Kayle,

Now I understand. Thanks for explaining. BTW, I also found the "bug" evidence fairly compelling and thought the opposing testimony rather lame. It was however one of the few parts of the trial I caught and there are always things that seem to conflict. I have the impression the bulk of other evidence was fairly compelling but it is just a general impression from the media. What convinced me he was guilty was the statement that his atty was negotiating with the DA in exchange for DW's providing the location of the body. If this did not happen or if it did w/o DW's involvement it would be a fairly gross abuse of atty ethics I would think. Very unfair to DW if in fact he is innocent.

-Marty

Marty said:  << Are you and doodad the same poster? Why the sudden interest in DW? >>
 
Doodad posted a link to Anti-Poly on another forum, and I (a separate person) came over to have a look-see, since the "failed Poly" in the DW case has been a big item for discussion and research on polygraphing.  I have visited your site before but never posted.   

My interest in DW arrest, trial and conviction is not "sudden."  It has been ongoing since the trial began.  http://hometown.aol.com/onejuror/myhomepage/rant.html   

P.S. - I would NEVER take a polygraph under any circumstances that I can think of.

Kayle

Onejuror wrote on Sep 15^th, 2003 at 11:39pm:

Of course. Maintaining belief in the polygraph is considered important in it's effectiveness. As for interrogations, there is a thread on this board about pro's and con's of taping an interrogation. Some LE people believe jurors are not smart enough to understand LE techniques. It's an area of dispute in LE circles.
Quote:

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there are components of the landscape or surrounding area that would likely be burned into the perp's brain yet not documented in the crime scene photos. I don't know. Perhaps DW's atty should search out someone who specializes in GKT's (there aren't many) and knows what to look for.

Quote:

This is both true for the CQT (which looks only at differential responses) and a good interrogation ploy since it leaves no out for DW's "nervous" comments.
Quote:

The research I've seen tends to show that drugs have little effect on the differential response of examinees. Other than having some sort of severe heart disease, there isn't much that disqualifies an examinee. Certainly not being nervous. Keep in mind the main reason for the polygraph is to set him up for interrogation.

Again, let me stress. Do not assume guilt or innocence from DW's polygraph. I heard there was a lot of circumstantial evidence of his guilt (I didn't follow the trial closely though) and the poly is the least reliable of it all. We don't have near enough information as to whether it was really performed to eliminate DW from a pool of suspects or to nail his ass and get a confession. Since he didn't confess, sure they wanted him back for another go.

Are you and doodad the same poster? Why the sudden interest in DW?

-Marty

Marty, thanks for the "SOP" info.  I am beginning to understand this "prop" usage better, re: doing interrogations to obtain confessions, etc. -- essentially that "anything goes" toward that end, and that in this respect the examiner was doing an excellent job.  I think the general public expects it all to be more, well, "scientific" than that.

I have also viewed the link to Action Alerts (the original SDPD messages) that credit SDPD with smarts for taping this session.  I agree that it is highly useful.

1.  You wrote, regarding possible GKT on Westerfield:

Quote:


FYI:  Having been through all the trial evidence, Westerfield now knows things he never knew before, especially about the victim's home -- which he claims never to have visited.  As to any "crime scene," no one ever determined how, when, or where the child died. Her body was found 30 miles from her home.  That "crime scene" was also shown in court. So I think the GKT possibility here is moot.   

2.  You did not seem to answer the questions about the subject's physical and possible medical conditions; or address the suggestion (source: another published tape) that one of the parents polygraphed was "hyper to the nth degree" and "totally out in left field" but passed with flying colors nevertheless.   

Does the examiner not have to asssess his subject's physical condition before doing the test, as to being overly calm or overly hyper?  Don't they have to at least ask if the subject is on medication (or any other drug, such as tranquilizers)?  I really would like to know more about this aspect.

3.  You should be aware that, according to the convicted subject himself, SDPD was not totally happy with Westerfield's failed answers.  He only failed two of the 5 "were-you-involved" type questions.  He may have PASSED the whereabouts-of-the-child question.

SDPD officers came back to him suggesting they had "false negatives" and wanted him to retest.  The lawyers refused.  These same officers were the ones leaning on him for the "whereabouts" info, which he never provided or was not able to provide. (Source: one of the published Westerfield letters.)

4.  Can it be determined from the tape which two of the 5 questions he failed?   

We note that only 2 of 5 questions contained the words, "you yourself."  Does anyone know if these were the two he would be most worried about and thus failed?  Would these 2 be most likely to jolt the subject?

Another tape source (an SDPD interview after the polygraph-interrogation)  says "those were the 2 that I wanted to get right" and goes on at length about how upset he was about failing "those 2" questions.

I am working from an unofficial transcript, not the tape itself.  Can you who have the audio version of the poly tell WHICH questions he failed?  Thanks.

