In season 7, episode 6 (The Lie Detector part 1) of Pretend, a true crime documentary podcast, Javier Leiva interviews Doug Williams on topics ranging from his experience as a police polygraph operator, his 1979 decision to publicly come out against polygraphy, and how to pass or beat a polygraph “test.” They also discuss Operation Lie Busters, the federal sting operation that targeted Williams for entrapment.
This podcast also includes audio from the final undercover operation that preceded Williams’ arrest.
AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke was also interviewed for this podcast.
Texas DPS Director Col. Steven C. McCraw, a retired FBI agent who once headed the Bureau’s Inspection Division, gave the graduation address, portions of which AntiPolygraph.org has transcribed. In remarks that are often ungrammatical, McCraw expresses an evidently sincere belief in the pseudoscience of polygraphy, condescension for those who oppose it, and at the same time a recognition that polygraphy is all about interrogation and obtaining confessions. He expresses no concern for potential harm to innocent persons:
I do believe that this is such a important part, discipline, law enforcement discipline, without question. I’ve seen the benefit of it and in a world where crime is transitory—I know the sheriff and I were talking a little bit about it—you know it’s, wherever you’re at, whether it’s North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, certainly Louisiana or Texas, I mean what happens somewhere happens somewhere else. And we recognize that we’re working pretty much the same criminal organizations, the same criminals, and this, this thing, as long as there’s an unending demand for sex with children, we’re, we’re plagued with this depravity of mankind when we talk about what’s going on.
And, and at the end of the day, your job is to get the truth, and of course, we’re, we’re very proud about the school, and pleased that we’re able to produce it, but it’s only as good as the people you put into it, plain and simple. I mean, you are sitting here, there’s a good reason. You’ve exhibited throughout your career not just integrity, but good judgment, and interview, interview skills. I mean you have, already have the tools to get the confessions. You’ve demonstrated that. So you, whether you have a tool or not, but having the science behind it and the tool to help is so vitally important.
From the department’s standpoint, I guess from our standpoint, and I can tell you an example, if nothing else, pre-employment polygraphs. It’s amazing what people will walk into a door wanting to be a state trooper. I mean, we’ve got pedophiles, okay, obviously, we have, we have people who are planning armed robberies of a, an armored vehicle, we’ve had individuals that were thinking about fragging their leadership in Afghanistan. So there’s some, there’s criminals out there applying, and if not for, because the background looked good, everything looked good, if not for those pre-employment, you know, interviews, during confessions that many times those confessions happen even before the interview, before their polygraph is given, because of the quality of our people that are providing that uh, that pre-polygraph interview that they’re conducting, going over the particular facts. And it’s amazing, you know, how we’ve been saved.
While law enforcement applicants sometimes make disqualifying admissions, polygraph screening also results in many honest, well-qualified applicants being wrongly branded as liars and blacklisted. There is no evidence that law enforcement agencies that polygraph applicants have a more honest workforce than those that don’t. Notably, state and local law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Oregon are prohibited by law from polygraphing applicants and employees.
So there’s people that don’t really like the polygraph in the legislature, in some other parts of the judicial system, but they don’t understand it, or haven’t seen it, and don’t recognize that, how productive it is.
McCraw’s supposition that those who “don’t really like the polygraph” don’t understand it is ill-founded. Those who understand polygraphy the best tend to oppose it. For example, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a thorough review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph and likened polygraphy to superstitious lie detection rituals in primitive societies.
As the late Dr. Stephen Fienberg, who led the National Academy of Sciences’ polygraph review committee observed, “Polygraph testing has been the gold standard, but it’s obviously fool’s gold.”
McCraw goes on:
At the end of the day, no one goes to jail on a polygraph. There’s got to be corroborating evidence. But there’s so many times where it’s a he said, she said, and you don’t know. And I can say even from a disciplinary standpoint as a director, when you’re looking at somebody that, you know, has, has compromised their integrity, but they’re consistent they had not, and you know, you don’t want to lose a good employee, or employee that appears to be a good employee, that’s worked so hard, you invested in, and you know, you don’t wanna, just based upon, you know, circumstantial evidence remove somebody, but at the end of the day, the polygraph is the great separator.
I mean that then, was it last week when someone I swore was telling me the truth. I moved finally, I thought that somebody that’s telling me something, here’s, here is a candidate we’re firing and it’s just unfair, uh, because clearly, he didn’t do it. Guess what? He lied, okay? And I wouldn’t have been able to know that unless there was a polygraph given in that regard.
