Virtual Voodoo -- The Lie Detector Lie

8/8/2019 Virtual Voodoo -- The Lie Detector Lie

1/16

1

VIRTUAL VOODOO: THE LIE DETECTOR LIEbyRobert F. Smith2003

I don't know anything about lie detectors other than theyscare the hell out of people. Richard M. NixonWith the full National Research Council report now out on polygraphy,

1perhaps it is time

to point out the contention of many scientists that psychophysiological detection of deception

examinations (PDDs), i.e., polygraph exams, are so frequently unreliable or just blatantly wrong

that they must be jettisoned by law enforcement and by the national security apparatus. In the view

of these scientists, the polygraph is no more than an interrogation tool used to extract confessions

from the nave and impressionable. That=s all. The polygrapher does his job making SWAGs --

Scientific, Wild Ass Guesses -- and by sometimes maligning good people and by putting law

enforcement and intelligence-gathering organizations at great risk since compulsive liars,psychopaths, sociopaths, and trained spies can pass the PDD exams so easily.

Law enforcement doesn=t need more good guys on its major narcotics squads, or in other

sensitive units. Prosecutors don=t need to charge more innocent people with crime, nor should

good people be prevented from becoming peace officers or intelligence operatives simply because

a polygrapher thought theymightbe lying -- nor allow liars to be hired based on clearance by

virtual voodoo. In particular, police and intelligence agencies need to reinstitute full-scale

psychological testing and interviews for those they want to hire. They need to do more careful and

far-reaching background checks, not only prior to hiring, but in mid-career as well (if not more

frequently). If scientific lie detection is really needed, law enforcement and intelligence agencies

will likely find it in the very expensive functional magnetic resonance imaging(fMRI) and not inthe virtual voodoo associated with polygraphy.

There is nothing new in such conclusions. Two decades ago, the Congressional

Committee on Government Operations had the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study

the effectiveness of the polygraph: Despite the widespread belief at NSA, CIA, and DOD that the

polygraph is a useful screening tool. . . . OTA concluded that the available research evidence does

not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph for this purpose.2

1 National Research Council Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, ThePolygraph and Lie Detection (Wash., DC: National Academies Press, 2002).

2Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review

and Evaluation, Technical Memorandum OTA-TM-H.15 (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, November

1983). See conclusions at www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/otachapter 7.


2/16

2

Moreover, on February 3, 1997, the head of the FBI's polygraph unit, Special Agent James

Murphy, filed an affidavit in a military case in Norfolk, Virginia,3cautioning against the use of the

polygraph and pointing out its shortcomings:

2. It is the policy of The Department of Justice to oppose all attempts by defensecounsel to admit polygraph results as evidence and to refrain from seeking theadmission of favorable examinations which may have been conducted during theinvestigatory stage of a case. (see United State's Attorney's Manual ' 9-13.310).3. The FBI uses the polygraph as an investigative tool and cautions that the resultsshould not be relied upon to the exclusion of other evidence or knowledgeobtained during the course of an investigation.4. This policy is based upon the fact that, a) the polygraph technique has notreached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, b) scientificresearch has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing incriminal applications, c) there is a lack of standardization within the polygraphcommunity for training and for conducting polygraph examinations.5. I am fully aware of the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. DowPharmaceutical 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and believe, based upon experience, trainingand practical application that polygraph results do not reach the standards set bythe court in that case.We will forego here a litany of examples of the innocent who have been tried and

convicted primarily because police and prosecutors thought failure of a polygraph test to be

utterly convincing, while many a guilty party has gone free for the same reason -- including those

later admitting to guilt of murder(s).4 How is it that the best polygraphers can have been so

wrong? Moreover, the media have been of little help with their constant references to the

polygraph as a Alie detector.@ A selected bibliography is followed by a sampling of expert court

testimony which indicates the very sad state in which polygraphy languishes.

3The case was U.S. v. Ensign Patrick J. Jacobson, USN, and the Murphy affidavit is available at

www.nopolygraph.com/affidavi.htm . However, despite the hard research conclusions of the OTA (cited

above), the positive and even bullish position of the FBI on the systematic use of the polygraph for pre-employment screening is evident from the summary at http://www.nopolygraph.com/fbiposit.htm.

