In a recently decided Ohio sexual battery case, a judge made the unusual decision of allowing polygraph results into evidence without the agreement (stipulation) of both prosecution and defense. In a pretrial decision in Ohio v. Sharma (Case No. CR 06-09-3248), Summit County Common Pleas Judge Judy Hunter admitted three polygraph examinations proffered by the defense over the objection of the prosecution. The trial is now over. The defendant, Sahil Sharma of New York City, waived his right to a jury trial, and according to a press account, Judge Hunter acquitted him at least in part based upon the polygraph results.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained transcripts of the pre-trial testimony of the three polygraph examiners who polygraphed the accused in this case: William D. Evans, Steven Stechschulte, and Louis Irving Rovner. Volume I of the testimony (13.1 mb) contains the testimony of Evans and Stechschulte, and Volume II (14.5 mb) contains Rovner's testimony:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/sharma/sharma-polygraph-testimony-02-04-2007-vol-1.pdf

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/sharma/sharma-polygraph-testimony-02-04-2007-vol-2.pdf

In addition, a video recording of Rovner's polygraph examination of Sharma was presented as evidence, and it was played in open court during the trial. During the polygraph examination, Rovner discussed AntiPolygraph.org and slandered me personally (as will be discussed among other things below). AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a copy of the video recording, which may now be viewed here:

https://antipolygraph.org/video/sharma-polygraph.mp4

The following are my observations on the polygraph examination conducted by Rovner and the pre-trial polygraph testimony. It is hoped that this may be of some use to others when confronting polygraph "evidence" before a court of law or equity.

The Polygraph Examination

Rovner was not "blind" as to the results of Sharma's two previous polygraph examinations, which he passed. While this is not an unusual circumstance, such foreknowledge could have shaped his expectations and thus influenced the outcome of the examination.

Without asking Sharma whether he had ever researched polygraphy or visited AntiPolygraph.org, Rovner mentions the website and disparages me personally in an attempt to discourage the use of countermeasures (at about 00:05:20):


Quote:

Rovner: AntiPolygraph.org is run by a guy named George Maschke, and he lives in The Netherlands, and he lives there for a good reason, uh, he applied -- he was living in L.A. actually and he applied for a job with the FBI, and he failed his pre-employment polygraph test with the FBI, and he specifically failed the counterintelligence section. Sharma: Okay. Rovner: Uh, they wouldn't give him a job. And of course, he's sitting there saying "Uh-oh, guess what part of this test I failed?" All of the sudden the next thing you know he's in The Netherlands who doesn't have an extradition agreement with us. And he's just, guess who his business partner is? Iran! Sharma: Wow! Rovner: Well, so he's made it his life's work now to try to defeat or try to weaken as much as he can the FBI and the CIA and the NSA, and we can all speculate as to why that is. It's fairly obvious. It's not just he feels bad. Sharma (nodding in agreement): Yeah.

The foregoing attempt to paint me as a fugitive from justice and disloyal subversive is fraught with error:

1) While I did fail the counterintelligence portion of my 1995 FBI pre-employment polygraph examination (despite answering all questions truthfully), no investigation was conducted as a result, and I was never charged with any crime (nor did I commit any!);

2) The Netherlands does in fact have an extradition treaty with the United States (TIAS 10733);

3) I came to work in The Netherlands two years after my FBI polygraph (not "all of a sudden");

4) I am not a "business partner" of Iran;

5) Far from attempting to weaken the United States Government, AntiPolygraph.org strives to make it more just and efficient, working to expose and end waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the use of lie detectors, and to end misplaced governmental reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy. For background information on the experience that led me to co-found AntiPolygraph.org, see my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph."

I have also spoken about my polygraph experience on CBS 60 Minutes II as part of a story on polygraph screening. The interview was conducted in New York City. Somehow, I was not arrested upon arrival at JFK airport.

In addition, Rovner accuses me of sending him a computer virus (at 00:08:49):


Quote:

Rovner: Maschke actually sent me one, sent me an e-mail that brought down my computer -- a virus -- yeah, lovely person.