Tactical polygraphs. Whoever came up with a tact—who’s idea was that anyway? Matt, did you have something to do with that? Yeah, somebody conspired. That’s a cool name, right? Not a strategic polygraph, but a tactical polygraph, okay? It implies that you’re, you know, proactive, you’re out there, you’re in the field, and you’re getting your hands dirty, you’re where it’s at. And that’s exactly what it’s about.
A so-called “tactical polygraph” is a polygraph “test” administered to a suspect promptly after arrest in an attempt to obtain admissions to crimes beyond those for which the suspect has been arrested. The suspect’s “failing” may be a pre-scripted part of the interrogation plan.
The “Matt” to whom McCraw called out is Texas Department of Public Safety Captain Matthew Mull, a polygraph operator and advocate of this coercive interrogation technique.
You know, we don’t do our, our sex trafficking operations without, without a polygrapher on site. I’ve been even lobbied by ICE HSI on more than one occasion to increase the number of polygraphers that we have, you know in the Rio Grande valley because of how productive it has been. Of course, it’s productive. And if, at the end of the day, you know it’s not only in terms of finding evidence to support, you know, putting them where they need to be, but it’s also identifying victims, other victims in that regard. And you are in a position to be able to do that.
You know there’s, not now, when you hit the day, first day running, you’re going to be in a position to do something that other people won’t be able to do. I mean, you’ve already got that skill to interview on top of that, you’ve got this, then you have the opportunity, because they’re being funneled into your presence, and you have an opportunity to make a difference. And sometimes, you know, patience is important, I know. You know, I don’t have it. But I know you have it, because sometimes you have to listen and empathize—for hours—with someone that you’re disgusted by.
I’m always, always reminded of someone that worked for me in, in my FBI days and we had the Tohono O’odham reservation in Arizona, and there was such pervasive child molestation on the, on the “res,” that, you know, how do you get the confessions? What do you, if someone does one, they do fifteen. How do you able to gonna elicit that infor—, you know how do you, and it’s about empathizing, and she was able to do that again and again and again, and followed up with a polygraph that always, you know, produced results in a way that we’re sparing the children from having to testify, which is brutal when you do so.
So there’s so many good things that you’re going to be doing, you know, whether it’s murderers, [unclear], whatever it is, you know, that cross your career, and, you know, and you’ll also, again, you know, in another discipline, ’cause people are understand that, hey, law enforcement is data based, scientific based, we don’t, we don’t, it’s not voodoo, okay, it’s about science, it’s about things that work.
Col. McCraw’s assertion that law enforcement is “scientific based” does not hold true when it comes to its reliance on polygraphy—a thoroughly discredited pseudoscience. “Voodoo science” is not an inapt characterization of polygraphic lie detection.
It’s about, you know, evidence-based strategies. It’s in policing it is, is in fact a profession, and a very important, critical profession. There’s nothing more important that government does is protect its people, and you’re a key part of that with what discipline that you have that fits into it. And we’ve got an obligation to use all the tools that we can, and you’re, you’re a very important tool…
Law enforcement has no obligation to use tools such as the polygraph that are known to be scientifically baseless. McCraw’s remarks help to illustrate how deeply entrenchedbelief in the century-old, cop-invented pseudoscience of polygraphy is in American law enforcement.
Video of the Texas DPS Polygraph School Class 29 graduation ceremony is available on the Texas DPS YouTube channel here:
The Guardian’s science editor, Ian Sample, sits for a polygraph “test” and reports on the British Ministry of Justice’s growing reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy. Excerpt:
The Ministry of Justice introduced compulsory lie detector tests for sex offenders in 2014. But now the controversial technique is poised to become more widespread in the British justice system.
The domestic abuse bill and the counter-terrorism and sentencing bill, both passing through the Lords, provide for regular, mandatory testing of domestic abuse offenders, suspected terrorists and convicted terrorists on release. While failing a test would not in itself mean prison time, fresh disclosures, investigations prompted by failed tests, attempting to beat the polygraph, refusing a test or remaining silent in a test, could all trigger a recall. Loss of liberty in such circumstances is determined not by court but by probation officers, the former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas, has noted. Tests are expected to start in the spring.
