On Tuesday, 16 May, recently graduated Duke University lacrosse team captain David Evans released the results of a polygraph examination that his lawyer says shows he is innocent of a rape charge for which he was recently indicted. AntiPolygraph.org makes no judgment on Evans’ guilt or innocence, but the polygraph results are evidence of nothing. To begin with, polygraph “testing” has no scientific basis, and the results are easily manipulated through the use of simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.
Moreover, under terms of attorney-client privilege, a lawyer can take his client from polygrapher to polygrapher until he “passes” a polygraph examination. The results of any failures can be kept secret. Thus, the results of attorney-brokered polygraph examinations have less than zero diagnostic value, as the only results that will ever be made public are those that favor the client. The main purpose for releasing such polygraph results is to shape public opinion, including that of potential jurors, with “evidence” that would not be admissible in court.
It should also be noted that the computerized scoring algorithm touted by polygrapher Robert J. Drdak was completely discredited by a panel of scientific experts who conducted an independent review.
John Stevenson of the Durham Herald-Sun reports on Evans’s polygraph results in “Lie Detector Report Released”:
Lie detector report released
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
May 16, 2006 : 10:36 pm ETDURHAM — In a lie-detector examination he apparently passed, indicted Duke University lacrosse player David Evans said not only that he didn’t assault the accuser, but also that he didn’t see or hear anyone else assault her, nor does he know about anyone else assaulting her.
Evans’ attorney released a copy of the polygraph examiner’s report Tuesday, a day after District Attorney Mike Nifong indicted Evans on one count each of first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense and first-degree kidnapping. The report is not admissible in court.
The polygraph examiner, Robert J. Drdak of Advanced Credibility Assessment Services in Charlotte, wrote attorney Joe Cheshire that he believed “this examination strongly supports the truthfulness of Mr. Evans?.”
Drdak said Evans’ answers were “well within the non-deceptive range” and were cross-checked by two methods. One of those was a computerized scoring algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory, a nonprofit technology development organization at Johns Hopkins University.