As all are no doubt aware, Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA) took and passed a polygraph "test" administered by recently retired FBI polygrapher Barry D. Colvert regarding the disappearance of Bureau of Prisons intern Chandra Levy. The D.C. Metro police rejected Condit's polygraph results and passed them on to the FBI for an opinion.

In today's (21 July 2001) New York Times, James Risen and Raymond Bonner report in an article titled "F.B.I. Dismisses Condit Polygraph Results" that the FBI issued a statement claiming, "It is the longstanding policy of the F.B.I. not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity because there is no way to verify the totality of the circumstances under which the examination was conducted..." The FBI also told the public, "In addition, to render such an opinion at this point in the Chandra Levy disappearance investigation would hamper any future testing that might be conducted by the F.B.I. for the D.C. Metropolitan Police."

The FBI's statement is belied, however, by the recent history of the Wen Ho Lee investigation. On 23 December 1998, Wolfgang Vinskey, employed by Department of Energy contractor Wackenhut (clearly an "outside entity"), administered a polygraph "test" to Dr. Lee. He passed "with flying colors." But when the FBI later wanted to search Wen Ho Lee's home, Special Agent Michael W. Lowe, at para. 11 of an affidavit in support of a search warrant filed on 9 April 1999 (Lowe, 1999), swore that:

Quote:

...[f]ollowing the interview on December 23, 1998, DOE polygraphers administered a polygraph examination of LEE. The examiner's initial opinion was that LEE was not deceptive. However, subsequent quality control reviews of the results, by both DOE and by FBI Headquarters (HQ) resulted in an agreed finding that LEE was inconclusive, if not deceptive, when denying he ever committed espionage against the United States.

Clearly, the FBI does render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity (when it suits its purposes).

In addition, the FBI's claim that "to render such an opinion at this point in the Chandra Levy disappearance investigation would hamper any future testing that might be conducted by the F.B.I. for the D.C. Metropolitan Police" is clearly a disingenuous argument of convenience. Any FBI opinion on Condit's polygraph results could be kept confidential. Moreover, as the evidence of the Wen Ho Lee case shows, the FBI is not necessarily concerned that rendering opinions on polygraphs conducted by outside entities will somehow "hamper" future polygraph "testing."

The FBI's doubletalk regarding Rep. Condit's polygraph results may be related to the Bureau's need to maintain the illusion that its juju is good while outsiders' juju is bad.

Great work uncovering the hypocrisy George.  

If Special Agent Barry Colvert administers a polygraph test on Monday, the FBI gives it great weight.  If he retires on Tuesday, then private citizen Barry Colvert administers a polygraph test on Wednesday, the FBI considers it invalid.

Is it true that they are able to do this with a straight face?

Mark,

The very fact that the D.C. Metro police requested that the FBI Laboratory provide an opinion on Rep. Condit's polygraph charts suggests that D.C. police do not agree with the FBI's claim that rendering an opinion would "hamper" any future polygraph examinations that the FBI might be requested to conduct for them in connection with the search for Chandra Levy. Indeed, Michael Doyle reported in the Modesto Bee on Wednesday, 18 June 2001:


Quote:

WASHINGTON -- FBI experts on Tuesday began examining Rep. Gary Condit's private lie-detector test, while police searched woods in the Chandra Levy disappearance, and Condit went about his business in the camera's glare. Although skeptical of the test sprung on them by Condit's attorney, Washington police officials say the FBI's laboratory will give it a fair reading. Police gave the results to the lab on Tuesday after receiving them Monday. "It has to be analyzed," Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "It really takes an expert in the field to make heads or tails of it, and it would be pitiful for me to try."

If it is indeed the FBI's longstanding policy not to render opinions on polygraph examinations conducted by outside agencies, then why did the FBI agree to look at the charts in the first place? And how did Washington police officials come to believe that "the FBI's laboratory [would] give it a fair reading?" Who told them that?

This seems to be another of those situations where you don't need a lie detector to detect a lie from the polygraph community.

How much time do you think Condit has spent practicing his countermeasures?  Jesus, what a joke.

The FBI's claim last year that it is its longstanding policy "not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity" is further eroded by a recent (10 June 2002) Associated Press report on the Elizabeth Sharp kidnapping case:


Quote:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The father of missing teenager Elizabeth Smart was given a polygraph test, police said Monday. "(Edward Smart) did submit to a polygraph yesterday and that's being reviewed by the FBI," said Salt Lake City Police Capt. Scott Atkinson. Police won't say why they asked Smart to take a the test. ''It's not uncommon'' for police to give such tests to parents, or to do several interviews, said Salt Lake City Detective Jay Rhodes. Monday was the sixth day of the search for 14-year-old Elizabeth, who police said was abducted from her home. Authorities are no closer to finding the teen and say they are baffled by the case that is quickly growing cold. ...

