Today, 25 October 2004, Rovner & Associates disseminated a news release titled, "Polygraph Unbeatable, Says California Psychologist." (This press release has been archived on the AntiPolygraph.org news page here.)

I have challenged Dr. Louis I. Rovner of Rovner & Associates to support some of the assertions made in this press release:


Quote:

Dear Dr. Rovner, In a Rovner & Associates press release distributed today by PR Newswire, you are quoted as saying that "[a]lmost no human being can beat a polygraph test." I challenge you to support this claim with any peer-reviewed research (or any other evidence on which you may base it). In peer reviewed studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, some 50% of polygraph subjects were able to beat the polygraph with no more than 30 minutes of instruction. (Citations and abstracts are provided in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) Moreover, spies like Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, and Ana Belen Montes all passed the polygraph while lying about relevant issues. So, too, did Gary Ridgway, A.K.A. "The Green River Killer," the deadliest serial murderer in U.S. history. The results of the aforementioned research, and the real world examples provided, are hard to reconcile with your assertion that "almost no human being can beat a polygraph test." Your press release additionally avers that "lie detection technology has become so sophisticated that a polygraph can now detect a person's efforts to try to beat the test." On what basis do you make this claim? I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research (or indeed, any published research at all) that would support this conclusion. Finally, you also claim that you "are confident that polygraph tests have a 96% accuracy rate when done properly." If you truly believe this, and are confident in your ability to do a polygraph test properly,  why not accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's standing polygraph countermeasure challenge? As of today, this challenge has gone 1,001 days without takers. Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org PS: A copy of this message will be posted to the AntiPolygraph.org message board.

Lou Rovner's press release refers to a recent Deputy Sheriff Magazine that he has authored. That article, titled, "Can You Really 'Sting' the Polygraph?" is currently available on-line here:

http://www.usdsa.com/dr_rovner/rovner.html

Thanks for posting this George.  

What a pathetic article.  Let me try and analyze this one line at a time:


Quote:

Most Sheriffs and Police Departments use polygraph testing on an ongoing basis, as well as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOE and many other federal and state agencies. They use it to determine whether a suspect is likely to be guilty or innocent.

So the polygraph is valid because everybody else is using it?  They don't use the polygraph to determine whether someone is likely (gee, I thought it was highly accurate, and an innocent person wouldn't need to worry; I'd hope the results would be better than likely) guilty or innocent.  Those groups use the polygraph to hunt for confessions from naive or scared subjects.


Quote:

Unfortunately, there are some people who want to make a profit by making law enforcement’s job harder.

I'd say the people doing this are the polygraph operators.  When a cop is in the poly chair, his job is hard.  When polygraph operators point cops to the wrong suspect based on their chart gazing, a cop's job is also harder.


Quote:

When Williams states that you can learn to sting the polygraph, he means that you can learn to fool it, to make the polygraph think that you’re not lying when you actually are.

Or to make the polygraph think you are truthful when you actually are.  I won't comment on your statement about whether or not the polygprah is a crude instrument.  It measures body signs; big deal.  And it is from the creator of Wonder Woman...


Quote:

You’re probably already thinking that innocent people aren’t interested in stinging the polygraph. They don’t want to fool the instrument. They want it to confirm their innocence. ... He is, in essence, saying to those who are guilty of crimes, [or to those who are truly innocent] “Let me help you get away with it. Let me help you conceal your crime and fool the authorities.” This is not exactly what most of us would characterize as a noble calling.

(bolded, bracketed words mine)
I don't know abou the Mr. Williams he refers to, but I'd definitely consider the work George does on this site to be noble.


Quote:

Mr. Williams tells us three things about the polygraph that he “knows to be true”: (1) The polygraph test has a built-in bias against a truthful person, (2) It is certainly not capable of determining truth or deception, and (3) It can be beaten rather easily. Now, I don’t know how good an examiner Mr. Williams was when he was a police officer, nor do I know what other examiners thought about the quality of his work. However, I do know that no competent polygraph examiner in the world would agree with any of his three statements.

Ha ha.  That is why DoDPI teaches courses on how to defeat the polygraph, right?  Seems like they'd agree with statement number 3.


Quote:

No examiner wants to call a truthful person a liar, any more than he would want to send an innocent person to prison.

Thank God we have juries for that.  And thank God these silly poly charts aren't admissible in court.


Quote:

We all know that the polygraph instrument does not determine truth or deception. The polygraph examiner comes to a conclusion of truthfulness or deception by careful analysis of the polygraph charts.

Wow.  Seems like a near perfect system is open to some objectivity from the examiner.  The article states that the pre-test interview (often up to an hour in length) is important to establishing the subject's "psychological set".  Seems like lots of room for 'objectivity' before the machines are even turned on.