4There are many notorious examples, including Gary Ridgway, the prolific Green River Killer,who passed his lie detector test in 1984 and then continued killing (www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.html). Another is Mark Hofmann, whose expert polygrapher is bewildered by

tough cross-examination in the cases excerpted below.
http://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.htmlhttp://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.htmlhttp://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.htmlhttp://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.htmlhttp://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.htmlhttp://www.amon-hen.com/archives/000038.html


3/16

3

Selected Bibliography

Brain Scans Can Reveal Liars,New Scientist, 10:50 (November 12, 2001), online at

www.NewScientist.com [see also www.fmri.org ].

Carroll, Robert Todd, The Skeptic

s Dictionary (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), at Polygraph (LieDetector), available now at www.SkepDic.com .

Cha, Ariana Eunjung, Lie-Detecting Devices: Truth or Consequences? Unproven But Popular,Mainstream Systems Can Be Used Without Subjects Knowledge,Washington Post,

Sunday, August 18, 2002, Page A1.

Honts, Charles R., "The Effects of Simple Physical Countermeasures on the Physiological

Detection of Deception," masters thesis (Blackburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute

& State Univ., 1982).

Honts, Charles R., "Countermeasures and the Physiological Detection of Deception: APsychophysiological Analysis," doctoral dissertation (SLC: Univ. of Utah, 1986).

Dr. Honts is best known for his spectacular failure to detect the lies of murderer MarkHoffman.

Kleiner, M., ed.,Handbook of Polygraph Testing (London: Academic Press, 2002).

National Research Council Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, ThePolygraph and Lie Detection (Wash., DC: National Academies Press, 2002). The NRC

is chartered by Congress as the operational arm of the National Academy of Sciences,and this report was funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy (DOE).

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences news release, APolygraph

Testing Too Flawed for Security Screening,@ October 8, 2002, available at

www.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf .

Office of Technology Assessment, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review

and Evaluation, Technical Memorandum OTA-TM-H.15 (Wash., DC: U.S. Congress,

November 1983). See conclusions at www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota chapter 7.

Piller, Charles, "Scientists Give the Lie to Polygraph Testing,"Los Angeles Times, Oct 9, 2002,

pp. A1,A13.

Piller, Charles, AAmid Surge in Popularity, Lie is Put to the Polygraph,@Los Angeles Times, Oct

14, 2002, p. A20.

Raskin, David C., ed., Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (SpringerPublishing.,1989). Prof. Raskin (who has had several noteworthy failures to detect lies)

was Dr. Charles Honts= mentor at the University of Utah.


4/16

4

Spice, Byron, AHow Not to Catch a Spy: Use a Lie Detector,@Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), October9, 2002.

Vedantam, Shankar, AThe Polygraph Test Meets Its Match: Researchers Find Brain Scans Can

Be Powerful Tools in Detecting Lies,@Washington Post, Monday, November 12, 2001,p. A2.

Williams, Douglas Gene,How to Sting the Polygraph (Chickasha, OK: Sting Publications,

2000).

Worrall, Simon, The Poet and the Murderer: A True Story of Literary Crime and the Art ofForgery (E. P. Dutton, 2002).

Zaid, Mark S., AFailure of the Polygraph,@Washington Post, Tuesday April 16, 2002, p. A19;

available at www.washingtonpost.com .


5/16

5

Court Testimony (excerpts):

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS V. LOUISE WOODWARD, Before Judge J. Zobel, Middlesex, ss SuperiorCourt, No. 97-433 Criminal Session, Monday, July 14, 1997, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Testimony of Dr. Charles R.