Oh George.....read the story...pullleeze!.....The FBI did not make this statement.....a police spokesman said that the FBI was reviewing the test....and this is hardly the rendering of an official opinion..........God!...you guys are sooooooooo thick!

wrote on Jun 12^th, 2002 at 5:53am:

Oh George.....read the story...pullleeze!.....The FBI did not make this statement.....a police spokesman said that the FBI was reviewing the test....and this is hardly the rendering of an official opinion..........God!...you guys are sooooooooo thick!

Are you suggesting that Captain Atkinson did not say that which he was quoted as having said, that he was mistaken, or that he lied? You indicate that what was done was "hardly the rendering of an official opinion." Are you implying that the FBI can review a polygraph examination, whisper its opinion in the ears of the contributing "other agency," and that unless an FBI report is issued, this would not constitute the rendering of an "official" opinion?

What about the reported FBI review of DOE contractor conducted polygraph exam(s) of Wen Ho Lee? Did that review not really exist and/or not result in an "official" FBI opinion having been rendered?

Once again, George you make a quantum leap....and you are wrong......READ THE ARTICLE....it does not say anywhere that they RENDERED (past tense)..it says that they WILL REVIEW...Get a grip George!....then again you really cheer so many people up when you get that mousy look of righteous indignation on your face >:(.you puff up and look like you about to begin bawling :(.....George, you were wrong. :-[..you know you were wrong...just admit it and get on with your life.....all these folks who you claim to be leading in the right direction and most ultimately see you for what you are....but alas, they DO depend on you George...you are making them think that you are losing control...now that is not the case is it?

the boys,

If it is truly the FBI's policy "not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity," then to what end is the FBI reviewing the polygraph charts submitted by the Salt Lake City Police Department (an outside entity)?

You may play puerile semantic games about the difference between "reviewing" polygraph charts and "rendering an official opinion" on them. However, I think rational persons will see that the FBI's actions in the Lee and Smart cases belie the FBI's claim that it is its longstanding policy "not to render official opinions of polygraph charts submitted by an outside entity."

Since the person or persons calling himself or themselves 'the boys' refuses to register, we cannot be certain it is the same person or persons posting everytime.... nevertheless it should be pointed out that they have been wrong every single time they have posted under that nickname.

It's nice to see this latest post doesn't mar your sterling record.

All readers (polygraphers and anti-polygraph folks alike),

Please review the preceding four posts (two from Mr. Maschke and two posted by "the boys") in this thread.  Contrary to the personal attack and assertion contained within, is there any doubt (based on the evidence of their own writings) as to which of the two is "in control," rational, logical, and has a command of the English language??  I truly hope the thinking and writing of "the boys" is not an accurate reflection of those "in the know" or a part of the FBI.

A related matter in the Chandra Levy investigation:

Levy Probe Concentrates On Rock Creek Attacker


Fair use quote:


Quote:

Detectives in the Chandra Levy murder case are focusing on a man convicted of assaulting two women jogging in Rock Creek Park last year -- a suspect who was initially discounted after he passed a polygraph test that investigators now believe was flawed.

beech trees,

There is a lot that's troubling about the D.C. police's reliance on polygraphy in the Chandra Levy murder investigation. The latest Washington Post article that you've cited (which is also linked to and excerpted from on the AntiPolygraph.org Polygraph News page) is disturbing in a number of ways. Here are some preliminary ruminations:

Based on the Post article, it appears that no later than September 2001, an inmate in the D.C. jail "told authorities that [Ingmar A.] Guandique had confided in him that he stabbed Levy and left her body in [Rock Creek Park]." This was months before Levy's skeletal remains were discovered in that very park on 22 May 2002, a point that the authors of the Post article fail to note.

But this jailhouse informant, who, according to the article, "didn't try to trade the information for a lighter sentence, saying he came forward because he felt bad for the Levy family," failed a polygraph "test" about his allegations in September 2001.

Guandique, however, passed his "test" (a predictable result if the informant had been polygraphed first and "failed"), so the D.C. police discounted the informant's claim.

Now, some four months after the discovery of Levy's remains, the D.C. police need to discredit the polygraph results. They must have known at the time that an interpreter was used in Guandique's polygraph examination (as well as the informant's). But it is only now, when the polygraph results apparently no longer fit the leading investigative theory, that the use of an interpreter has become a problem. So now the D.C. police offer the public an ad hoc hypothesis about the use of an interpreter having confounded the polygraph results, anonymously whispering in the ear of the Washington Post, which dutifully (and uncritically) parrots this new official line.

Salient points all, George.

Was the polygrapher so inept as to not protest his order to interrogate and polygraph Mr. Guandique? Surely an alingual polygrapher for the Washington, DC Police Department would know and alert his superiors at the time he was requested to polygraph a non-English speaking subject that he was not qualified to do so.

