{"id":38,"date":"2006-05-17T05:02:06","date_gmt":"2006-05-17T09:02:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=38"},"modified":"2021-02-09T10:06:48","modified_gmt":"2021-02-09T15:06:48","slug":"duke-university-lacrosse-player-david-evans-releases-polygraph-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2006\/05\/17\/duke-university-lacrosse-player-david-evans-releases-polygraph-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Duke University Lacrosse Player David Evans Releases Polygraph Report"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

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<\/a>, and the results are easily manipulated through the use of simple countermeasures<\/a> that polygraphers\u00c2 have no demonstrated ability to detect.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

It should also be noted that the computerized scoring algorithm touted by polygrapher Robert J. Drdak was completely discredited<\/a> by a panel of scientific experts who conducted an independent review.<\/p>\n

John Stevenson of the Durham Herald-Sun<\/em> reports on Evans’s polygraph results in “Lie Detector Report Released”<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Lie detector report released<\/strong><\/p>\n

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
\njstevenson@heraldsun.com<\/a>
\nMay 16, 2006 : 10:36 pm ET<\/p>\n

DURHAM — 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. <\/span><\/p>\n

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. <\/span><\/p>\n

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?.” <\/span><\/p>\n

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. <\/span><\/p>\n

Drdak could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening. According to his r\u00e9sum\u00e9, he graduated from Wake Forest University in 1968 and worked for the FBI for 28 years, including 11 years as senior examiner and manager of the agency’s polygraph program in North Carolina. <\/span><\/p>\n

An assistant in Cheshire’s office said the attorney had nothing to add to Drdak’s conclusions. <\/span><\/p>\n

Nifong said polygraph results are not scientifically valid. He had no other comment. <\/span><\/p>\n

Lie-detector results have not been admissible in North Carolina criminal or civil trials since 1983, when the state Supreme Court ruled they were unreliable. <\/span><\/p>\n

Evans, who graduated from Duke on Sunday, joined two other lacrosse players indicted last month on the same charges: Duke sophomores Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Each is free on $400,000 bail. <\/span><\/p>\n

They are accused of raping, sodomizing, beating and strangling an exotic dancer during a lacrosse team party the night of March 13. <\/span><\/p>\n

Through their attorneys, all three have proclaimed their innocence. Evans took the extraordinary step of making a lengthy statement on live national television just before he surrendered at the county jail, calling the accusations “fantastic lies.” <\/span><\/p>\n

Certified polygraph examiner William Stanley Lane of San Bernardino, Calif., a past president of California Polygraph, said Tuesday he was impressed by Drdak’s credentials and methodology. “He’s got a great background,” said Lane, who now does lie-detector work for various police departments. <\/span><\/p>\n

According to Lane, the Lafayette 4000 computerized polygraph system reportedly used by Drdak with Evans was “top of the line.” <\/span><\/p>\n

Lane said it wasn’t unusual that Drdak didn’t actually use the word “rape” during his questioning of Evans. <\/span><\/p>\n

“Rape is too strong a word,” he said. “Most examiners wouldn’t use it. You’d be likely to get a false positive.” <\/span><\/p>\n

“It sounds like the guy knows what he’s doing,” Lane said of Drdak. “But before I say for sure, I would need to see his charts.” <\/span><\/p>\n

If any charts were compiled by Drdak, they were not released by defense lawyers Tuesday. <\/span><\/p>\n

During Monday’s news conference, Evans said he had offered to submit to a police polygraph examination, but that Nifong wasn’t interested. Evans then turned to Drdak instead, he added. <\/span><\/p>\n

Several other attorneys said Tuesday they considered it unusual for Nifong to reject Evans’ polygraph offer, even though results are not admissible as evidence. <\/span><\/p>\n

“In my view, it would be absolutely ridiculous for a prosecutor to ignore a suspect’s request to do a polygraph,” said Durham lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player. <\/span><\/p>\n

“You get to hear his answers to very serious questions,” Thomas added. “There is no greater investigative tool for a prosecutor and police. I cannot think of a sound reason why law enforcement would refuse a polygraph exam to a defendant or possible defendant. Whether or not you believe the guy being tested, you get a chance to really grill him about what might have happened.” <\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Seligmann’s lawyers filed court paperwork Tuesday seeking to preserve cell-phone information that might be helpful to their client. The phone in question reportedly is in a police evidence room, where its battery might die and cause important data to be lost, according to the attorneys. <\/span><\/p>\n