Honts (PhD Univ. of Utah) re Dr. David C. Raskin (Honts = treacher and Professsor Emeritus, Univ. of Utah), murdererMark Hoffman, and their failed polygraphy. Excerpt from questioning by Assistant District Attorney Lincoln Jalelian inlight of Raskin and Honts= belief that Hoffman was innocent of murder (based on careful polygraphy):

DR. HONTS: In this case. I received the charts. Dr. Raskin uses a marking system I'm familiar with, so therelevant questions are marked with C's and the direct replies are marked with D's. So I didn't even haveto look at the questions. I evaluated the charts before I even knew what the questions were. I came up withmy scoring, and then I went back and looked at the questions in his report and his scoring.MR. JALELIAN: And you came to the same conclusion.A Yes.Q Have you ever reviewed a polygraph of Dr. Raskin's and later been incorrect?MR. GOOD: I'm sorry, I don't know what the Commonwealth means by "incorrect."MR. JALELIAN: I'll rephrase it.Q Do you know, are you familiar with the case of Mark Hoffman?A Yes.Q And in that case, did you administer the polygraph or did Dr. Raskin?A I did.Q And it was verified by Dr. Raskin, isn't that correct?A Yes, he scored it.Q And you passed Mr. Hoffman.A Yes, I did.Q And Dr. Raskin verified your pass of Mark Hoffman.A Yes.Q And Mark Hoffman subsequently plead guilty. You found him truthful --A Yes.Q -- when he said that he did not kill two individuals.A That's absolutely correct.Q And he plead guilty.A He did.Q To killing those two individuals.A Yes, he did.Q So you were completely wrong in that case, is that correct?A One test I was, yes.Q And are you familiar with the reason that Dr. Raskin has indicated why Mark Hoffman passed the test?A Yes.Q And is it based on the fact that Mark Hoffman purportedly did self-hypnosis during the test and related tobiofeedback?A Yes, that's what Mr. Hoffman told us.Q That's what he told you.A Yes, we got permission to interview him after the plea bargain.Q After he plead guilty.A After he plead, yes.Q And after the test that you passed him on.A Yes. He worked out a plea, and gave a full confession. And we were obviously interested in why we hadmade a mistake. And so we went to the Utah State Penitentiary and interviewed him.Q And he said it was because he had some dental problems, and he taught himself to, similar to going to adentist, taught himself not to feel pain?


6/16

6

A No, that isn't what he said. What he said was that, at a very early age he had learned to practice self-hypnosis. And the fact that he had been practicing that through his entire adult life, and that he would usethat to do things like go to the dentist without anesthetic. And also, a big part of that crime was the sale offraudulent documents and he would hypnotize himself to believe the documents were, in fact, true. And itmade him more convincing when he was selling them.Q So he hypnotized himself at the dentist and during the commission of the crime, and that's why he passedyour test.A That's what he claimed.Q And do you subscribe to that point of view?A It's a possible explanation.Q Is it a probable explanation? Or is the probable explanation also that you were completely wrong whenyou gave him the test?THE COURT: Excuse me. There's a rule with respect to cameras, that you do not move unless there's arecess. Carry on.A It's entirely possible we were just wrong.Q And it's entirely possible that you're wrong in this case too, isn't that true?A Yes.Q Do you know of any other tests where self-hypnosis, or the methods used by Mark Hoffman, were used tosupposedly "fool," for want of a better term, the polygraph? Have you heard of anybody else who's fooled itby that method?A No.Q Have you encountered in your however many years that you've studied and administered polygraph tests,any other person who did that?A With those methods?Q Yes.A No.Q So he's one in a million.A I believe so.Q And it's not --THE COURT: Not in "a million," he hasn't done a million tests.Q It's not that your methods are flawed, or the polygraph is not valid.A Well, the polygraph has an error rate; we know that from all of the studies.Q But the "error rate," how many times have the study's error rates been related to self-hypnosis?A That's the only one I'm aware of.Q Now, just regarding the lab tests, it's true you give it to undergrad, the undergrad studies that take place arestudents who come in, and you give them a fee, and you undertake a psych experiment, is that correct?A Sometimes they're undergrad, sometimes there are other populations.Q They're students.A Not always.Q They're student populations.A Not always.Q I am talking about lab tests that are student populations.A There are some, yes.Q So how many are the tests that you've given lab tests?A That I have given?Q With students.A With students.Q What percentage?THE COURT: Does it really make a difference?MR. JALELIAN: It does if he's basing his opinion on a majority of them. I just don't know what the answeris.Q Approximately.A About half.Q Half. And it's true that Dr. Raskin's criticized the use of undergrad students because they're unlikely to