Here is a very clear example of the doublespeak put forth by the pro-polygraph side here on these boards: They harp and lecture that polygraphs are but a 'tool' of the investigator and should not be relied upon too heavily, yet we see here that the results of two polygraphs were the sole determinant of fact in this investigation as it pertains to Mr. Guandique.

Readers may recall that as dawn broke over the eastern seaboard on the morning of 11 September 2001, one of the top national news stories of the day concerned the disappearance of Chandra Levy, an intern for then Congressman Gary A. Condit (D-CA), with whom Levy was having an extra-marital affair. Polygraphy played a prominent role in the investigation. (See earlier posts in this message thread for details.) The tragic events that occurred later that day swept the story by the wayside.

Today, 22 February 2009, the New York Times reports that Ingmar Guandique, an early suspect from whom suspicion was deflected after he passed a lie detector test (and his accuser failed one), is soon to be indicted for the murder of Chandra Levy:


Quote:

Arrest Said to Be Near in Killing of Chandra Levy By IAN URBINA WASHINGTON — Police officials here are close to making an arrest in the killing of Chandra Levy, the former federal government intern whose disappearance in 2001 ended Gary A. Condit’s Congressional career after his relationship with her was revealed, several law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation said on Saturday. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier contacted Ms. Levy’s family on Friday to inform them that officials would be pressing charges, probably in the next several days. Law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because charges had not been filed, identified the suspect as Ingmar Guandique, 27, who has previously denied any involvement in Ms. Levy’s disappearance and killing. Ms. Levy’s killing is one of Washington’s most sensational unsolved crimes and has brought intense pressure on the Police Department. She disappeared on May 1, 2001, and more than a year passed before her body was found in Rock Creek Park. Mr. Guandique pleaded guilty to assault in September 2001 in two cases involving attacks on women in the park in May and July of that year. He is serving a 10-year sentence at a federal prison in Adelanto, Calif., and is eligible for parole in 2011. The police recently submitted new evidence to the United States attorney’s office after an inmate serving time with Mr. Guandique contacted them, law enforcement officials said. The inmate said Mr. Guandique told him that he had killed Ms. Levy, the sources said. In the initial investigation, Mr. Guandique told the police that he had seen Ms. Levy in the park but that he had not harmed her. The police called Mr. Guandique a “person of interest” but said he had passed a polygraph test. City officials familiar with the investigation said that prosecutors had convened a grand jury but that it was not clear how much evidence they had submitted to it. The news of a possible arrest in the case was first reported by the television stations KFSN and KCRA in California and WRC in Washington. Ms. Levy’s brother, Adam Levy, 27, who is studying to become a computer animator at Mount Ida College in Newton, Mass., said he found out about the possibility of an arrest Saturday morning. “I wouldn’t really use the word closure, but it’s justice in a way,” Mr. Levy said. “It’s not going to bring the person back, but it’s justice in terms of a person facing punishment for the crime.” Ms. Levy’s mother, Susan Levy, expressed a similar sentiment in an interview on CNN. “I want justice,” she said. “No matter what, it’s a bittersweet situation for me as a family member, a mother of a daughter who’s no longer here. “But I want justice. I want to know that the person that did it is in jail and will not ever do it to anybody else. That’s very poignant.” Chandra Levy, a native of Modesto, Calif., had been an intern for the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington. The investigation into her disappearance uncovered an affair with Mr. Condit, a Democrat representing the 18th Congressional District, which includes Modesto. Mr. Condit, a seven-term representative who was a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was married at the time. In their original investigation, the police questioned Mr. Condit, who acknowledged that he and Ms. Levy had been in a relationship. He was not considered a suspect, but the negative publicity is cited as the main cause of Mr. Condit’s defeat in his 2002 re-election campaign. “While very good news,” a lawyer for Mr. Condit, Abbe D. Lowell, said in a telephone interview, “it is a tragedy that the police and media obsession with former Congressman Condit delayed this result for eight years and caused needless pain and harm to the families involved.” In a statement to the Washington television station WJLA, Mr. Condit said: “For the Levy family, we are glad they are finally getting the answers they deserve. For my family, I am glad that their years of standing together in the face of such adversity have finally led to the truth.” Chief Lanier said in a statement, “This case generated numerous bits of information, which we continue to follow up on.” She declined to comment further. The news of Ms. Levy’s killing led to widespread speculation that Mr. Condit was involved, which fed newspaper coverage of the case for months. After losing the primary election in 2002 to a former aide, Mr. Condit moved to Arizona. In 2005, he set up an ice cream franchise for Baskin-Robbins and sued several journalists over their coverage of the case. Liz Robbins contributed reporting from New York, and Jesse McKinley from San Francisco.

Mr Maschke

The Huffington Post reports Guandique's polygraph result as "indecisive".