Beginning in late March and early April 2007, AntiPolygraph.org received specific and seemingly credible allegations that on 16 February 2007, polygraph examiner John Richard "Jack" Trimarco, in sworn testimony before a hearing officer appointed by the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission in Case No. 06-018, made false statements (demonstrated to be untrue on cross-examination) regarding:

• the level of payment he received for his services;
• his relation with a polygraph examiner who reviewed his charts;
• the reason that the polygraph examination of an examinee was terminated.

Mr. Trimarco did not respond to an e-mail message sent on 7 April 2007 asking him directly whether the allegations were true.

Through the generosity of AntiPolygraph.org's readers, the 145-page transcript of Mr. Trimarco's testimony was obtained and reviewed. A word-searchable PDF has been created from the paper copy and may be downloaded here (1.5 mb). In addition, AntiPolygraph.org interviewed Mr. Fred Williams, the labor representative who cross-examined Mr. Trimarco at the hearing, and also obtained and reviewed video recordings of the two polygraph examinations at issue. The allegations against Mr. Trimarco are reviewed, in order, below:

Allegation One: Level of Payment Received for Services

Mr. Trimarco testified that, to the best of his recollection, he was paid a total of $2,700 for two polygraph examinations conducted for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works on 17 November 2005 (Hearing Transcript, pp. 72, 128). Mr. Williams affirmed in an interview that Chuck Adams of the Department of Public Works had testified earlier in the hearing that he authorized payment of $7,000 to Mr. Trimarco. Asked on cross-examination whether he might have been paid $7,000 for the two polygraph examinations, Mr. Trimarco said, "No" (Hearing Transcript, p. 129). AntiPolygraph.org does not have a transcript of Mr. Adams' testimony to review.

While at this point no conclusive judgment can be made regarding the alleged discrepancy between Mr. Trimarco's testimony and that of Mr. Adams, it should be noted that Mr. Trimarco stated that he was charging the County $4,000 for a full day of hearing testimony (Hearing Transcript, p. 73). A $2,700 fee for the polygraph examinations plus a $4,000 fee for testimony would total $6,700 -- close to the $7,000 allegedly testified to by Mr. Adams.

Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, it cannot be concluded that Mr. Trimarco misrepresented the level of compensation he received for his services.

Allegation Two: Trimarco's Relation With the Polygrapher Who Reviewed His Charts

It was reported that "Trimarco said that he had no relationship with the examiner he engaged to be a second reviewer of the collected charts--but oops, the guy is listed on Trimarco's own website."

The polygraph examiner who reviewed Mr. Trimarco's charts is Ron Homer of Walnut Creek (in the San Francisco Bay Area). During heated cross-examination, the following exchange transpired (Hearing Transcript, pp. 109-110):

Quote:


Clearly, Mr. Trimarco was not trying to hide his business relationship with Mr. Homer. Indeed, he had already explained it earlier in his testimony (Hearing Transcript, pp. 28-31).

Conclusion: Jack Trimarco did not attempt to hide his business relationship with Ron Homer, who reviewed his charts.

Allegation Three: Reason for Termination of a Polygraph Examination

It was alleged to AntiPolygraph.org that Mr. Trimarco falsely denied having received a telephone call from Mr. Williams, who wished to terminate the polygraph examination of his client, then in progress. This point was a subject of contention during Trimarco's cross-examination (Hearing Transcript, pp. 75-76):

Quote:


As mentioned earlier, AntiPolygraph.org obtained a copy of the video recording of the polygraph examination in question. Mr. Trimarco did, in fact, receive a telephone call several minutes into the polygraph examination. But the caller was his receptionist, not Mr. Williams. The conversation was on a speaker phone and can be heard clearly in the video. The receptionist announces, "Fred is here," to which Trimarco replies, "Okay, he'll be waiting out there, Cathy. I'm doing a test here with Jesse." Trimarco then hangs up. So from that call, Mr. Trimarco did not receive the news that Mr. Williams wished to terminate the examination. It was only some 25 minutes later that Mr. Trimarco, concerned about Mr. Dampier's visible physical discomfort, stepped out of the room to consult with Mr. Williams about whether or not to proceed with the examination.

While Mr. Trimarco did forget about the phone call, the call was a brief and ultimately inconsequential one. His memory lapse is understandable considering that the examination had taken place more than a year earlier and that, by Mr. Trimarco's own admission, he had not reviewed Mr. Dampier's polygraph package in preparation for the hearing (Hearing Transcript, p. 120).

Conclusion: While Mr. Trimarco did forget about the phone call he received, he did not make an intentionally false statement or attempt to mislead the hearing officer.

As we have seen, none of the three allegations against Mr. Trimarco have been sustained by the available evidence (and indeed, the latter two have been refuted). Additional information that may help to clarify the conflicting testimony regarding the first allegation may yet be obtained, and if it is, it will be reviewed and presented.

Note: It was Jack Trimarco who conducted my own FBI pre-employment polygraph examination in 1995. That experience is memorialized in my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Experience with the Polygraph." Upon reviewing the transcript of Mr. Trimarco's testimony, I found that I, AntiPolygraph.org, and my public statement (which was presented as an exhibit) were all mentioned during the hearing. See pp. 77-80, 93-95, and 98 of the transcript.