7/16

7

respond as real-life criminals do, is that correct?A Certainly, yes, he has said that.Q Thank you. Do you share that belief?A I don't share it as strongly as he does. But certainly there are differences between student populations andcriminal defendant populations.Q And also, the concerns of the students regarding mock crimes, in which you set up a scenario where theygo and they commit a mock crime. They certainly also don't mirror real life crimes, is that correct?A The motivations are different.Q Well, they're lesser.A They're lesser, yes.Q Because there's no stakes in the outcome of the mock crime. They're going to go all to their dorm at theend of the day, isn't that correct?A Well, there are stakes, but they're a different sort because they're almost always, it's money.Q Yes, they're going to get, which is how much money. They're going to get their money from the study, isn'tthat correct? It's just a question if they fool the polygraph they're going to get more money.A That's correct.Q That is not the same, however, as an individual who's facing potentially either life without the possibility ofparole, or in death-penalty cases, the death penalty.A Obviously, it's not.Q Similarly, unpunishable crimes, such as those conducted in mock crime studies, not being punished,there's no true apprehension if you're not going to be punished, isn't that correct?THE COURT: "Apprehension" has two meanings in the criminal law. Maybe you'd better get the correctone. Fear, nervousness?Q Being caught.THE COURT: Apprehension about being apprehended.A I don't know that I can answer that.Q Well, just from a common-sense point of view. If it's an unpunishable crime, it's not really a crime, it's apsych experiment. That is certainly different from a person who is, again, facing either life without thepossibility of parole --A I agree with that, it's different.Q Similarly also, the lab polygraphs are given right after the test in a majority of these student tests.A Not always.Q Well, that was a criticism levied by Dr. Raskin in his article, was it not?A Yes, but since then we have done other things.Q I'm not talking about "since then," I'm talking about these lab tests.A Oh, if you're talking -- well, we've done lab studies since then where we have not tested them immediately.Q How many have you done?A I personally have been involved with three.Q Now, did you change that approach because of this criticism?A In one study yes, and in another study we did it specifically to examine the effect of introducing longerperiods of time.Q So that, so you wanted to test the criticism.A Yes.Q And now, has it generally, the studies have gone the other way and is there a delay?A I believe so.Q So the criticism was valid.A No, actually the criticism was invalid because the study that we did to look at the effects of time, it wasfound no effect.Q There's no effect over time.A No, there is not.Q Is there an effect over time when an individual - and I'm not talking about a lab test - when an individualhas told their version of events in a real-life crime let's say, they're arrested, or before they're arrested they tellthe police what their version of the events are, they tell it over and over and over and over again. They spendmonths. And then they're given the polygraph. Would that have an effect on any of the results?


8/16


9/16

9

THE COURT: Wait a minute.MR. JALELIAN: I mean I know you have a copy of this, just if you have it before you.THE COURT: Yes, I have it.MR. JALELIAN: The Commonwealth would move to enter that into evidence.THE COURT: Any objection?MR. GOOD: No, Your Honor.Q On the back page of that, page 1018, it says, "List of Tables," is that correct?A There's a table on page 1018.Q The top table, "High Quality Laboratory Studies," table one.THE COURT: The problem is, you gave it to me together with something from the Utah Law Review.MR. JALELIAN: I actually anticipated that as a problem. This is a full -- I apologize, Your Honor.THE COURT: That's all right. The North Dakota article, which is this one, will be stapled, and that will beExhibit 4.(Article, as above, receivedand marked Exhibit No. 4.)THE COURT: All right, carry on.Q Drawing your attention to table one, the first study, is a Ginton study, is that correct? That's 1982.A Yes, it's actually pronounced Ginton.Q The "et al.," who are the "et al.," do you know? Were you?A No.Q Was Dr. Raskin?A No.Q Was Dr. Kircher?A No.Q That was published in 1982, or just undertaken in 1982, if you know?A Published.Q Okay. So that was available at the time that, that would be 1989 obviously.A Yes.Q Now, the study underneath that is a study done by yourself, is that correct?A Yes.Q A 1994 study. And the number "N," meaning number of subjects, is twenty guilty and twenty innocent, isthat correct?A That's correct.Q Forty people were in that study?A That's correct.Q And you had a seventy percent guilty correct ratio?A Yes, seventy percent guilty, twenty percent wrong, and ten percent inconclusive.Q And then with innocent, seventy-five and ten percent correct, percent wrong, is that correct?A Yes.Q The study underneath that study is a 1995 Horowitz study?A Yes.Q Fifty-three percent correct of guilty people were identified, is that correct?A Yes, that's correct.Q A little bit greater than chance, is that correct?A No, it's considerably better than chance.Q Isn't chance fifty-fifty?A Yes, but you have to compare that to the innocent group to test chance.Q But in identifying guilty people, fifty-three percent of the people were correctly identified as guilty.A Yes, that's correct.Q So with the --THE COURT: Fifty-three percent of the people who are identified as "guilty" were guilty, isn't that what thatmeans? It doesn't mean that fifty-three percent of the people in the test were guilty.THE WITNESS: That's correct. It's fifty-three percent of the guilty people were correctly identified. Twenty-seven percent were inconclusive.