Kayle

Marty, I've been looking at both the GKT and brain machine and must say Im impressed with both so far. There is definately more, what I would consider, scientific basis for their claims.

As to Westerfields lawyers, both they and the prosecution lawyers have declined to comment because of confidentiality and upcoming appeals. seems to me Westerfield could score some points with the public if he could get his lawyer to tell the whole story though.

One of my biggest problems with the plea bargain story is that it supposedly happened, according to the 2 un- named sources who told the media about it , the day after the arraignment Feb 26th. But the DA didnt announce the decision to seek the death penalty until April 26th. Seems unlikely a criminal lawyer would discuss a plea about something that hadn't been decided. Why plea if you aren't facing death yet?

Quote:

Yep. It is common practice in an interrogation to say whatever puts the subject in the frame of mind to confess. Since DW didn't confess, and it is likely the poly was a way to interrogate DH more before he called for a lawyer, you shouldn't put much weight in the poly results. Whether or not other people passed you can be quite certain that post test the examiner will say they passed. It is considered appropriate during interrogations. Think of the case where there are 2 suspects and each suspect is told the other has fingered them. SOP.  Keep in mind that the police are trying to nail the bad guys, not engage in some "fair" sort of dialog.

-Marty

(Reposting the erroneous "Guest" entry above. Sorry for the error.)

To the experts, re: Westerfield's physical condition(s) 
 
I have read only a little on polygraph testing, but my understanding is that the Examiner is to assess the subject's physical condition before administering the tests -- for whatever reason(s) it's being given. 
 
(1)  Westerfield expressed some worries about the BP procedure -- says he can "feel" changes of pressure somewhere in his head. He thus implies some prior experience with BP changes. There is no evidence that examiner asked him about any prior BP condition or heart condition. 
 
(2) DW's BP dropped clean off the scale (LOW BP) on two of four incriminating questions.  Examiner had to "correct" for this by "re-centering" the device. 
 
(3) Those who saw W'field on TV often commented about his visible "shaking," which looked to some of us like either early state Parkinson's or some kind of BP problem -- clearly some pre-existing physical disorder. Doesn't a pre-existing physical condition affect results? 
 
(4) The examiner later told W'field that the child victim's father, who "passed with flying colors," was highly distraught, a physical and emotional basket case (I don't remember his exact words), but that HE passed it.  I am wondering how this same Examiner came to administer that exam, too, in view of the father's overly distraught condition.  Is that kosher? 
 
(5) Is it common procedure, or even ethical, for an Examiner to share the results of other people's tests with a subject? 
 
To sum up, my doubts about the Westerfield polygraph centered more on the qualifications of the Examiner than on the actual test questions.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here? 

Thanks for all the GKT info.  Will check it out.
 
Onejuror / Kayle

Doodad wrote on Sep 14^th, 2003 at 9:43pm:

That's my major gripe as well. In a democracy, people need balanced information. Some portion of the polygraph's effectiveness is broad belief that it works. It isn't lying that produces excitement, it is fear of detection of lying. Thus it is a sort of ethical catch 22.
Quote:

Interesting. I didn't know that. Can't David release his atty from confidentiality so as to verify that? Perhaps you should look into Drew Richardson's device. If there is sufficient information about the crime scene that David has not been exposed to and that the perp would know then it might have some applicability even now.

Quote:

A properly administered GKT, where the examiner does not know the case facts, where the facts allow a GKT would be best. Few American examiners are trained in it and so even when opportunities come up the GKT is rarely used.

-Marty

To the experts, re: Westerfield's physical condition(s)

I have read only a little on polygraph testing, but my understanding is that the Examiner is to assess the subject's physical condition before administering the tests -- for whatever reason(s) it's being given.

(1)  Westerfield expressed some worries about the BP procedure -- says he can "feel" changes of pressure somewhere in his head. He thus implies some prior experience with BP changes. There is no evidence that examiner asked him about any prior BP condition or heart condition.

(2) DW's BP dropped clean off the scale (LOW BP) on two of four incriminating questions.  Examiner had to "correct" for this by "re-centering" the device.

(3) Those who saw W'field on TV often commented about his visible "shaking," which looked to some of us like either early state Parkinson's or some kind of BP problem -- clearly some pre-existing physical disorder. Doesn't a pre-existing physical condition affect results?

(4) The examiner later told W'field that the child victim's father, who "passed with flying colors," was highly distraught, a physical and emotional basket case (I don't remember his exact words), but that HE passed it.  I am wondering how this same Examiner came to administer that exam, too, in view of the father's overly distraught condition.  Is that kosher?

(5) Is it common procedure, or even ethical, for an Examiner to share the results of other people's tests with a subject?