This is untrue. I have sent Dr. Rovner only one e-mail message (challenging him to publicly defend dubious claims he made in a press release). That message (attached as Rovner-25-10-2004.txt) -- to which Rovner never replied -- contained no virus. My challenge to him is also available on this message board here.

Note that while Rovner dismisses AntiPolygraph.org as "bogus" in speaking with Sharma, he contradicts this claim at p. 180, ll. 5-12 of the pre-trial hearing transcript:


Quote:

And in it [sic] the owner of that Web site's name is George Maschke. He has provided a sophisticated and accurate account of what goes on in a polygraph test, essentially what I did in my research, but his is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is.

While Rovner in his testimony pooh-poohed the possibility of polygraph countermeasures, he was concerned enough to at least use a (rather simplistic) counter-countermeasure technique in his examination of Sharma. At about 00:39:00, he reviews the irrelevant questions that he is going to ask, but he falsely calls them "control" or "comparison" questions in explaining them to Sharma. Rovner called the true "control" questions "character questions" when introducing them. This deception is intended to mislead an examinee who plans on using countermeasures into mistakenly producing reactions to the irrelevant questions rather than the "control" questions. I would not expect a law student (such as the examinee in this case) who planned on using countermeasures and had done his homework to be fooled by this.

Rovner did do one thing that is controversial in polygraph circles and that would tend to increase the likelihood that Sharma would pass: between chart collections (question series), he reviewed the "control" questions (but not the relevant questions, except briefly, in passing). This would predictably tend to sensitize the subject to the "control" questions, increasing the likelihood of a reaction to them, and hence the likelihood that the examinee would pass. This may be observed at about 01:36:00 (after the 1st chart collection), at about 01:48:00 (after the 2nd chart collection), and again after the 3rd chart collection, at about 02:01:00 (this last time, Rovner does make reference to the relevant questions about Sharma's accuser, Michelle Sacia, but he dismisses them with the leading question, "The ones about Michelle are OK?" Then he goes on to ask about the "control" questions in more detail).

The "Silent Answer Test" administered for the 4th question series is sometimes used when an examiner suspects countermeasures. It is apparently intended to catch the examinee off guard. This technique is mentioned at p. 157 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (4th edition) and is explained more fully in a citation provided here:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1064482960

The Hearing Transcript

p. 13, l. 3: "the State had no input." Indeed it didn't! And had the defendant not passed any of his proffered polygraphs, the results would not have been presented to the court, and the privileged results, indeed the mere fact that such examinations had been administered, would be unknown both to the State and the court. Indeed, the defendant may have failed polygraph examinations unbeknownst to either.

A rhetorical question: Should the State have been entitled to subject the defendant to polygraph tests by three examiners of its own choosing?

p. 20: Judge refused to separate witnesses, but they had a vested interest in not contradicting each other.

p. 30 ff.: A relatively minor point: the sequence of events in a polygraph examination as told by Evans differs from that administered by Rovner. Evans conducts the "stimulation test" before the question review. This is just one small example of the lack of standardization in polygraph "testing."

p. 43, l. 18: Evans refers to "relevant tests." This is a misuse of nomenclature. There is no such thing. He is speaking of what are commonly called "chart collections."

p. 44, l. 17: Why two separate sittings? In order to obtain the desired result?

p. 63, l. 14: Anyone can buy a polygraph instrument on eBay and hang out a shingle in the state of Ohio (or California).

p. 114, l. 24: The relevant question, "While Michelle was sleeping, did you put your finger into her vagina?" But it appears from press reports that such a thing was not alleged by the defendant's accuser.

p. 136, l. 19: To the best of my knowledge, Louis Rovner has never had a research paper on polygraphy published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

p. 138, l. 6: "And you are a certified polygrapher?" As Rovner later makes clear, California has no licensing process for polygraph operators. Rovner's only "certification" comes from polygraph trade organizations.