Quote:

Your department should not make policy decisions about any aspect of polygraph use based on Williams’ claims.

Agreed.  Departments should male policy decisions based on proven science.


Quote:

One last thing. On his web site, Mr. Williams presents numerous testimonials from people who claim to have “stung” the polygraph after having read his pamphlet. Curiously, none of these peoples’ names appear with the testimonials. I wonder why not. Don’t you?

No need to wonder; here's why: those people don't want to be witch hunt victims from their PD's or the polygraph operators who'd look like idiots if the truth of their voodoo science came to light.  Same reason many people don't use their real names here.

I don't know Dr. Rovner personally.  But that article was perhaps written at the level for Deputy Sherriffs to read and understand, but it certainly wasn't written at the level I'd expect from a PhD.  Show me some science, Doc.

A week has passed with no reply from Dr. Rovner. It would seem that he's either unable or unwilling to stand by his claims. In this, he's not alone. Polygraph operators frequently make all sorts of unfounded claims in fora where they are confident that no one is likely to know enough about polygraphy to question their veracity. But when publicly challenged to support such claims, they uniformly flee like cockroaches from the light.

In declining to support his claims, Lou Rovner joins a polygraph hall of shame that includes:

Nelson Andreu (private operator)

Frank Horvath (past president, American Polygraph Association)

Dee Moody (private operator)

Jack L. Ogilvie (Phoenix Police Department)

Harry Reed (president, Illinois Polygraph Society)

Nick Savastano (private operator, starred on NBC TV series "Meet My Folks")

George Slattery (past president, Florida Polygraph Association)

Ted Todd (private operator)

Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (past president, American Polygraph Association)

<In his face with my bad breath shouting while he is tied up to a polygraph chair for the first time with the boold pressure thing over-inflated>
C'mon doc!  Step up and be a man!  What do you have to fear?

Let the truth come out and you will be set free!  One of us is being truthful here and we both know it is not you!  Tell us the truth about your ability to detect polygraph countermeasures.  

Think about your family, your career, your future.  Do you want everybody to know that polygraph operators are a bunch os sissies who can't get real jobs?

If you are truthful, you have nothing to hide!

Now tell us the truth!  You can't detect countermeasures, can you???
</end polygraph examination>

In yet another self-lauditory press release ("Polygraph Test Clears Prisoner," 30 August 2005), Lou Rovner repeats his unsupported claim that almost no one can beat a polygraph "test." Rovner also maintains that "[w]hen a polygraph test is conducted properly, the results are accurate as much as 96% of the time." Of course, it might also be said that palm readings are accurate as much as 96% of the time when conducted properly: when they turn out to be wrong, well, they obviously weren't conducted properly.

Dr. Rovner apparently chose not to issue a press release regarding another recent client, pornographer Arland Dale "Skeeter" Kerkove, a director whose films include such titles  as 2 Anal 4 U, Skeeter Kerkove's Teen Patrol, and Shitty Shitty Bang Bang. According to the website AdultFYI.com, Kerkove, whose ex-wife, Bridgette Kerkove, had accused him of sexually abusing their young daughter, passed a polygraph "test" administered by Dr. Rovner. Kerkove reportedly dubbed Rovner, "one of the king ding-dongs in the United States." I guess that's supposed to be a compliment.


Quote:

