When Craig fell under suspicion of revealing sensitive company proprietary information to an arch competitor of his employer, he was confronted by the corporate security investigator, who had already contacted us at . In an interrogation setting, his first rebuttal was to state that he had nothing to do with it and he would submit to a polygraph examination to prove his innocence. Craig had been previously requested to be polygraphed by a police examiner, who would examine him for pre-employment necessary to obtain a civilian position with the police department. Prior to the examination, he had googled “how to beat a polygraph test” and followed the directions on how to beat questions pertaining to questions prior drug use, drug dealing, cheating on college tests, the sale of stolen property and insurance fraud. Before he took the test he was required to a lengthy interview and his application was rejected for the position. Prior to his lie detection test with our company, our computer forensics investigator conducted a forensic data recovery examination on Craig’s company computer and our cell phone forensic investigations recovered all deleted data on his company cell phone. Valid digital evidence was recovered that undeniably identified the transfer of sensitive data to the competitor. Our asset investigation for bank account research indicated payments, through a third party, from the competitor for the sensitive information. Then the corporate security investigator scheduled the lie detection examination. Craig was expecting a polygraph but was introduced to a digital voice stress analysis detection of deception technique that he wasn’t prepared for. Contrary to a polygraph that required a blood pressure cuff on his arm, a pneumo graphic hose around his chest, GSR galvanic skin response sensors on his fingers and a sphincter cushion to sit on, he found a microphone connected to a laptop computer. The VSA measures the muscle micro tremor from the third formant frequency in his voice that is directly associated with the central nervous system that reacts to deception. Needless to say, he flunked with “flying colors” and subsequently confessed. The arch competitor that received and paid for Craig’s information was culpable of violating Chapter 18, US Code 1831 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Craig was also prosecuted with evidence from the forensic computer data recovery, the forensic cellular data recovery, the receipt of money found on our asset research and of course, his confession.
- Brenda McGinley, CEO, All in Investigations,