AntiPolygraph.org News

The non-partisan website FactCheck.org has a well-researched commentary on a new political advertisement in support of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain that touts his supposed “passing” of a voice stress “test” performed by Atlanta private investigator T.J. Ward. See “Whole Truth About the Cain ‘Lie Detector.’” For additional commentary by AntiPolygraph.org on Ward’s supposed “test,” see “CBS Atlanta Falls for Bogus ‘Lie Detector.’”

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has backed off from his declaration at a press conference convened to address allegations of sexual harassment  that he was “absolutely” willing to do a lie detector test. In an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Cain conditioned his willingness to do a lie detector test on the willingness of an accuser to do so:

Cavuto: …There’s definitely a passion to your fans and your supporters. So, um, why not a lie detector test? You kind of offered for that in your press conference the other day. Um, put it out there, I’m taking a damn lie detector test. I’m gonna pass this with flying colors. Shut up.

Cain: Because, here again, why negotiate against yourself. When somebody comes forward, and they have a claim against me, and *they’re* willing to take a lie detector test, *I’ll* take a lie detector test. I’m not going to go and take one against anonymous, no documentation. That’s not good business…

Cain went on to cite the voice stress analysis performed by private investigator T.J. Ward:

Cain: …And here’s the other thing. There’s a private investigator by the name of T.J. Ward out of Atlanta, Georgia who has some sophisticated technology that a lot of people may not have heard about. He took my statement from my press conference–

Cavuto: I heard that.

Cain: –ran it through his software and was willing to go on record–because many law enforcement agencies use this software–and said, “Herman Cain is telling the truth.”

He did the same thing for this woman who accused me the other day when she was with Gloria Allred, and went through and said, “I’m sorry, but there were a lot of untruths in that statement.”

As AntiPolygraph.org has pointed out earlier, T.J. Ward’s “sophisticated technology”–called “Layered Voice Analysis”–is produced and marketed by a charlatan and has no scientific basis whatsoever.

The Hinterland Gazette points out that private investigator T.J. Ward has previously worked with Cain’s newly hired attorney, Lin Wood, on the Natalee Holloway case, raising the question of whether Ward’s supposed “analysis” was part of an orchestrated public relations campaign.

T.J. Ward demos Layered Voice Analysis for CBS Atlanta's Mike Paluska

On Wednesday, 9 November 2011, CBS Atlanta aired an interview with private investigator T.J. Ward, who used a computer program to analyze recorded statements by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek, who alleges that Cain made a sexual advance on her when she sought his help getting a job. According to Ward’s software, Cain “is being truthful, totally truthful” in denying Bialek’s claim, while Bialek “is fabricating what transpired.”

Ward claimed his software cost $15,000 and has an accuracy rate of 95%. While CBS Atlanta did not disclose the name of this software, a link on Ward’s website indicates that it is Layered Voice Analysis (LVA), a program developed by Amir Liberman’s Nemesysco, Ltd., an Israeli company. This software was completely discredited by Swedish linguists Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda in a 2007 article titled “Charlatanry in Speech Science: A Problem to Be Taken Seriously” (International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, Vol. 14, No. 2). For more on LVA, see “Nemesysco Founder Amir Liberman Is a Charlatan.”

Not that it matters (LVA being pseudoscientific flapdoodle), but it is perhaps worth observing that private investigator T.J. Ward had chosen the setting for analyzing a male voice when conducting his analysis of Sharon Bialek’s remarks:

CBS Atlanta should have done its homework before running with a “news” story based on emperor’s-new-clothes technology.

During a press conference convened yesterday to address allegations of sexual harassment, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain declared that he would “absolutely” be willing to take a lie detector test, though he quickly added, “but I’m not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that.”

Cain’s declaration came in response to the first question asked during the press conference, which was posed by CBS News West Coast correspondent Steve Futterman. It is disconcerting that a “serious” journalist would ask such a frivolous question (lie detector “testing” has no scientific basis), but it is emblematic of the mythical status of the polygraph in American pop culture.

Because the myth of the lie detector is so deeply entrenched in the American psyche, it would have been very difficult for Cain to have rejected the suggestion of a lie detector test and pointed out its unreliability. Instead, Cain went on to add that he had discussed his willingness to take a lie detector with his staff and with his attorney, who evidently failed to dissuade him from such foolishness.