For Don Grubin, emeritus professor of forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University and director of Behavioural Measures which runs the Heaton Mount training course, the polygraph is a means of gaining fresh information, an additional tool to help manage offenders. “What you’re looking for is information to indicate there’s an increased risk,” he says. But debate in the Lords and beyond has raised serious questions around the polygraph’s place in the legal system.
Marion Oswald, vice-chancellor’s senior fellow in law at Northumbria University calls the polygraph “an oppressive interrogation tool”, a phrase Grubin finds “over the top”. Oswald wants an immediate moratorium on polygraphs, an independent review of their usage across police forces and the probation service, and if tests resume, continuing independent oversight. “There’s a really high risk of people relying too much on these polygraph outputs,” she says. But Grubin argues there’s no evidence of this being an issue, adding that the risk is no greater than for other measures, such as criminal record checks and tagging.
It is not “over the top” to characterize the polygraph as “an oppressive interrogation tool.” It is precisely that. Indeed, former police polygraph operator Doug Williams has aptly characterized the polygraph as a “psychological billy club.”
Because polygraphy has no scientific basis, any reliance on polygraph chart readings is over-reliance.
Since 2002, the CIA has used the pseudonym “Molly Hale” to respond to selected public inquiries. Since 2019, such inquiries may be directed to the CIA’s Twitter or Facebook accounts using the hashtag #AskMollyHale.
On 3 March 2021, Molly Hale replied to the following inquiry:
I would really love to work for CIA, and think I would be a great candidate, but I’m nervous about taking a lie detector test. It’s not that I have anything to hide, I just feel like my results wouldn’t be accurate because of my crazy nerves! What do you recommend I do?
Nerves of Jello
Among other things, Molly Hale writes:
I’m here to tell you that the actual polygraph is far less intimidating than your mind might make it out to be. We’re talking less Jason Bourne and more Meet the Parents, if cinema is your thing. But seriously, the polygraph isn’t a strategy to ‘psych out’ potential officers….
This is a lie. The polygraph is precisely a strategy to psych out potential CIA officers. Specifically, it is intended to convince them that the polygraph operator can read their minds (lie detection is a form of mind reading), and that deception is futile. In fact, polygraphy has no scientific basis (it’s a century-old, cop-invented pseudoscience), and polygraph outcomes have no clear connection with whether one has spoken the truth.
In the pre-employment polygraph screening technique used by the CIA, applicants are typically accused of lying or withholding information during the initial polygraph session and are badgered for admissions. If no disqualifying admissions are made, they are typically invited back for one or more follow-up sessions.
Molly Hale continues:
…It is a tool, which is leveraged to assess a person’s strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, and reliability; nothing more, nothing less. Given the access to sensitive information afforded to CIA officers, it is important we use every tool at our disposal to determine a person’s suitability for employment.
Ouija boards and astrological charts are also at the CIA’s disposal. Should they use these, too? Molly Hale goes on:
To your point about nerves affecting the outcome of the test, understand that CIA polygraph examiners are some of the world’s most capable security professionals. They are well-trained in the use of polygraph instruments and are skilled in properly assessing the results. That is to say, they know how to distinguish nerves from deception. If you’re concerned that the examiner might conflate the two, let me ease your worries: our examiners are incredibly good at what they do.
Molly Hale’s claim that CIA polygraph operators “know how to distinguish nerves from deception” is patently false. The fundamental weakness of polygraphy is that it cannot distinguish between people who are nervous because they are lying and those who are nervous but telling the truth.
In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences completed a thorough review of the scientific evidence on polygraph screening and concluded that “its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”
The CIA is willfully ignoring the science on polygraphs.
Molly Hale has yet another lie to tell:
If I haven’t been up to this point, let me be very clear: if you want to work for CIA, don’t let a fear of the polygraph be the one reason that stops you. We’re not looking for perfect people, we’re looking for honest people. If you are candid and forthright through the process, the polygraph will not be an issue.
Many candid and forthright CIA applicants end up being falsely branded as liars and disqualified based on polygraph chart readings. (Some have shared their stories here.) In fact, retired CIA polygraph operator John F. Sullivan has opined that “an honest subject has no better chance than a dishonest subject of getting through the process.”
Molly Hale concludes:
So take a deep breath, calm your nerves, and submit that application!
Before you submit that application, we recommend that you educate yourself about the pseudoscientific means by which the CIA will pretend to assess your honesty and integrity. Our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is a good starting point.