Note: Throughout the transcript, "psychopsychology" should read "psychophysiology."

p. 145, ll. 5-11: Regarding "90 years' worth of practice..." cf. the National Academy of Sciences report's conclusions (at pp. 212-13, emphasis in the original):


Quote:

Polygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved. Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing. Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception. Future Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.

p. 155, ll. 5-6: "it's not rocket science." Indeed it isn't. Cf. the late eminent psychophysiologist David T. Lykken's (1928-2006) observation (in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, 2nd edition, Plenum Trade, 1998, at p. xvi): "...the theory and methods of polygraphic lie detection are not rocket science, indeed, they are not science at all."

p. 156, ll. 5-6: Rovner inaccurately describes the American Polygraph Association journal Polygraph as a scientific journal. It's not! It's a trade journal. Rovner must certainly know better. His study was never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

p. 160, ll. 2-8: Rovner states that field accuracy rates are a little higher than in lab studies. This does not hold true for the limited peer-reviewed field research. See tables from the Handbook of Polygraph Testing cited here:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1178256975

See also Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff's recent independent article, "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs," which applies statistical methods to the data in these tables:

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf

p. 180: Rovner testifies about an unpublished study by Charles R. Honts; because the article is not published, claims about it cannot be critically examined.

p. 180, ll. 5-12: Rovner contradicts the claim he made to Sharma during the polygraph examination that the information on AntiPolygraph.org is "bogus."

pp. 183-84: For a more recent and authoritative article regarding the general acceptance of polygraphy, see Iacono, William G. and David T. Lykken. (1997) "The Validity of the Lie Detector: Two Surveys of Scientific Opinion," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 (1997), No. 3, pp. 426-33. The findings of this paper are discussed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

p. 185, ll. 12-18: Rovner mischaracterizes the findings of the National Academy of Sciences (lab accuracy 86%; field research 89%). The NAS didn't endorse any such finding. Rovner's fellow University of Utah-produced polygraph Ph.D., Charles R. Honts (the foremost polygraph advocate in academia), was discredited by a federal judge for making similarly misleading claims about the findings of the NAS:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1163535548

p. 186, ll. 4-5: Rovner states the NAS panel "said this has a substantially high rate of accuracy..." This is misleading, and I think deliberately so. Refer back to the NAS report conclusions cited earlier, and see also the paragraphs on "Evidence of Polygraph Accuracy" at pp. 213-14 of the NAS report. In particular, note the following at p. 214:


Quote:

Overestimation For the reasons cited, we believe that estimates of polygraph accuracy from existing research overestimate accuracy in actual practice, even for specific-incident investigations. The evidence is insufficient to allow a quantititive estimate of the size of the overestimate.

The NAS certainly does not endorse the "86" or "89" percent accuracy findings as averred by Rovner.

p. 189, ll. 14-18: Note that Donald Krapohl is not a scientist.

p. 201, ll. 1-7: The NAS report provides a different answer to the question asked about the theoretical basis of polygraphy than Rovner does. Again, at p. 213 it concludes:


Quote:

Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

p. 205: Regarding the "friendly polygrapher hypothesis," note again that undesirable results will never be willingly submitted in court.

p. 241, ll. 11-15: "...different surgeons approach the same operation differently...but tend to get the same results." But the polygraph is supposed to be a scientific test, and tests should be standardized. Polygraphy is not! As polygraph critic Dr. Alan P. Zelicoff, M.D. has observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

p. 245, ll. 1-6: The show the judge is thinking of is a 60 Minutes story that aired in 1986. The video is available on AntiPolygraph.org here:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=110

p. 246, l. 15: One might ask for peer-reviewed field studies that support Rovner's contention that polygraph testing has become more reliable since the late 1970s. Peer-reviewed field studies are few and they don't support such a conlusion. See Lykken's A Tremor in the Blood, 2nd ed., pp. 133-35 for a treatment of the very limited peer-reviewed field research on polygraph accuracy.

p. 247: Yes, computerized polygraphs allow for more convenient data manipulation and storage, but not for more accurate results. The underlying procedure (Control Question Test polygraphy) has not changed in any significant way since the late 1970s.

p. 251, l. 15: Migdal describes Rovner as a researcher, but again, he has not published any research articles on polygraph related topics in any peer-reviewed scientific journals.

p. 268, ll. 20-22: Migdal: "They called no experts to tell you otherwise, anybody who disagrees with Rovner, because they can't." Not true. There are expert witnesses prepared to contradict Rovner, and to tear his testimony to shreds. Contact AntiPolygraph.org for references.