10/16

10

Q And twenty percent who were just flat out wrong.A Were wrong, that's correct.Q And with the innocent, eighty percent and thirteen percent.A That's correct.Q Right or wrong, is that correct?A Yes.Q And the number of people in that study was thirty.A That's correct.Q Now, this Kircher and Raskin study in 1988 --A Yes.Q -- do you know when that was published?A 1988.Q What month?A I can probably tell you.Q Well, we'll come back to that. Skipping down to, obviously the one underneath that, the 1978 one, wasavailable in 1989.A Yes, certainly.Q And the one underneath that one -- I don't know how to pronounce that.A Podlesny.Q Podlesny. Approximately a hundred people were in that study?A Approximately, yes.Q Sixty-nine percent were correctly identified guilty, thirteen --A That's correct.Q -- seventy-five and four for the innocent.A Yes, virtually nothing conclusive.Q Now, the "weighted" means, if you skip on down to the bottom --A Yes.Q -- seventy-seven percent were correctly identified guilty, ten percent wrong, eighty-four percent innocentand eight percent wrong and innocent, is that correct?A That's correct.Q That's the average of all of those.A Right.Q Now, you're familiar with a lot of Dr. Raskin's work.A Yes.Q Are you aware if he has ever published a study that has numbers that are under ninety percent, anynumbers of correct identification?A Yes.Q Are any of them here?A The one in '94.Q He was involved in that?A Yes.Q Okay. Now --A And the Horowitz study as well.Q He was involved in the Horowitz study, where fifty-three percent, that one?A That's correct.Q So there is statistical evidence that, it goes from ninety-five percent at one end of the extreme, well, actuallya hundred percent at one end of the extreme, to fifty-three percent at the other end of the extreme, is thatcorrect?A Yes.Q So somewhere in the middle is where the reliability of the polygraph is. According to yours, it's seventy-seven percent, is that correct?A Yes.Q For correctly identifying the guilty individuals.A Including inconclusives.


11/16

11

Q That's correct. And so as of 1995, the best average data was a seventy-seven percent accuracy rate.A Yes, with ten percent actual error.Q I understand that. But in terms of correct identification, which is what I would imagine is the mainconcern, and is cited in --A No, actually -- well, go on.Q Have you had an opportunity to read the case of Commonwealth versus Mendes?A No, I have not.Q Are you aware -- strike that. Moving across page 1019, going down the list of correct guilty of a hundredpercent of the thirteen persons studied, is that correct?A That's correct.Q And that's a study done by you.A Yes.Q Where only thirteen people were involved, is that correct?A In that condition.Q What do you mean, more than thirteen people?A Well, there were more than thirteen people in the study. There were thirteen people -- the reason thestudy was made was that these studies were comparable in the kind of ground truth that they used. So therewere thirteen people in that study that had the same level of confirmation as confession and additionalevidence as in the other studies.Q And that was the only one that you found acceptable to include in this list by the criteria that you justdescribed.A Yes, those are the only --Q That met the criteria that you established for the list pretty much.A Yes.Q And the list, the one underneath that, you and Professor Raskin --A Yes.Q -- in 1988, '92 and '62, in terms of percentage correct, guilty and innocent.A That's correct.Q Underneath that, Patrick and Iacono, '92, had thirty percent correct for innocent people, is that correct?A That's correct, yes.Q So only thirty percent of the innocent people were identified as innocent, is that correct?A Yes, that's by the independent evaluators, yes.Q And then underneath that, 1988, seventy-three, zero percent; sixty-one percent.A Yes.Q The average of this is eighty-six percent on the guilty and forty-nine percent on the innocent.A Yes, that's correct.Q And again --A With only one percent error on the guilty.Q But on the innocent, it's forty-nine percent, is that correct?A Yes, that's correct.Q And that's less than chance, isn't it?A No.Q Forty-nine percent is not less than --A You can't figure chance with just an innocent.Q I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you if forty-nine percent is less than chance.A No, it's not.Q Forty-nine percent is not less than fifty-fifty?A Fifty-fifty is not how you calculate chance though.