If Cain does submit to a polygraph test, it is likely to be arranged by his lawyer under terms of attorney-client privilege. If Cain doesn’t pass, the public will never hear about it, and his lawyer can have him polygraphed by someone else until he does pass. Then his lawyer can announce to the world that Cain has passed a polygraph denying the sexual harassment allegations against him.

Apart from the fact that only the result of a passed polygraph will be made public, it’s worth noting that while polygraphy is inherently biased against the truthful, liars can pass the “test” using simple countermeasures that polygraph operators have no demonstrated ability to detect. For an in-depth explanation of how to pass a polygraph whether or not one is telling the truth, see AntiPolygraph.org’s free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

The following is the portion of Herman Cain’s press conference that dealt with the lie detector (transcription by AntiPolygraph.org):

Steve Futterman: Mr. Cain, Steve Futterman with CBS News. I’d like to ask you a two-part question. First of all, do you think it is appropriate for a candidate’s character to come under a microscope in a campaign? And secondly, you are basically now in a he said/she said situation. She’s saying something; you’re saying something. They’re both diametrically opposing each other. As distasteful as it might be, would you be willing to do a lie detector test to prove your honesty in something like this–

Herman Cain: Yes–

Futterman: Sure, go ahead…

Cain: Yes, I absolutely would, but I’m not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that. I have, look, that was one of the first comments I made in watching this to my staff. I’ve also shared that with my attorney. Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test. Secondly, I believe that the character and integrity of a candidate running for president should come under a microscope: with facts, not accusations.

Polygraph victim Chiang Kuo-ching

Dennis Engbarth reports for Inter Press Service on the case of Chiang Kuo-ching, a Taiwanese airman who was executed in 1997 for the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl. Military investigators tortured a confession out of Chiang after he failed to pass a lie detector “test.” Since then, DNA evidence and a palm-print have incriminated a different person.

The following is an excerpt from Engbarth’s report for IPS:

After a three-month retrial, Ministry of National Defence northern district military court judge Liu Yu-wei announced on Sep. 13 that a panel of three military judges had found that Chiang Kuo-ching, who was 23 at the time of his execution was “not guilty” of the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl at an Air Force headquarters complex in Taipei city in September 1996.

The court stated that Chiang had been “locked in” as the prime suspect after failing to pass a lie detector test administered by Investigation Bureau agents, and acknowledged that Air Force counter-intelligence agents acting under the orders of then Air Force Commander and later defence minister Chen Chao-min had “used improper methods to obtain a confession from the defendant and used the confession to bolster weak forensic and physical evidence.”

UPDATE: Earlier this year, the Taipei Times reported that:

Chiang and three other suspects were arrested, but Chiang was the only one who did not pass a lie detector test.

The military subsequently sent in counterintelligence officers, who subjected him to various forms of torture and extracted a confession from the young airman.

Troy Davis

Lawyers for Troy Davis, who faces execution by lethal injection at 19:00 hours Eastern time today for the 1991 slaying of an off-duty Savannah police officer, are seeking a polygraph test in a bid to persuade the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to stay the execution.

The Davis case has been the subject of much controversy, as seven of nine non-police witnesses upon whose testimony his conviction hinged have recanted their testimony, with some of the recanting witnesses alleging that police coerced their testimony. No physical evidence connects Davis to the murder, and it seems that Georgia is about to execute a man concerning whose guilt considerable reasonable doubt exists, and who indeed may be innocent.

As AntiPolygraph.org has long pointed out, polygraph “testing” has no scientific basis, and polygraph results are evidence of nothing. Yet it is understandable that with appeals exhausted, Davis’s legal team would grasp at this straw.