---

George:

Why did you fail your polygraph exam George?  Only because you are an honest and clever person with a very sharp mind Sir.  When such humans are challenged with false accusations, we respond.  The examiner then, without any scientific basis, chooses to “frame” our response as deception.  

As I have stated before: polygraph testing is a classic example of a prop con.

Lloyd

I can't believe this post came up two hours after I made a comment to the blog, I've been waiting for more info on this story all summer!

When I first read about this criminal case, I thought that Sharma's side of the story indicated rape by itself. How can having sex with someone 30 minutes after they finish vomitting possibly be okay?! I'm a horny undergrad, and I wouldn't do that.

Phhh, law students, am I right guys?

Well, I don't wanna be the guy who only makes posts when he's pissed off, so I'll spend the weekend relaxing before I really get into this one.

George [or anybody from Ohio],

   Is there any information you can give us regarding the precedent for legal consent to intercourse in Ohio? As I alluded to in my comments to the orginal blog article [url]https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=150[/url], the polygraph examiners seem to have used a narrow defintion of rape if you ask me.

Thank you

Brettski,

I have no knowledge of Ohio consent law. Nor do I make any judgment with regard to Sharma's guilt or innocence. But I think the judge made a grievous error in admitting polygraph results as "evidence" and allowing such to influence her verdict. A silver lining to this dark cloud is that as other litigants seek to present polygraph results to Ohio courts, citing Sharma as precedent, more light will be publicly directed toward the dark corners of polygraphy.

"He [George Maschke] has provided a sophisticated and accurate account of what goes on in a polygraph test, essentially what I did in my research, but his is so thorough and complete it's just breathtaking how good and accurate the information is."

George, why don't you post that at the top of Antipolygraph.org's main page?  Sounds like a hearty endorsement--and given under oath, too!

Lethe,

Good idea! Lou Rovner's endorsement will be headlined at the top of the AntiPolygraph.org home page for a while. But to put his quote in context, Rovner was preparing the ground for his argument that even if an examinee has detailed knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures, it doesn't affect the accuracy of polygraph results. In support of this position, he cited his own doctoral dissertation as well as a then in press article by Charles Honts and Wendy Alloway in which examinees were provided with a copy of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, given a week to read it, and then polygraphed. The study purports to show that having such information has no effect on polygraph accuracy. This study has since been published: Honts, Charles R. and Wendy R. Alloway. "Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test," Legal and Criminological Psychology, Volume 12, Number 2, September 2007, pp. 311-320. Here is the abstract:


Quote:

Purpose Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT. Method Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After 1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that asked them about their behaviour and perceptions during their examination. Results There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to support predictions made by the theory of the CQT. Conclusions Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the CQT critics.

The study has serious methodological shortcomings that will be addressed at a future point. But for now, one might ask, if Lou Rovner truly believed that knowledge of polygraph procedure and countermeasures has no effect on polygraph accuracy, why did he tell the court that the information in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is breathtakingly "good and accurate" but tell his examinee (Sahil Sharma) that it's "bogus?"

George,

    Thank you for the response, and we all apreciate a stance of objectivity on this issue. Since the accused the is presumed innocent until proven guilty, in any "he said/ she said" battle (which are all too common is rape trials) the defendent should naturally be acquitted for obvious reasons. Admitting the polygraph in evidence introduces the argument that the accused should be found guilty if he fails his test, and innocent if he passes, assuming that the polygraph is accurate beyond reasonable doubt. However, you pointed out that the examiners asked questions that the victim never alleged in this first place, highlighting my point that the debate about the polygraph's accuracy isn't the only issue in play here. The accused admitted that the alleged victim had been both unconsious and vomitting prior to having sex. Many first world countries have acknowledged that consent to sex can not be given under such circumstances.

     The new precedent set for polygraphs in Ohio is obviosly a huge win for the polygraph community, but this case really underlines the danger of the polygraph to me. The trial degenerates into a polygraph debate [my expert witness says this/ your expert says that], serving as a diversion from the issue of consent. We assume that if the defendent is telling the truth, we can deduce that he is innocent. However, sometimes the defendent can make incriminating statements while claiming his innocence: you can not presume a girl is consenting to sex while she is intoxicated. How drunk is too drunk [a question all college guys ask their buddies at some point]? I would say whenever a girl vomits, you need to wait at least 24 hours. Am I being too strict? I think most girls would agree with me, if not most guys too. Do I think Sharma is an irredeemably bad person? No, but he definately messed up big time if you ask me, and I'm assuming that he's telling the truth!