U.S. v. Gilliard 133 F.3rdDr. Charles R. Honts testimony BB questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Buerstatte and by Mr. MichaelGarrett for the defense: Federal District Court in Savannah, Georgia, in 1996:


12/16

12

MR. BUERSTATTE: Okay. How many tests -- I'm not sure I understand the document that you presentedthat has the statistics on it, D-3, polygraph statistics. Do you have that in front of you?DR. HONTS: I do not. I think it's over there.MR. BUERSTATTE: May I approach, Your Honor?THE COURT: You may.Q (MR. BUERSTATTE): And forgive me if I'm the only one in the courtroom that doesn't understand this.But, when you have confidential tests and non-confidential tests, is that a number of tests that you, excuse me,provided in a certain time period?A (DR. HONTS): Yeah. These would be all the tests I have in my records which started in 1982; '82 or '83.It's whenever I got licensed in Utah.Q. Okay.A. So, I don't have any records before that.Q. So, if you -- if we added up the past field, past field on the confidential and non-confidential tests, whatdoes the total represent?A. That's the total number of actual field cases I've run since 1982.Q. Okay. So that's the total number of tests you've conducted?A. Excluding inconclusives.Q. Okay. Then -- and how many of those tests were for the defense?A. All the confidential tests.Q. How many -- and so you've never done any for the prosecution?A. Well, not for prosecutors. I ran one for the -- I've ran some for the Inspector General of the State of Utah,which is not exactly a prosecutor, but --Q Okay. Were those included in this number?A. In the non-confidential.Q. Okay. And of this number --A. And I've run tests under stipulations, some of which I think, as I recall, were initiated by prosecutors, or atleast they were part, had to been part of the agreement.Q. Okay. My math says 132.A. Uh huh.Q. -- and I think that's obviously a small number. The number on that is 79; right?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Of the '79 people that passed, how many of those confessed to the crime?A. Of the innocent ones? Only one --Q. Of the people you passed --A Right.Q. -- said they were truthful --A. Of the ones who passed, one.Q. Okay. Who was that?A. It was a fellow named Mark Hoffman.Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about Mark Hoffman a second. Now, what kind of case was that?A. That was a homicide case in Salt Lake City in the mid 1980's.Q. And you tested him?A. Yes, I did.Q. Did Dr.Raskin test him?A. No, he did not.Q. Did he read your charts?A. Yes, he did.Q. Okay. There was quite a bit of handwringing over that case, wasn't there, in the press?A. Well, it was a very high profile case, yes.Q. Right.THE COURT: Tell me what happened now. You passed this person and it turned out that he laterconfessed to the crime?A. Yes, he did.THE COURT: Okay.


