Ray wrote on Jan 15^th, 2003 at 5:00am:

I'm surprised at the lack of discussion regarding the Westerfield polygraph.  That may be due to the fact that the case bodes well for polygraph.  According to what I've read, several "suspects" in the case were polygraphed.  Westerfield failed, everyone else passed.  This sounds like more than chance to me.  You can quote lab studies all that you want, but these seem like compelling real world results.  Also, in reviewing the tapes of the polygraph, I found the examiner to be very professional.  He didn't seem anything like the monsters you make examiners out to be.  George I'm curious to hear what you have to say about this.

Ray,

I think that the Westerfield tapes provide a very helpful example of a polygraph examination, and are largely confirmatory of that which is contained in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. The two tapes of special interest with regard to polygraphy are these:

"Pre-test" Phase

"In-test" and "Post-test" Phases

That Westerfield failed the "test" is not indicative of any validity for polygraphy -- a sample size of one is statistically meaningless. In addition, while polygrapher Paul Redden told Westerfield that all others polygraphed about the disappearance of Danielle Van Dam "passed," it is not clear that such is actually the case.

It is apparent that Westerfield had not researched polygraphy prior to his "test." Had he done so, he no doubt could have easily picked out the probable-lie "control" questions and might well have beaten the "test" by augmenting his reactions to them, and perhaps deflecting suspicion away from himself.

I don't know if "professional" is the right word to describe Paul Redden's administration of the polygraph interrogation of David Westerfield, but I would agree that his conduct was civil throughout. I think that SDPD's commendable practice of recording polygraph (and other) interrogations helps to assure such conduct.