My point is that the polygraph has a mystique that makes people over analyze it. When a vaginal swap of semen makes a DNA match to the defendent, people can understand that this only conveys that sex occured, and says nothing about the consentually of such sex. But when an expert steps up and says "No deception indicated," follows it up with a tyraid of questions regarding his test's accuracy, people are gonna assume that a truthful reponse implys innoncence. It actually only suggests that the defendent honestly believes he has done nothing wrong, and that's before you get into the accuracy debate.

Lou Rovner has put out the following self-congratulatory press release:


Quote:

http://www.techweb.com/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X637454 Polygraph Admitted, Defendant Acquitted, According to Dr. Louis Rovner September 05, 2007 (12:30 PM EST) PRNewswire LOS ANGELES, Sept. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- The following release is being issued by ESS, Inc.: A polygraph test was admitted into evidence at a criminal trial in Ohio last week, the first time this has happened in more than thirty years. As a result, an innocent man regained his freedom and his reputation. The main witness for the defense was Dr. Louis Rovner of Los Angeles, California, a renowned scientist and polygraph expert. The case of Ohio vs. Sahil Sharma had been hotly contested for more than a year. Mr. Sharma was charged with Sexual Battery, and found himself in the proverbial he said-she said situation. Two 20-somethings met at a wedding rehearsal dinner, went out drinking, and ended up in the same hotel room. The next morning, the young lady claimed that she had too much to drink, fell asleep, and was taken advantage of by Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma said that she was wide awake and that having sex was actually her idea. Since both parties admitted that sex had occurred, and since there was no physical evidence of force, a court had to decide whether the "victim" was telling the truth, or whether Mr. Sharma was being unjustly accused of a serious crime. Mr. Sharma's defense attorney, Kirk Migdal, sought out the services of Dr. Rovner, who is widely acknowledged as one of the best polygraph examiners in the country. After a polygraph test that lasted more than 2 1/2 hours, Rovner concluded that Mr. Sharma was telling the truth when he said that the woman was wide awake and that the sexual encounter was consensual. Judge Judy Hunter held a special pre-trial hearing in order to determine whether polygraph testing, as it is now practiced, is supported by scientific research and the scientific community. Upon learning that forty years of high quality scientific research establishes polygraph as one of the most accurate forms of scientific evidence, the judge overruled the prosecution's objections and, contrary to Ohio state law, decided to admit the polygraph test at trial. An Ohio appellate court refused to overturn Judge Hunter's ruling. Rovner returned to Ohio for the trial and testified in open court, examined first by the defense, and cross-examined aggressively by the prosecutor. During the reading of the verdict, Dr. Rovner's testimony was cited as one of the primary pieces of evidence that led to the finding of Not Guilty. CONTACT: Louis Rovner, Ph.D., +1-818-340-6963, lourovner@sbcglobal.net,for ESS, Inc. Web site: http://www.polygraph-west.com/

I note that while Lou Rovner thus far has not publicly responded to my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma, he has been following this message board and even made the time to register and post (under the moniker StudebakerHawk) as part of a coordinated effort by previously anonymous polygraphers to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt on this message board. Rovner's posts consisted of a handful of ad hominem taunts such as this gem:


StudebakerHawk wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 3:10am:

I knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??

Dr. Rovner, if you truly think that I, Gino Scalabrini, and Drew Richardson are know-nothings, then why don't you re-register here under your real name and refute -- for the edification of all -- my critique of your polygraph examination and testimony?

I think Lou was just being flippent over the fact that you, George and Co. refuse to accept the peer reviewed study demonstrating that countermeasures are damaging to examinees who attempt them. As for your reasons for "fleeing" the US when you claim to love her so much as evidenced by your pictures in front of Ole Glory, well I suppose that is purely deductive. Why did you leave us George? I suppose it didn't help your image of your professional exodus that your book encourages American Sex Offenders to disengage from treatment protocols and that the book encourages examinee's to use behaviors to manipulate United States Sworn Law Enforcement Officers who conduct employment screening tests for which you find "unwarranted and/or useless" (your opinion)-----all while you are sipping beer from a stein in a completely different country.