13/16

13

Q (MR. BUERSTATTE): Okay. Did you look into why you -- how you could have passed a guilty person?A. Well, we did look into it. Dr. Raskin and I eventually -- to give a little more of the history of the case, Mr.Hoffman had been involved in the sale of fraudulent documents to the Mormon Church. This had beendiscovered by his business partner. And he apparently hatched a scheme to avoid being exposed and plantedbombs at this business partner and another business mans' home. His business partner was killed. The othergentleman's wife was killed when those bombs exploded. Hoffman eventually tried to commit suicide andfailed. And then I was asked to test him sometime later by his defense attorney.He later took a plea bargain. And as part of the plea bargain he was to reveal everything so that people -- youknow, it was real, it was very important in the Mormon Church to find out which documents were forged andwhich ones were not because some of them were legitimate. And also part of the agreement was he wouldtalk to us about the polygraph test.And we did interview him in the Utah Prison. He told us that the way he was able to beat the test was throughself-hypnosis. He claimed to have been practicing self-hypnosis all his life and that he was able to hypnotizehimself to believe that he did not commit the crimes. I don't know if that's what he did or not, but that's whathe said he did.Q. Do you recall how highly you scored him?A. I don't. It was a fairly strong outcome. It was in the +18, I believe, but my recollection is not that clear.But, it was a fairly strong truthful outcome.Q. Okay. So, the result of that is that it had to have affected you belief in your own system or method?A. No really. From the laboratory studies that I had done I knew that we made mistakes. I've never thoughtthat this was an infallible technique. If I've run 2,000 tests and I have a 10% error rate, that means I've made200 errors.Q. Well, in how many of these cases, these 132 cases, how many of those were where there was a confessionwhich supported your view that they were being truthful? Confessions are the ultimate --A. Uh huh.Q. -- determinate of accuracy; are they not?A. Yes. I don't know the answer to that exactly.Q. So, there may have been none or there may have been --A. No, there -- I know the cases that are in the Honts and Raskin field study are all listed here. And soapproximately half of those were confirmed by confession were mine. So, there's at least 18 or 20, but I don'thave that right in front of me. That's an estimate.Q. Well, are you familiar with some of Dr. Raskin's tests involving people who were, who subsequentlyconfessed after he passed them?A. Some. But, I, you know --Q. Do you know of the Meade case? New Mexico child molestation case?A. I've heard the name, but I am not familiar with the case.Q. Do you recall that he said no deception indicated and he confessed?A. I have -- I just have no knowledge of the case.Q. Well, you've heard about it?A. I've just heard the name, I just don't know anything about the case.Q. How about Wilson, New Mexico case?A. That name is not familiar to me at all.Q. Okay. Another no deception indicated where he confessed. How about Reno? Did you have a caseinvolving a person named Reno?A. Joe Reno?Q. Pardon me?A. Yeah, but he never confessed.Q. What happened to him?A. He was convicted.Q. Okay. That's another one of those where the jury decided not to believe your science?A. Well, I don't know what the jury decided to believe. They decided to convict him. So, when they lookedat all the evidence, the polygraph was only a piece of it, they did not, you know, they beyond a reasonabledoubt believed he did it.Q. How about Moore?


14/16

14

A. Moore?Q. Child molestation case?A. Is that one of --Q. One of yours?'A. -- supposedly one of mine or one of Raskin's?Q. One of yours?A. Moore?Q. Utah?A. Moore? I don't recall that case at all.Q. Okay. Do you, do you believe --A. I've never -- I've never had a child molestation case where the person eventually confessed. They may havetaken a plea bargain, but they never confessed.Q. Okay. Would you say that a plea of guilty to the charge that the person is facing, that that's akin to aconfession?A. No.Q. Why?A. Well, I know especially in child abuse cases people will often take the plea to avoid much worsesentences.Q. So, you're saying that the court that takes the plea and requires the person to admit their guilt would beless that totally forthright by doing that?MR. GARRETT: May it please the Court, if I understand the question, and I apologize for interruptingcross, I don't think there's any reason to assume that every court insists on a factual basis for a guilty plea likefederal courts do. In fact, I know from personal knowledge they don't. And I know that the best interest pleasare very common in other courts. And I object to the assumption that is in that question that all the courtsinsist on a factual basis.MR. BUERSTATTE: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.THE COURT: All right.Q (MR. BUERSTATTE): But, there are a number of cases that Raskin was involved in where the personconfessed and Raskin determined that they were being truthful; right?A. I do not know that for a fact. I have heard that. I have no personal knowledge of that.THE COURT: Well, you would expect it to be the case over the course of time; would you not?A. Yes, sir, absolutely, Your Honor. I mean over the course of time we know that we are going to make somemistakes. And this --THE COURT: Not only for Raskin or you, but for anyone who's in the field?A. Absolutely correct. The expectation as a scientist is in the long run the error rate somewhere between 5and 10 errors.Q (MR. BUERSTATTE): The directed lie test is used -- when it is used you are telling the person to lie;right?A. That's correct.Q. How do you know the person is lying? What if he, what if he would tell the truth about that?A. Well, you initially get -- well, the questions you ask are such that no one would be telling the truth whenthey answer them no. Have you ever told a lie even one time in your life? I have not met the person whocould answer that with a no truthfully.Q. Well, as an example, the -- I don't know if you're looking at it. Are you looking at the -- or can you look atthe chart that Mr. Johnson used on Mr. Gilliard? It's not been introduced, but I don't know if you have acopy of that or not.A. The question list?Q. Yes.A. Yes, I have that.Q. Okay. Now, the control question should be something that, not in the directed lie, but in this, just toillustrate how the control question works, the control question shouldn't be related to the relevant question;should it?A. In what sense? I mean, you want it to be -- one theory in polygraphy with probable lie controls is that theyshould be of a related nature. It should not -- the Baxter approach is that in should not overlap.