If Davis is granted permission to submit to a polygraph test, several points are worth bearing in mind:

1. Polygraphy has an inherent bias against truthful persons, because the more candidly one answers the so-called “control” questions, and as a consequence, feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly fail. Moreover, Davis’s guilt or innocence aside, one can reasonably expect him to be highly sensitized to the relevant questions (the ones about the murder), if only because his life depends on them. If Davis fails the polygraph, it is not evidence of guilt.
2. Despite polygraphy’s bias against the innocent, liars can easily pass using simple countermeasures that polygraph operators have no demonstrated ability to detect. If Davis passes the polygraph, it is not evidence of innocence.
3. If the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles is so uncertain of Davis’s guilt that it would be willing to consider polygraph results, then regardless of the outcome, the Board has enough doubt that it should commute Davis’s death sentence.

UPDATE: Georgia prison officials have rejected Davis’s request to submit to a polygraph examination.

Philadelphia PD Applicant Greg Thomas (Inquirer Photograph)

In his latest article, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Daniel Rubin documents the plight of Greg Thomas, an investigator for the city court system who recently failed a Philadelphia Police Department pre-employment polygraph despite, he insists, having told the truth.

Rubin notes that since reinstating polygraph screening this year (it had been discontinued in 2002), the Philadelphia P.D. has had a pre-employment polygraph failure rate of 63%. Those who do not pass are rejected. There is no appeal process. Given polygraphy’s lack of scientific underpinnings, there can be no doubt but that many of those 63% are being falsely accused. And given the polygraph’s vulnerability to easily-learned countermeasures, one can have little confidence that the polygraph is screening out those who have the most to hide.

AntiPolygraph.org’s George Maschke is among those contacted for this article.

Kyle Hill

Skeptic Kyle Hill, a graduate student at Marquette University who maintains the blog Science-Based Life, takes a look at the evidence for polygraphy in “The Polygraph Test: Can Science Tell if You Are Lying?” He compares the claims made by polygraph advocates such as the American Polygraph Association with the findings of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Research Council.

Kyle’s conclusion: “The foundations for polygraphy are flawed, the evidence is lacking, and the science disagrees. Therefore: science can not yet tell, with any significant accuracy, if you are lying.”

Read the rest of the article here.

As the American Polygraph Association holds its annual seminar in Austin, Texas this week, one of the topics on the agenda is a program run by a consortium of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies called “Polygraph Law Enforcement Accreditation” (PLEA). Participating agencies include the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the Houston Police Department.

The PLEA consortium, whose motto is “Semper Veritas” (truth always), has promulgated a 65-page “Polygraph Guide for Standards and Practices” that sets forth procedures and protocols to be used by participating agencies. AntiPolygraph.org has received a copy of this guide, each page of which is marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive Information,” and has made it available for download here (1.9 MB PDF). Chapter 10 will be of special interest to applicants for employment with agencies participating in the PLEA consortium.

Polygraph advocate Steve Waugh

Guardian reporter David Hopps reports in a story published by the Sydney Morning Herald that former Australia cricket team captain Steve Waugh is advocating the use of lie detectors in an attempt to root out corruption in the scandal-plagued sport. Excerpt:

ANDREW Strauss and Mahendra Singh Dhoni will be encouraged to help stamp out corruption in cricket by taking lie-detector tests as the MCC uses the occasion of the 2000th Test match to step up its campaign to clean up the game.

The controversial proposal is the brainchild of former Australia captain Steve Waugh, who wants leading captains such as Strauss and Dhoni to act as ambassadors and role models by voluntarily putting their reputations on the line.

But the proposal is not supported by the Australian Cricketers’ Association, because lie-detector tests are not admissible in court.

”I applaud Steve Waugh for looking at creative and proactive ways to deal with corruption, but we wouldn’t support the use of polygraphs at this point in time,” ACA chief executive Paul Marsh said. ”Results can be affected if you’re nervous or under stress or whatever, so there may be reasons, other than not telling the truth, that you fail it and we couldn’t open players up to that.”

Waugh is at Lord’s as chairman of an MCC world cricket committee working party that was charged last year with investigating ways corruption might be eradicated. He made his chief proposal only metres away from where Strauss and Dhoni supervised practice ahead of a Test series that will decide whether England or India finish the summer as the No 1 team in the world.

The Australia Cricketers’ Association is right to reject lie detector “testing,” as it has no scientific basis. While polygraphy is inherently biased against truth-tellers, the “test” can trivially be defeated using simple countermeasures that anyone can learn and polygraph operators cannot detect.

Read more…