E

Mr. Johnson,

As an honorably discharged 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army and Army Reserve, I feel no compelling need to defend my loyalty and commitment to the United States in the face of taunts from the likes of you. I have already rebutted Dr. Rovner's false and defamatory suggestion that I fled the United States to avoid criminal prosecution and that I sent him a computer virus.

I again invite Dr. Rovner to respond to my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.

George,

I'm curious.  Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters?  Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner.  He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently.  I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here.  After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").  

You may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary.  He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward.  (The post has since been deleted.)

You haven't offered him any incentive to return.  It would be nice to ask him how often the issue of CMs and other topics of interest arise during his many court proceedings.  It is my understanding it often doesn't come up at all.  Maybe you can extend the olive branch and see if you can have a real discussion, but I suspect he's satisfied with his recent "gains" he's reaped from what's happened here.  (The ethics complaint isn't going to help get him back either.)

In other words, your approach doesn't seem to support the notion that you want to have a real conversation with him, and he has no need to have one with you.  When he "tested you, you pulled the plug.  Am I missing something?

Barry_C wrote on Oct 28^th, 2007 at 11:24pm:

George, I'm curious.  Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters?  Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner.  He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently.  I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here.  After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court").

Lou Rovner evidently sees AntiPolygraph.org as being important enough that he discusses it with all of his examinees. Rovner opened the pre-test phase of his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma by saying:


Quote:

I say this to everyone I test -- you wouldn't believe some of the people that have sat in the chair you're sitting in right now -- and regardless of who it is and why they're here, I tell them what I'm about to tell you: If I were sitting in your chair, a week ago or more, I would have got on the Internet and Googled "polygraph testing" or "lie detection" or something like that. And what comes up, you know, my website comes up -- not in your neck of the woods but a lot of polygraph examiners have websites and they come up on the Google lists, and then you get associations like the American Polygraph Association and so forth, and then there's a couple of sites -- one of them is called AntiPolygraph.org, and one is called Polygraph.com. They're both there to teach people how to beat a polygraph test, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had been there, if you had seen those sites, because I would have looked for them myself had it been my test.

Rovner must also be aware that persons (including potential clients) searching the Internet for information about "Lou Rovner" are also going to find AntiPolygraph.org and may very well find my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony. And they'll be left to draw their own conclusions as to why Rovner saw fit to post anonymous taunts on AntiPolygraph.org, but not to substantively respond to criticism.


Quote:

You may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary.  He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward.  (The post has since been deleted.)

Lou Rovner's puerile taunts posted under the moniker StudebakerHawk were hardly an attempt  at establishing dialog. The final taunt that resulted in StudebakerHawk's being banned was indeed deleted. For the record, 1) Gino did not characterize all who post under pseudonyms as cowards, and 2) did not claim that he himself posts under a pseudonym. (He doesn't.)

I very much doubt that Dr. Rovner feels "better armed" for future proceedings, where in addition to the matter of his false and defamatory remarks about me, the fact that he posted here as a troll may also be made known to judge and jury.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 5:19am:

