Mr. Warner, you write, among other things:
Quote:Confessions gained as a result of polygraph examinations are admissible as evidence in court, providing investigators have met the rules for admissibility, such as no use of force, threats, or promises.
The only way to objectively prove that such rules for admissibility have been met is to record the polygraph interrogation in its entirety. Why then does the
FBI Polygraph Unit stubbornly
refuse to audio- or videotape polygraph interrogations? Why are you (collectively speaking) afraid of creating an objective record that would make it clear to judge and jury whether or not FBI polygraphers used force, threats, or promises to obtain confessions?
Some recent high profile cases suggest that FBI polygraphers do in fact sometimes use such coercive techniques. Take, for example, the FBI polygraph interrogations of
Dr. Thomas C. Butler (sleep deprivation, false promises alleged) and
Abdallah Higazy (implied threats alleged).
You refer to a study recently carried out by the FBI Polygraph Unit:
Quote:...the FBI’s Polygraph Unit conducted an archival research study of 2,641 polygraph examinations from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003.
Would you or one of your colleagues be so kind as to send a copy of this study to AntiPolygraph.org? We'll be happy to make it available on-line in its entirety.
You pose the following question to critics of the polygraph:
Quote:Your child is abducted and investigators come to you and say, “We have a suspect who we will be giving a polygraph to.” Would you be so bold as to reply, “The polygraph technique is unreliable, find my child another way”?
The parent of a missing child often becomes the prime suspect in the child's disappearance. If I were the parent of a missing child and asked to submit to a polygraph "test" to prove my innocence, knowing "the lie behind the lie detector," I would indeed reply that the polygraph technique is unreliable and demand that you find my child through real investigation rather than voodoo science.
That said, I would not object to the polygraph being used with a suspect as an interrogational prop. But I would strongly object to the polygraph interrogation
not being recorded.
Moreover, in such a situation, if the polygraph were to be used at all, I would urge that a Concealed Information or
Guilty Knowledge Test be employed instead of the
invalid "Control" Question "Test" preferred by the polygraph community.
Finally, if CQT polygraphy is to be used for its utility in getting admissions/confessions despite its lack of validity, then why not switch to voice stress analyzers? They're cheaper than polygraph instruments and require less operator training.