15/16

15

Q. Well, if you would look at the control question, the control question identified as number 6, have youfalsified any documents in your research in an attempt to defraud the company. That's not a very goodcontrol question; is it?A. It's not one that I would have chosen. But, the control question says defraud the company, not defraud thegovernment. So, under the Reid approach it would be an acceptable control question.Q. But, in your view, in your opinion, it's a stretch to say it's a good question?A. It's not a control question that I would have used. But, again, you know, I think the problem is that itmight not be strong enough. And I would prefer to have been away from the issue, you know, away from thecompany and had a different kind of control question. But, I've seen control questions like that before.Q. Well, then the other control question in this series, have you ever intentionally cheated on your incometax. Do you consider that to be a valid control question?A. I think it's a potentially valid question. But, again, you know, my concern with that is that it's not strongenough because I think --Q. Yeah. What if, what if they had never done that?A. Well, exactly. Then it would tend to contribute to a false positive error, not a false negative error.Q. Right. But, the control questions are the Rosetta Stone to control question technique; are they not?A. Yeah, that's correct. And if they are weak, you get false positive errors.Q. Okay. You've testified as to the directed -- the use of the directed lie by agencies?A. Yes.Q. In fact, you have a letter here which --A. I think it may have been in Exhibit 1.MR. BUERSTATTE: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?Q (MR. BUERSTATTE): Okay. Government or Defendant's Exhibit 1, now this was obtained by FOIArequest, Freedom of Information Act Request?A. Yes.Q. You obtained it?A. Yes.Q. Have you done anything to update this?A. No.Q. Okay, but --A. Other than talk to people that worked at the Defense Polygraph Institute.Q. When did you talk to them?A. I guess the last contact I had would have been during Galbreth which have, was last spring, I think, March.Q. Okay. Well, which version of the control question techniques was the subject of this letter?A. That would have been all directed lies, DLT.Q. So, any of them -- if an agency, let's say Department of Energy, if they use the hybrid approach, that wouldbe in the letters.A. Yes, it would have been.Q. Okay.A. But, to my knowledge, the agencies that are referred there using the DLT, not the hybrid.Q. Okay. Not yours?A. Right. Not the one that was used in this test, in this case.Q. So, they're using something different than that?A. Yes.Q. But, this letter has no bearing on this case or this testimony in this case; does it?A. No, I disagree completely with that because I don't see that there's any real difference between DLT, PLT,and the hybrid.Q. Okay.A. They are all control question tests.Q. But, that's your opinion. If your opinion -- if someone else's opinion is right, this has no bearing? Thepoint is this subject of this does not deal with the technique you're using.A. I disagree, because I don't recognize that there's a difference in those techniques. It's like saying that you'vegot a Ford and a Chevrolet and they're not automobiles.Q. Okay. Does Department of Energy use the hybrid approach?


16/16

16

A. I don't know.Q. Does DEA use the hybrid approach?A. I do not know that specific.Q. Okay. Now, if -- and what does DODPI [Dept of Defense Polygraphy Institute] teach? Do they teach thehybrid approach?A. I don't know for sure, but my belief would be that they probably just teach the directed lie as a question.It's part of your bag of tools.Q. Right. It's not scored; is it?A. Of course it's scored.Q. They don't teach it to score it; do they?A. Absolutely.

Virtual Voodoo -- The Lie Detector Lie

Documents

Transcript of Virtual Voodoo -- The Lie Detector Lie