As a result, they had forensic electronics engineer Roger Boyell submit an affidavit saying how sensitively the phone should be handled. <\/span><\/p>\n

“To preserve and protect the electronic information contained within the cellular telephone, it is essential to protect this cellular telephone,” Boyell wrote. <\/span><\/p>\n

Seligmann’s attorneys have contended he has a solid alibi: phone, taxicab and ATM records indicating he was otherwise occupied during the only plausible time, they believe, that a rape could have occurred.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And Raleigh News & Observer<\/em> staff writers Joseph Neff and Benjamin Niolet report today in “Polygraph Expert: Duke Player Told Truth”<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

Polygraph expert: Duke player told truth<\/strong>
\nStatements tested by ex-FBI agent<\/span><\/p>\n

Attorneys for David Evans made the results of the April 21 polygraph test public Tuesday, one day after a Durham County grand jury charged Evans with rape, sexual assault and kidnapping.<\/span>“This examination strongly supports the truthfulness of Mr. Evans,” wrote Robert Drdak, the FBI’s senior polygraph examiner in North Carolina from 1988 to 1999.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md., answered “no” to questions posed by Drdak: Did he sexually assault the dancer at the March 13 party? Did he see or hear anything to indicate the dancer had been assaulted?<\/span>A FBI agent for 28 years, Drdak has conducted more than 2,000 polygraph examinations and specialized in the monitoring of sexual offenders, according to his resume.<\/span><\/p>\n

The results of polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence in North Carolina courts. The tests’ reliability is a matter of scientific debate.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, police and prosecutors routinely use the tests as an investigative tool to screen witnesses for reliability.<\/span><\/p>\n

District Attorney Mike Nifong did not respond to a phone message Tuesday afternoon.<\/span><\/p>\n

DNA tests could not exclude Evans from suspicion in the case, and the accuser picked him out with “90 percent” certainty.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evans’ attorneys have already attacked that evidence as unfair and unreliable, but it is unknown what other evidence, if any, Nifong has in the case.<\/p>\n

Evans’ indictment followed those last month of Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y. They are accused of raping the woman in a bathroom at the 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. house shared by Evans and two other team captains.<\/p>\n

The polygraph results are unlikely to change Nifong’s decision to go forward with the case, but Evans and his attorneys say they help prove that no rape occurred at the party.<\/p>\n

“I passed that polygraph for the same reason that I will be acquitted of all these charges. Because I have done nothing wrong, and I am telling the truth, and I have been telling the truth from day one,” Evans said Monday, just before he surrendered to authorities at the Durham County jail.<\/p>\n

Evans told reporters at the news conference that he had cooperated with police when they served a search warrant on his house March 16, three days after the party. Evans said he and his roommates helped police find evidence and then went to the police station without a lawyer. Evans said he gave police a statement and a DNA sample and gave them access to his e-mail and instant messaging account.<\/p>\n

“After that, I asked to take a polygraph which was refused by the Durham Police Department,” Evans said.<\/p>\n

Evans said prosecutors have refused to talk to him despite repeated attempts by his attorneys. Nifong and defense attorneys have carried on a feud through statements to the news media. The acrimony continued Tuesday when a judge acquitted another team captain on unrelated charges stemming from a January party at the Buchanan Boulevard house.<\/p>\n

A neighbor had called police Jan. 10 when she said she heard someone banging or drumming on trash cans. Officers arrived and cited Evans and Daniel Flannery for loud music at the party.<\/p>\n

Judge David Q. LaBarre said prosecutors could not prove that Flannery was responsible for drumming and the police could not show that music coming from the party was actually disturbing the neighborhood. The police also did not give the men a warning before issuing a citation.<\/p>\n

“It seems to me this court and all other courts can make better use of its time than dealing with such cases as this,” LaBarre said.<\/p>\n

After Flannery’s acquittal, Assistant District Attorney Ashley Cannon said she expects the case against Evans to go forward.<\/p>\n

Brad Bannon, one of Evans’ attorneys, thought it was a waste of time to pursue the minor charge against Evans.<\/p>\n

“It would be fairly astonishing if the case wasn’t dismissed in light of Judge LaBarre’s ruling here today,” Bannon said.<\/p>\n

Staff writer Joseph Neff can be reached at 829-4516 or jneff@newsobserver.com<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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. …<\/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-38","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\/38","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=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2604,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions\/2604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}