Barry_C wrote on Oct 28th, 2007 at 11:24pm: George, I'm curious.  Why would you expect Lou to "defend" his test here when he already did so in a court of law where it matters?  Lou makes his living as a polygraph examiner.  He's well qualified to do so, and he testifies in court frequently.  I'm not sure he'd see any need to answer your questions here.  After all, you possibly could have piped in during the court proceeding (as a "friend of the court"). Lou Rovner evidently sees AntiPolygraph.org as being important enough that he discusses it with all of his examinees. Rovner opened the pre-test phase of his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma by saying: Quote: I say this to everyone I test -- you wouldn't believe some of the people that have sat in the chair you're sitting in right now -- and regardless of who it is and why they're here, I tell them what I'm about to tell you: If I were sitting in your chair, a week ago or more, I would have got on the Internet and Googled "polygraph testing" or "lie detection" or something like that. And what comes up, you know, my website comes up -- not in your neck of the woods but a lot of polygraph examiners have websites and they come up on the Google lists, and then you get associations like the American Polygraph Association and so forth, and then there's a couple of sites -- one of them is called AntiPolygraph.org, and one is called Polygraph.com. They're both there to teach people how to beat a polygraph test, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had been there, if you had seen those sites, because I would have looked for them myself had it been my test. Rovner must also be aware that persons (including potential clients) searching the Internet for information about "Lou Rovner" are also going to find AntiPolygraph.org and may very well find my critique of his polygraph examination and testimony. And they'll be left to draw their own conclusions as to why Rovner saw fit to post anonymous taunts on AntiPolygraph.org, but not to substantively respond to criticism. [quote]You may not realize it, but you've better armed Lou for future proceedings, if it's ever necessary.  He can now say he has tried to dialog with you (under his pseudonym for reasons he's articulated elsewhere), but he got "banned" when he pointed out two things: 1) Gino called those who post under pseudonyms cowards, and 2) Gino claimed he posts under a pseudonym, thus (logically) making himself a self-professed coward.  (The post has since been deleted.)

Lou Rovner's puerile taunts posted under the moniker StudebakerHawk were hardly an attempt  at establishing dialog. The final taunt that resulted in StudebakerHawk's being banned was indeed deleted. For the record, 1) Gino did not characterize all who post under pseudonyms as cowards, and 2) did not claim that he himself posts under a pseudonym. (He doesn't.)

I very much doubt that Dr. Rovner feels "better armed" for future proceedings, where in addition to the matter of his false and defamatory remarks about me, the fact that he posted here as a troll may also be made known to judge and jury.
[/quote]


I have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam. Furthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.
Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are;


Quote:

Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty on: Oct 16th, 2007, 11:10pm   I knew it!  Gino Scalabrini is just another know-nothing with a pseudointellectual knowledge of polygraph.  Right up there with Dr. Drew and Georgie Boy.  Isn't there even one of you antis who actually know anything??       2  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty on: Oct 16th, 2007, 2:03pm   Who is Gino Scalabrini anyway?  Another "expert" like "Dr." Richardson?       3  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: Polygraph analysis questions on: Oct 11th, 2007, 8:20pm   I don't think anybody cares about the topic.  We all know that George and his band of nerds are totally ignorant about polygraph testing. When two people disagree, and one of them is a pro in the field, who would be dumb enough to listen to the amateur.       4  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Procedure / Re: Polygraph analysis questions on: Oct 11th, 2007, 6:05pm   Paradiddle, That's the best poem I ever saw.  Are you really not George Maschke, or are you trying to throw us off the scent?       5  Polygraph and CVSA Forums / Polygraph Policy / Re: Tomorrow (10/4) at 5p.m. on Fox 5 News (New York area) -- "Testing the Polygraph" on: Oct 7th, 2007, 10:53pm   It just looks to me like countermeasures didn't work.  Maybe they don't.

If one wants to call 5 posts of remarks that amount to pithy agreements as "Trolling", than I can certainly find many antipolygraph posters who fit such a label. GMAFB.

Eric Johnson writes:


Quote:

I have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam.

I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees.


Quote:

Furthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?


Quote:

Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are...

AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 2:29pm:

Eric Johnson writes: Quote: I have no doubts that George Maschke is quite enamoured with having been named personally in a now famous polygraph exam. I am not at all pleased to have been defamed by Dr. Rovner in his polygraph examination of Sahil Sharma and am concerned by the indication he gave in his pre-test that he repeats the same falsehoods about me to all his examinees. [quote]Furthermore, regarding the "whisper campaign" regarding viruses, the benefit of doubt will always go to the user/consumer---and to threaten with defamation legal action----especially from a non-for-profit is completely empty. George should know that suggesting that burden of proof of malware is uncharacteristicly layed at the feet of the host----as malware does not necessarily have to be intentionally "hosted" in order for it to exist or be a threat----is pure folly. Anyone can claim to be attacked by a virus without legal ramifications from the host site---and again--one doesn't have to prove anything.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Do you mean to suggest that it's okay for anyone to falsely claim (as Lou Rovner did) that I sent him/her a computer virus (a federal crime), and that such defamation is not actionable?


