In an article replete with misinformation, Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News Washington bureau reports on polygraphy. Excerpt:
WASHINGTON
If they do it right, the cops would be about 96% sure whether Rep. Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy’s disappearance after hooking him up to a lie detector, polygraph experts said yesterday.
“The inconclusives are only about 3% to 4%” in polygraph tests given by experienced specialists, said Bill Majeski, a 21-year veteran NYPD detective.
Although polygraphs are not admissible in court, the Washington police should know with a good degree of certainty from the test whether Condit was being “deceptive or nondeceptive,” said Majeski, now head of Majeski Associates private investigators.
Majeski and other experts cautioned that test results can vary with the skill of the specialist giving the test, but said the results are reliable to a high degree.
“There are people who can fool the polygraph test, absolutely,” said Dr. Alan Hilfer, a psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center.
“There are pathological liars, those with no conscience, who can defeat the test,” but those cases are rare, Hilfer said.
…
James Starrs, a forensics professor at George Washington University, said the examiner will ask a series of “control” questions, such as name, age and occupation, to get readings on the device for “nondeceptive” answers.
The examiner will then proceed to a series of “relevant” and “nonrelevant” questions on the case at hand, and check them against the “control” questions, Starrs said.
He scoffed at movies that show suspects stepping on a nail in their shoe to throw off the polygraph. “Can you beat the machine? Yeah, it happens, but not much,” Starrs said.
Bill Majeski’s claim that “the cops would be about 96% sure whether Rep. Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy’s disappearance” based on a polygraph “test” is entirely unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific research. Psychologist Alan Hilfer ought to know that one doesn’t have to be a “pathological liar” to defeat a polygraph “test.” One just needs to know “the lie behind the lie detector.” And, for the record, Professor James Starrs’ description of “control” questions is false and misleading.
You can help set the New York Daily News straight on polygraphs by sending a letter to the editor at voicers@edit.nydailynews.com.