http://www.adultfyi.com/read.aspx?ID=10894 7/29/2005         15:24 PM PST Skeeter Kerkove Takes Lie Detector Test-final passes with flying colors; was Skeeter framed?       --Gene Ross Porn Valley- Someone may be lying but it's not Skeeter Kerkove. This morning Skeeter took a two hour lie detector test that covered a number of questions including whether he had sexually molested his 2 1/2 year old daughter as has been charged by Metro contract director Bridgette Kerkove. Skeeter, who was tested by one of the top three polygraph experts in the country, passed the test with flying colors. But it's only the latest victory in a series of legal battles that Skeeter has been waging with his former wife. Earlier this month, authorities uncovered the whereabouts of Shalaura Lee Hartwell, Skeeter's first wife, whom Metro contract director Kerkove claimed Skeeter killed and later disposed of the body. www.adultfyi.com/read.aspx?ID=10478. Hartwell has been found living in Ceritos. And there was yet another Metro contract director Kerkove allegation proved false- the one in which she charged that Skeeter on June 11, 2003 made death threats against her. Metro contract director Kerkove filed a police report at the Devonshire Police station. Kerkove said Skeeter had also assaulted her, and offered her face as proof. Except, Metro contract director Kerkove received plastic surgery the same day from Dr. Randall Higbee Hayworth in Beverly Hills in which she got an upper lip reduction which required cutting, stitches and fat injection into her nose. Police verified that procedure, and Metro contract director Kerkove later admitted that she was high on Vicodin at the time she made those allegations and that she was put up to it by her mother Debbie Felkel. Then about two weeks ago, Metro director Kerkove made more comments about Skeeter in the presence of a number of witnesses. In a conversation, Metro director Kerkove stated that she was planning on taking Skeeter out with a shotgun if he ever walked through her door again. Director Kerkove also claimed that she had deputy sheriffs at her home seven nights a week from dusk till dawn in the event that Skeeter came around. Kerkove claimed that she was given a shotgun for protection so she could splatter her ex-husband who's now seeing Kelly Wells. This morning's round of questioning was at Skeeter's request. According to Skeeter, the procedure is a far cry from the TV depiction. "It's done with computers and a thing that goes around your stomach," he says. "Another thing goes around your chest and they measure the sweat on the fingertips of your left hand. Your blood pressure is taken the entire time. It's videotaped and audio'ed." The passing score is 6 but Skeeter's final score came between 11 and 13. If a judge accepts this in a court room, he accepts a passing score of six, according to what Skeeter was told. Skeeter was also told that his body is an easy read and that people do respond differently to the test. Also determined in the test was the fact that Skeeter's probability of deception is .01- as low as it goes. "It's really wonderful," said Skeeter stating that he was also hit with character questions he didn't expect. "They resulted in me crying. I had no idea it was going to be this extensive." Skeeter was told that it would take 3 to 4 hours to assemble the entire report on the test, and if given the go ahead, will make the contents of the test public information. Skeeter says the guy who administered the test gives seminars around the country. "He teaches students how to beat his lie detector test and they can't beat him. That's why he's one of the king ding-dongs in the United States. This guy is real cool. He warned me that I might not like the results, but if I was lying he'd know it." Skeeter was also told there was a confidentiality agreement and no one would see the test unless Skeeter gave the say-so. Skeeter is giving the say-so. "He told me this in advance on video," says Skeeter. "But I go regardless of what happens, I want it on the Internet. I want authorities to see this. Then he videotaped me running down the events that happened that night." Metro contract director Kerkove claims that Skeeter molested his youngest daughter on April 25. Except Kerkove didn't report the incident to police until April 27. Phone records also show that Metro director Kerkove was in constant contact with a Metro employee during that period and Skeeter wants to get to the bottom of that to determine if it had any relevance to his being framed. Subsequent head-to-toe examinations at two hospitals show that Skeeter's daughter had not been touched, sexually, and that any redness in her vaginal area was consistent with diaper rash.

One wonders whether foreknowledge the results of the medical examinations might have influenced the outcome of Dr. Rovner's "test?"

wrote on Aug 30^th, 2005 at 11:27pm:

In yet another self-lauditory press release ("Polygraph Test Clears Prisoner," 30 August 2005), Lou Rovner repeats his unsupported claim that almost no one can beat a polygraph "test." Rovner also maintains that "[w]hen a polygraph test is conducted properly, the results are accurate as much as 96% of the time." Of course, it might also be said that palm readings are accurate as much as 96% of the time when conducted properly: when they turn out to be wrong, well, they obviously weren't conducted properly. Dr. Rovner apparently chose not to issue a press release regarding another recent client, pornographer Arland Dale "Skeeter" Kerkove, a director whose films include such titles  as 2 Anal 4 U, Skeeter Kerkove's Teen Patrol, and Shitty Shitty Bang Bang. According to the website AdultFYI.com, Kerkove, whose ex-wife, Bridgette Kerkove, had accused him of sexually abusing their young daughter, passed a polygraph "test" administered by Dr. Rovner. Kerkove reportedly dubbed Rovner, "one of the king ding-dongs in the United States." I guess that's supposed to be a compliment. One wonders whether foreknowledge the results of the medical examinations might have influenced the outcome of Dr. Rovner's "test?"

Although I am by no means one to support a individual with the reputation of Skeeter Kerkove, I still find myself having to ask the question...

Is it possible he passed the polygraph examination because he told the truth about the issue at hand??

Just asking...

Nonombre
   
???

nonombre wrote on Aug 31^st, 2005 at 1:54am:

Although I am by no means one to support a individual with the reputation of Skeeter Kerkove, I still find myself having to ask the question... Is it possible he passed the polygraph examination because he told the truth about the issue at hand??

Nonombre,

Of course it is possible.  Where a polygraph would actually be useful is in determining if he did in fact tell the truth, not in determining if it was possible that he told the truth.

If passing the polygraph proved that it was possible for the subject to be telling the truth then by definition it would also prove it was possible he was deceptive.  That rather begs the question: Why use the polygraph at all?