On 29-30 October, the Dr. Phil show aired its first polygraph episode since the death of the show’s longtime polygraph operator, Jack Trimarco, in 2018. For that purpose, Dr. Phil brought on John Leo Grogan, whom Trimarco had denounced as “nothing more than a fraud,” but whom host Phil McGraw presented as “one of the most respected polygraph examiners in the country.”
On 19 & 22 February 2021, the Dr. Phil show aired its second polygraph episode since Trimarco’s death. It is seemingly no accident that this two-part polygraph episode, like the previous one, aired during a Nielsen sweeps rating period, a crucial time for advertising revenue. The Dr. Phil show has historically used the revelation of polygraph results at the end of an episode to build suspense and boost viewership.
This episode’s guest is Jeremy Dewitte, who operates a funeral escort service in Florida, where he has been criminally charged with impersonating a police officer. Phil McGraw introduces the polygraph segment thus:
Dr. Phil: Is Jeremy playing cop or just doing his job? He insists he is not impersonating a police officer and wanted to take a polygraph test to show that his state of mind was not to try to imply to people that he was doing so. I recommended against it. I didn’t want him to do it. I, I’m not a big fan of these things, but he, he insisted. We’ll find out the results together. Be right back.
Although Phil McGraw states that he recommended against the polygraph and is “not a big fan of these things,” in an interview with AntiPolygraph.org, Jeremy Dewitte stated that it was a producer of the show who first broached the topic of a polygraph “test,” asking if he would be willing to do one. Dewitte states that he told the producer that he had no problem doing so, and that no one from the Dr. Phil show attempted to discourage him from doing so.
This time, the show did not re-engage John Grogan’s services but instead introduced a new polygraph operator, Gil Witte of San Diego:
Dr. Phil: Jeremy says he wanted to take a polygraph, uh, to clear his name. Uh, now we reached out to world-renowned police polygraph examiner, instructor, publisher, and speaker, uh, Gil Witte. Now, Gil has over seventeen years of experience. He’s conducted thousands of polygraph tests and is the current president of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners.
To AntiPolygraph.org’s knowledge, the 41-year-old Witte is not particularly renowned, nationally or internationally. He has worked as a civilian polygraph operator for the San Diego Police Department and as an instructor for a Florida polygraph school. As for his being a “publisher,” he has co-authored a single article that appeared in Polygraph, a non-scientific quarterly trade journal published by the American Polygraph Association.1 Witte is indeed the current president of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners, a relatively insignificant organization. It would seem that Witte’s greatest claim to fame to date is his appearance on the Dr. Phil show.
McGraw goes on to characterize Witte as a “countermeasures expert,” and Witte implies that he caught Jeremy Dewitte attempting to use polygraph countermeasures:
Dr. Phil: …Gil, when it comes to polygraph exams, you’re also a, a countermeasures expert. Explain what countermeasures are.
Witte: Uh, countermeasures are behaviors that you can do during specific questions on the exam to enhance physiology on those areas and appear as a truthful individual. That’s why we have activity sensors to the floor for your feet, activity sensors on the chair for core movements, and the rubber tubes that go over your chest and your stomach do record upper body movements, so upper body activity. So if you were to try to manipulate any of those, we actually have the sensors that tell us, this data’s true, this data’s not true.
Dr. Phil: Did that play into the test yesterday?
Witte: Yes it did.
It should be noted that no polygraph operator has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (the kind that anyone who understands polygraph procedure would employ), and the available research suggests that they can’t. Extensive polygraph community documentation obtained by AntiPolygraph.org confirms that polygraph operators have no coherent methodology for countermeasure detection.
To AntiPolygraph.org’s knowledge, Gil Witte, who holds a master’s degree in mental health counseling from Nova Southeastern University, has conducted no research and published nothing on the topic of polygraph countermeasures, and his website provides no documentation of any such expertise. As of this writing, Witte has not responded to an inquiry from AntiPolygraph.org regarding the basis for his being characterized as a “countermeasures expert.”
Witte does not explain what Dewitte did that he construed to be polygraph countermeasures. However, Dewitte told AntiPolygraph.org that in order to stay calm during the polygraph, he breathed slowly and deeply. Such breathing is not uncommon when people are in a stressful situation. However, it is not something that anyone who understands polygraph procedure would actually do in an attempt to pass or beat the polygraph. Nonetheless, polygraph operators often call slow and/or deep breathing a polygraph countermeasure.
