{"id":3073,"date":"2001-07-13T15:00:32","date_gmt":"2001-07-13T20:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3073"},"modified":"2021-02-21T13:43:27","modified_gmt":"2021-02-21T18:43:27","slug":"machine-usually-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2001\/07\/13\/machine-usually-right\/","title":{"rendered":"“Machine Usually Right”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n

In an article replete with misinformation, Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News<\/em> Washington bureau reports<\/a> on polygraphy. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASHINGTON<\/p>

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.<\/p>

“The inconclusives are only about 3% to 4%” in polygraph tests given by experienced specialists, said Bill Majeski, a 21-year veteran NYPD detective.<\/p>

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.<\/p>

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.<\/p>

“There are people who can fool the polygraph test, absolutely,” said Dr. Alan Hilfer, a psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center.<\/p>

“There are pathological liars, those with no conscience, who can defeat the test,” but those cases are rare, Hilfer said.<\/p>

…<\/p>

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.<\/p>

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.<\/p>

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.”<\/a> And, for the record, Professor James Starrs’ description of “control” questions is false and misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can help set the New York Daily News<\/em> straight on polygraphs by sending a letter to the editor at voicers@edit.nydailynews.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3073","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3073"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3073\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3281,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3073\/revisions\/3281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}