To sum up, my doubts about the Westerfield polygraph centered more on the qualifications of the Examiner than on the actual test questions.  Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Kayle

Marty...I thought that GKT stuff looked familiar. Yes, it definately seems to be a better way of getting closer to truth/lies.

http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9601/9601.html

This link talks about the level of the control question and Im assuming that's what you were referring to.

I'm wondering if the fact that it was early on in the investigation and some facts had been leaked via the media even at that point is why they would not use such a method.....that and, as you said, looking for a confession.

Thanks Marty...those are very helpful points.  Maybe "scam" was an inappropriate word lol but I do understand that police have to use lies and such to be able to do their job sometimes; I just get a lil wired (pardon the pun) when the general public is then led to believe that it can lead to truth all the time, as in a poly result.

The other type tests sound interesting; I will look them up on this forum so I can understand it better.

Yes, a lot of people have based their POV on the alleged plea bargain. Westerfield has, of course claimed he was univolved in any such plea except to the extent that his lawyers told him the DA was willing to offer life for the body and he said he didnt know where the body cause he didnt do it. The ex DA has spoken about the plea several times but has never, given the chance, said straightout that Westerfield himself offered anything or initiated any plea. That alone leaves me a little suspicious since only Westerfields direct input into any plea is of any import as to his guilt in terms of that situation.

Another general question......maybe the stuff in Japan is the answer.

Do any of you think that a technology can and will be devised capable of realistically measuring truth/falsehood? Are correlations between data and premise reliable even given say double blind trials?

Doodad wrote on Sep 14^th, 2003 at 7:21pm:

There are basically 2 reasons police use a poly. It can be used in investigations to somewhat focus limited resources where there are many potential suspects or it can be used as a prop (scam in your words) to produce confessions, often in the same session. The latter is the principal use. In my view both are legitimate. It is fact (and proper technique) that LE can and will sometimes lie, mislead, and manipulate things to get a confession. You might wish to review the statements made in the Elizabeth Smart case about their polygraphs.  You can see evidence of full bore interrogation mode there.  There is a major reason for this. A confession is admissible in court, the polygraph results aren't.

Therefore, the SDPD did a proper job with Westerfield's poly but you should definitely not assume that his failure of that poly is valid per se. The investigation may have been to the point of concluding that David did it at the time his poly was given. If that was the case then it was purely a prop to elicit a confession.

As for David's comments about the reliability of the polygraph, he was correct but that is also a common response by guilty people so it is not especially meaningful.

In the end David did not confess so one shouldn't attribute much about the polygraph "results" one way or the other since the likely purpose was interrogation. Even though I think the SDPD did a good job in many ways (including selection of a good control Q from BI) with that poly DO NOT assume it was infallible. To fail the poly David would have to be more nervous about being believed to have killed the child than to have been found to lie about prior violence with his ex, which was the control.

All in all David would have been an ideal candidate for the GKT or Drew's brain response machine since the guilty person would have had a lot of detail about the house, bedroom and child that a person who had not been in the house would have. The GKT has good potential of being admitted in court as well. Too bad this type poly, almost universal in Japan, wasn't done. Could have saved a lot of money.

I base my assumption on David's guilt on his atty negotiating with the prosecution to disclose the body's location not his "failed" poly since no confession followed.

-Marty

Thanks George...some very cogent remarks on both sides of the poly debate. Sorry I missed this site back when you all were talking about it.

If anyone is still interested in this poly, I have a few questions since I am of the opinion that this "failed" poly was a scam to elicit a confession...which makes the passed polys mentioned even bigger scams and misleading to the police and public in general.

-would having a heater turned on in the poly room as was done in this case despite Westerfield's complaints affect the results?

-would changing the questions slightly as Redden did affect the results after he promised Westerfield he would only ask what had already been asked? Eg. would Westerfield subconcsiously or otherwise feel he had been lied to

-would Westerfields admitted disbelief in polys affect the results?

-Westerfield has said in letters written to friends and published in the news that Redden "fiddled." with the controls and that several days after the poly they wanted him to take another one because of "false positives." Assuming that one convicted of this crime is telling the truth, what is the import , if any, of those actions?

-many law enforcement and those in this case refer to polys as an "investgative tool." Do you feel it is because they recognize its true nature and usefullness?

Thanks in advance and I understand if you all have "moved on," regarding this case.

Doodad,

See the message thread, SDPD Polygraph & Interrogation Tape Released.

I have been reading some of the posts here and find some very knowledgeable folks. Being a fan of the Skeptics sites around the net, I must say I find polys rather ineffective.

I was just wondering if any of you have listened to the poly examination of David Westerfield in San Diego? If so, what are your thoughts on the way he was examined?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20030109-9999_1m9david.html

I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed or if criminal cases are not fodder for discussion around here....realizing most of the material is non criminal related.