Dewitte told AntiPolygraph.org that during the polygraph session, conducted in early November 2020 in a hotel conference room, Witte provided no indication that he suspected he was employing polygraph countermeasures.
According to Dewitte, the relevant questions asked on the show were chosen by the show’s producers, and not by himself:
All three of these relevant questions go to Dewitte’s state of mind. He could have sincerely believed that his denial to each of these questions was truthful, while a reasonable person looking at the available evidence could reach a different conclusion. Because of the subjective nature of the selected relevant questions, it is unlikely that the accuracy of the polygraph results could ever be independently confirmed or disconfirmed.
As it turns out, Witte deemed Dewitte deceptive with respect to all three relevant questions, stating that he scored -37 (a particularly low “failing” score).
Given that Dewitte had been indicted for allegedly impersonating a police officer, it is hardly surprising that the three relevant questions would have produced a strong emotional response, whether or not he answered them truthfully.
Asked by AntiPolygraph.org what other polygraph questions Witte had asked him, Dewitte recalled two probable-lie “control” questions: “Have you ever lied to a loved one?” and “Have you ever represented yourself to be something you’re not?” Dewitte did not appear to understand that these were “control” questions, or the function they serve. (A person who has studied polygraph countermeasures would presumably know this. For an explanation of “control” questions and effective polygraph countermeasures, see Chapters 3 & 4 of our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.)
Dewitte told AntiPolygraph.org that he was never provided with nor shown his polygraph report, and that he would not object to Witte providing AntiPolygraph.org with a copy of the computerized data file associated with his polygraph examination so that we could conduct an independent review. At the time of writing, Witte has not responded to our request that he send us that data.
Witte, G., Senter, S. and B. Blalock, “Impact of Interview Route Maps: Single Examiner Case Study,” Polygraph, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 117-124. [↩]
Matt Orchard of Christchurch, New Zealand addresses the pseudoscience of polygraphy in the latest episode of his YouTube documentary series, Crime and Society. Polygraph critic Doug Williams was interviewed for this episode, which reviews the history of polygraphy, polygraph methodology, and some prominent criminal cases.
On 8 October 2020, the FBI filed a under seal a criminal complaint and supporting affidavit against former federal employee Brian Jeffrey Raymond in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charging him with a single count of violating 18 U.S.C. §2422(a), alleging that he “[k]nowingly induced an individual to travel for the purpose of engaging in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”
On 31 December 2020, the FBI filed an additional criminal complaint against Raymond, charging him with further sex-related crimes. In a supporting affidavit, FBI Special Agent Erin L. Sheridan details evidence, including photographs and videos, that Raymond had a years-long history of drugging women and sexually abusing them while they were unconscious. An earlier Motion for Pre-Trial Detention states that “[t]he videos and photographs show at least 21 different unconscious women, all appearing to be adults.” Raymond’s internet search history, recovered from a laptop computer, suggests an interest in such criminal behavior dating back at least as early as 2010.
The 44-year-old Raymond had been a federal employee for some 23 years and had most recently worked at the United States embassy in Mexico City.
While the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI have avoided mentioning the specific U.S. government agency that employed Raymond, circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that it was the Central Intelligence Agency.
In a Motion for Release with Conditions filed on 15 October 2020, Raymond’s counsel mentioned that he had taken and, to his knowledge, passed polygraphs throughout his career, and that the most recent one “addressed allegations against him.”
9. At regular intervals throughout his tenure in public service, as well as shortly after the launch of the current investigation, Mr. Raymond has taken polygraph tests. To his knowledge, he has passed every one of the more than 10 such test [sic], including the most recent one, which addressed allegations against him. Those results were shared with the Department of Justice. He’s taken over 10 polygraphs during his career.
Employees of the U.S. Department of State are not routinely required to submit to polygraph screening. But CIA employees, who often work under diplomatic cover, are.
is extremely comfortable living, working and traveling overseas, to an extent that few others could relate. Indeed, he has lived and worked in multiple foreign countries across the globe. He speaks Spanish and Mandarin Chinese. He has worked in or visited over 60 different countries in all regions of the world….
Another indication of Raymond’s affiliation with the CIA is the presence of a hardcover copy of Gentleman Spy, Peter Grose’s 641-page biography of CIA director Allen Dulles, on his bookshelf in the above social media photograph released by the FBI in connection with a public request that other potential victims come forward.