Quote:

Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are...

AntiPolygraph.org has compelling reason to believe that you are well aware that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudebakerHawk postings (whose authorship he has prudently not denied).[/quote]

Considering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive  ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.

I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?

Eric Johnson writes:


Quote:

Considering that to determine the precise origin of malware is very expensive and tricky business, the charges are difficult to both proveAND disprove------like food poisoning, there are vastly expensive  ways to investigate, but in most cases, a poll will verify to a degree the damage if any. Companies such as Hormel who were accused of distributing food born illness in some of their canned goods immediatly issues a warning and a hotline (poll)----as this is what real concerned people do. Incidentally, I still buy Hormel products.

An anonymous Internet poll is no way to dispel rumors.


Quote:

I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced. If you think otherwise, what be your sources mate?

But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.

Quote:

But just a few hours ago you pretended not to know that Lou Rovner was the author of the Studebaker Hawk posts. You've more than spent your credibility, Eric Johnson.

I did not pretend anything. I remarked that at the time, I was not aware of Studebaker's identity. I assume that since you identified Ray and Donna and myself---that you probably got the others correct also. But I was never convinced by the identities of either Hunter or Studebaker Hawk---until days or even hours before the outing I had strong suspicions---I still do not know who Hunter, Nonombre or LieBaby is, and any suspicions are just that. You are being paranoid. My statement regarding Lou was merely judiscious and reflective of my desire to not trust your "sources"wholeheartedly. No one gets everything right.


Quote:

Secondly, provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster-----the remarks made by Studebaker hawk were totaled at 5 posts and here they are;

Eric Johnson,

The plain language of your post of 6:48 AM this morning indicates that you were purporting at the time of writing not to know that Lou Rovner is the author of the StudbakerHawk posts:


Quote:

...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...

Please don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

You're pissing your own shoe and crying "flood." My intentions were to state that I take your word that Lou was 'Hawk---and not Hunter, Nonombre, Liebaby---other posters for whom I do not have confirmed knowledge of their identities. I haven't lost credibility, you seem to be losing your temper.

Eric Johnson,

At 6:48 this morning, you wrote:


Quote:

...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster...

Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote:


Quote:

I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....

So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

;)

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

Eric Johnson, At 6:48 this morning, you wrote: Quote: ...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster... Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote: [quote]I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....

So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

;)[/quote]

Why the obfuscation? I have always known the ID of Ray and Donna based on their writing styles, reference to Kubrick Film--- initially. I was never 100% certain if Lou was posting---as 'Hawk only had 5 posts. No conspiracy, no pissing on shoes. If I knew (had known) that Lou was 'Hawk, I would say so, but I do not have a close professional nor personal relationship with Lou---and knowledge of his posting is now after the fact. I am convinced he was Hawk, but not at the time. I made no such secrecy of my ID as hundreds of examiners knew that I was posting as Paradiddle from a different forum. No conspiracy, just literary past-present tense troubles.

Eric Johnson,

I'll let you have the last word on this matter and let readers draw their own conclusions.

Further posts to this message thread should address the topic of Lou Rovner's polygraph examination and testimony in Ohio v. Sharma.

wrote on Oct 29^th, 2007 at 3:54pm:

Eric Johnson, At 6:48 this morning, you wrote: Quote: ...provided that Lou was in fact Studebakerhawk---which I have seen no proof---and he has never indicated to me that he was such poster... Some four hours later, at 10:52 you wrote: [quote]I am now pretty convinced that Lou was Studebaker, but while posting before the outing, I wasn't convinced....

So what changed within those four hours? You offer that you "assume that since (I) identified Ray and Donna and [your]self---that (I) probably got the others correct also." But Ray Nelson and Donna Taylor openly admitted their authorship, respectively, of the Ludovico and Wonder Woman posts, last week...

;)[/quote]

Huh?

Ludo who? He's a fictional character in a novel last I knew.

Incidentally,

I heard that's not really Lou in the video, but a Hollywood stunt man.

Word on the street is that Lou's agent warned him that the test could be dangerous, and they used a stand-in.


(sorry George, for posting off topic, I couldn't resist it.)

r