N. I. P. 1-143.
36 Averianova G. V. Forensic examination. Course of general theory. Moscow, 2000, p. 2008. P. 163.
37 Kholodny Yu. I. Forensic psychophysiological examination…
38 Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic examination in civil, arbitration, administrative and criminal proceedings. M.. 2005. P. 26.
39 Ibid. P. 27.
40 Ibid. P. 28.
41 Zinin A. M., Mailis N. P. Forensic examination: Textbook. M.. 2002. Pp. 26-27.
42 See ibid. Pp. 24-25.
43 Babkin E. A.., Aleshina I. F. Forensic examinations at the stage of pre-trial criminal proceedings: Methodological manual. M., 2003. Part I. P. 15.
44 Averianova T. V. Purpose and production of forensic examinations //Forensic science/Ed. L. F. Volynsky, V. P. Lavrov. Moscow. 2008. Page 464.
45 Rossiyskaya E. R. Forensic examination… Pages 363-364.
46 See: Mailis N. P. Guide to trace examination. Moscow, 2007. Page 245.
47 Species expert methodology for conducting psychophysiological research using a polygraph //Instrumental lie detection: realities and prospects for use in the fight against crime: Proceedings of the international. scientific-practical. forum. Saratov: SYU MVD of Russia. 2006. Pp. 90-96.
48 Ibid. P. 93.
49 Semenov V.V., Ivanov L. //. Legal, tactical and methodological aspects of using a polygraph in criminal proceedings: Textbook. manual. Moscow, 2008. 184 p.
50 Semenov V. V. On the Object and Subject of Psychophysiological Expertise Using a Polygraph //Current Issues of Special Psychophysiological Research and Prospects of Their Use in Combating Crime and Selecting Personnel: Proceedings of the IX Int. Res.-Pract. Conf. Krasnodar: KubSTU Publ. 2008. P. 102.
51 Rossinskaya E. R. Forensic Expertise… P. 327.
52 The authors of the «Species Method» are Ph.D. in Medicine Ivanov L. II, Ph.D. in Law Komissarova Ya. V., Ph.D. in Biology Pelenitsyn A. B., and Ph.D. in Biology Felosnko V. N.
53 Species Expert Method… P. 93.
54 See: Kholodny 10. I. Forensic psychophysiological examination… P. 25-33.
55 Semenov V. V., Ivanov L. N. Legal, tactical… P. 74.
56 Ibid. P. 82.
57 Ibid. P. 83.
58 Ibid. P. 165-172.
59 Ibid. P. 166.
60 Let us draw the reader's attention only to the fact that: a) to answer the questions put to the SPFE, the experts used only 4 out of 6 (!) tests («tests No. 1-2 were aimed at identifying the individual psychophysiological reactions of the subject (p. 167), i.e., they were of an auxiliary nature): 6) the verification questions used during the testing allow for ambiguity in the interpretation of P.'s status: he could have been both the direct perpetrator of «bodily harm to citizen O» and their customer.
61 Semenov V. V. Ivanov L. N. Legal, tactical… P. 170.
62 The introductory part of the expert opinion states that one day in 2006, at approximately 200, citizen O. was hospitalized with bodily injuries to the head. Later, citizen O. died from the injuries he received. According to the forensic medical examination report on citizen O.'s body, death occurred as a result of blunt trauma to the head with a fracture of the skull bones. However, a criminal case was opened based on this fact on the grounds of a crime under Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, based on the fact of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, which resulted in the death of the victim through negligence. During the course of the investigative actions, the investigators had reason to believe that the witness to the incident was P., who was hiding important information from the investigators” (Semenov V., Ivanov L. I. Legal, tactical… P. 165-166).
63Orlov Yu. K. Expert opinion and its assessment (in criminal cases): Textbook. manual. Moscow, 1995. P. 29-30.
64 The given example of the conclusions of the expert opinion contradicts another provision from the cited manual (p. 92), according to which “the competence of the polygraph expert includes formulating conclusions: 1) on the degree (?) of awareness of the examined person about the events or their details that are of interest to the initiator of the examination, due to the presence (absence) in the person’s memory of images formed in connection with what happened; 2) on the circumstances of the examined person’s receipt of information about the event that served as a reason for conducting the PFI: due to a direct reflection of the circumstances of the event: in other words, “personal participation in it [emphasis added. — Yu. Kh.]) or from other non-criminal sources.”
65Orlov Yu. K. Expert's Conclusion… P. 30.
66Semenov V. V., Ivanov L. II. Legal, Tactical… P. 83-84.
67Species Expert Methodology… P. 95. (The same opinion is repeated in the publications: Komissarova Ya. V. Application of Special Knowledge in Investigation of Crimes //Forensic Science: Textbook. Moscow, 2007. P. 338; Ditto. Tactics of Interrogation and Confrontation //Forensic Science: Textbook. Moscow, 2008. P. 339.)
68Species Expert Methodology… P. 95.
69 Ibid. (This same opinion is repeated with minor editorial changes in the publications: Komissarova Ya V. Application of Special Knowledge… P. 337; Ibid. Interrogation Tactics… P. 338.)
70 Species Expert Methodology… P. 92.
71 Orlov 10. K. Expert Opinion… P. 5.
72 Averianova T. V. Forensic Examination… P. 164.
73 The case of the anonymous perpetrator of the telephone call cited in the first article is an example of diagnosing a person's awareness of the circumstances of an event that could be classified as a crime.
74 In relation to the vocabulary of the «Species Methodology», expert tasks can be formulated as follows:
1 Making judgments about the commission of any actions by the subject of the crime related to the event of the crime.
2. Making judgments about the subject of the crime's awareness of any circumstances of the crime.
3. Making judgments about the possible motives of the subject of the crime related to the event of the crime.