The CIA uses a “full scope” polygraph screening technique that includes the question, “Have you ever committed a serious crime?” In light of the compelling nature of the evidence against him, it seems likely that Brian Jeffrey Raymond beat the polygraph at least once during his CIA employment.
In an eerily similar case, the CIA station chief in Algeria, Andrew Marvin Warren, in 2008 came under investigation for drugging and raping two women. Warren ultimately pleaded guilty to “charges of abusive sexual contact and unlawful use of cocaine while possessing a firearm” and in March 2011 was sentenced to 65 months in prison.
In 2013, in one of his last stories, the late investigative reporter Michael Hastings profiled Warren in a Rolling Stones article titled, “The Spy Who Cracked Up in the Cold.” Warren was released from prison on 14 January 2015 whereupon he began serving a 120-month term of supervised release.
In the commission of his crimes, Warren, like Raymond, was undeterred by the prospect of periodic polygraph screening.
In the 21st century, the pseudoscience of polygraphy has regrettably been spreading in the republics of the former Soviet Union, where employer-mandated polygraph screening is a growing problem.
Since 2005, Russian polygraph manufacturer EPOS (ЭПОС) has hosted a message board for discussion of polygraph-related topics. While part of the message board is public, it also includes a private “Professional” (Профессионалы) section reserved for polygraph operators that is not visible to the general public. This section includes nearly 1,000 message threads comprising over 20,000 individual posts.
AntiPolygraph.org has received an archive of the EPOS polygraph forum, including the private “Professional” section, as it appeared around 17 November 2020. The archive was downloaded with the free and open source web crawler, HTTrack.
While the archive is sadly not complete, it includes a great wealth of information that was previously inaccessible to the public, including lengthy discussions of polygraph methodology and numerous user-uploaded file attachments. AntiPolygraph.org has scanned the archive using Microsoft Windows Defender and found nothing amiss.
Lawsuits filed in Nassau County, New York allege that TV polygraph operator Daniel D. “Dan” Ribacoff and his “family owned & operated” private investigation company, International Investigative Group, behaved negligently and bilked the plaintiffs out of millions of dollars. Kathianne Boniello reports for the New York Post:
A prominent PI firm was so eager to keep the cash coming in from rich clients, it turned a blind eye to its private eyes acting “like drunken fraternity brothers,” a new lawsuit charges.
Dan Ribacoff, a polygraph expert who bills himself as one of the top private investigators in the country and has appeared on TV shows like “Impractical Jokers” and “The Steve Wilkos Show,” displayed “willful ignorance” and took no action as the gumshoes who worked for him went rogue, according to the $10 million claim.
Ribacoff’s Long Island-based International Investigative Group exchanged thousands of text messages with underlings, encouraging them to double bill and pad hours to run up the tab for wealthy clients like Patty Hearst’s granddaughter Gillian Hearst and ice cream company heir David Smith, according to court papers.
The lawsuit, Susanne Gold-Smith vs. Daniel Ribacoff et al., was filed on 18 December 2020 in the Nassau Supreme Court under index number 614735/2020. Other named defendants include Daniel Ribacoff’s son, Lance Ribacoff, his daughter, Lisa J. Ribacoff, his wife, Barbara Ribacoff, and the Ribacoffs’ company, International Investigative Group, Ltd. The 80-page statement of complaint (23 MB PDF) seeks damages of not less than $50 million and comprises nine causes of action: 1) negligent supervision, 2) negligent hiring, 3) respondeat superior, 4) respondeat superior-IIG and the Ribacoffs, 5) negligent retention, 6) negligence, 7) aiding and abetting, 8) violation of New York Business Law 84, 9) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Daniel Ribacoff is a member of the American Polygraph Association, and his daughter Lisa Ribacoff is a member of the American Polygraph Association’s board of directors.
A prior lawsuit, David M. Smith vs. International Investigative Group et al., was filed in the Nassau Supreme Court on 31 May 2019 under index number 0607393/2019 and seeks damages of more than $18 million. The 48-page statement of complaint (2 MB PDF) in that litigation cites causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, gross negligence, and “breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
In December 2019, a guest on the Steve Wilkos Show, for which Dan Ribacoff provides polygraph services, attempted suicide after Ribacoff falsely accused her of lying when she denied having burned her infant daughter. In fact, no one had burned the daughter, and lesions that appeared on her leg were the result of a ringworm infection.