Doodad,

See the message thread, SDPD Polygraph & Interrogation Tape Released.

Doodad wrote on Sep 14^th, 2003 at 7:21pm:

There are basically 2 reasons police use a poly. It can be used in investigations to somewhat focus limited resources where there are many potential suspects or it can be used as a prop (scam in your words) to produce confessions, often in the same session. The latter is the principal use. In my view both are legitimate. It is fact (and proper technique) that LE can and will sometimes lie, mislead, and manipulate things to get a confession. You might wish to review the statements made in the Elizabeth Smart case about their polygraphs.  You can see evidence of full bore interrogation mode there.  There is a major reason for this. A confession is admissible in court, the polygraph results aren't.

Therefore, the SDPD did a proper job with Westerfield's poly but you should definitely not assume that his failure of that poly is valid per se. The investigation may have been to the point of concluding that David did it at the time his poly was given. If that was the case then it was purely a prop to elicit a confession.

As for David's comments about the reliability of the polygraph, he was correct but that is also a common response by guilty people so it is not especially meaningful.

In the end David did not confess so one shouldn't attribute much about the polygraph "results" one way or the other since the likely purpose was interrogation. Even though I think the SDPD did a good job in many ways (including selection of a good control Q from BI) with that poly DO NOT assume it was infallible. To fail the poly David would have to be more nervous about being believed to have killed the child than to have been found to lie about prior violence with his ex, which was the control.

All in all David would have been an ideal candidate for the GKT or Drew's brain response machine since the guilty person would have had a lot of detail about the house, bedroom and child that a person who had not been in the house would have. The GKT has good potential of being admitted in court as well. Too bad this type poly, almost universal in Japan, wasn't done. Could have saved a lot of money.

I base my assumption on David's guilt on his atty negotiating with the prosecution to disclose the body's location not his "failed" poly since no confession followed.

-Marty

Marty...I thought that GKT stuff looked familiar. Yes, it definately seems to be a better way of getting closer to truth/lies.

http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/9601/9601.html

This link talks about the level of the control question and Im assuming that's what you were referring to.

I'm wondering if the fact that it was early on in the investigation and some facts had been leaked via the media even at that point is why they would not use such a method.....that and, as you said, looking for a confession.

Doodad wrote on Sep 14^th, 2003 at 9:43pm:

That's my major gripe as well. In a democracy, people need balanced information. Some portion of the polygraph's effectiveness is broad belief that it works. It isn't lying that produces excitement, it is fear of detection of lying. Thus it is a sort of ethical catch 22.
Quote:

Interesting. I didn't know that. Can't David release his atty from confidentiality so as to verify that? Perhaps you should look into Drew Richardson's device. If there is sufficient information about the crime scene that David has not been exposed to and that the perp would know then it might have some applicability even now.

Quote:

A properly administered GKT, where the examiner does not know the case facts, where the facts allow a GKT would be best. Few American examiners are trained in it and so even when opportunities come up the GKT is rarely used.

-Marty

Quote:

Yep. It is common practice in an interrogation to say whatever puts the subject in the frame of mind to confess. Since DW didn't confess, and it is likely the poly was a way to interrogate DH more before he called for a lawyer, you shouldn't put much weight in the poly results. Whether or not other people passed you can be quite certain that post test the examiner will say they passed. It is considered appropriate during interrogations. Think of the case where there are 2 suspects and each suspect is told the other has fingered them. SOP.  Keep in mind that the police are trying to nail the bad guys, not engage in some "fair" sort of dialog.

-Marty

Marty, thanks for the "SOP" info.  I am beginning to understand this "prop" usage better, re: doing interrogations to obtain confessions, etc. -- essentially that "anything goes" toward that end, and that in this respect the examiner was doing an excellent job.  I think the general public expects it all to be more, well, "scientific" than that.

I have also viewed the link to Action Alerts (the original SDPD messages) that credit SDPD with smarts for taping this session.  I agree that it is highly useful.

1.  You wrote, regarding possible GKT on Westerfield:

Quote:


FYI:  Having been through all the trial evidence, Westerfield now knows things he never knew before, especially about the victim's home -- which he claims never to have visited.  As to any "crime scene," no one ever determined how, when, or where the child died. Her body was found 30 miles from her home.  That "crime scene" was also shown in court. So I think the GKT possibility here is moot.   

2.  You did not seem to answer the questions about the subject's physical and possible medical conditions; or address the suggestion (source: another published tape) that one of the parents polygraphed was "hyper to the nth degree" and "totally out in left field" but passed with flying colors nevertheless.   

Does the examiner not have to asssess his subject's physical condition before doing the test, as to being overly calm or overly hyper?  Don't they have to at least ask if the subject is on medication (or any other drug, such as tranquilizers)?  I really would like to know more about this aspect.

3.  You should be aware that, according to the convicted subject himself, SDPD was not totally happy with Westerfield's failed answers.  He only failed two of the 5 "were-you-involved" type questions.  He may have PASSED the whereabouts-of-the-child question.

SDPD officers came back to him suggesting they had "false negatives" and wanted him to retest.  The lawyers refused.  These same officers were the ones leaning on him for the "whereabouts" info, which he never provided or was not able to provide. (Source: one of the published Westerfield letters.)

4.  Can it be determined from the tape which two of the 5 questions he failed?   

We note that only 2 of 5 questions contained the words, "you yourself."  Does anyone know if these were the two he would be most worried about and thus failed?  Would these 2 be most likely to jolt the subject?

Another tape source (an SDPD interview after the polygraph-interrogation)  says "those were the 2 that I wanted to get right" and goes on at length about how upset he was about failing "those 2" questions.

I am working from an unofficial transcript, not the tape itself.  Can you who have the audio version of the poly tell WHICH questions he failed?  Thanks.

Kayle

Marty said:  << Are you and doodad the same poster? Why the sudden interest in DW? >>
 
Doodad posted a link to Anti-Poly on another forum, and I (a separate person) came over to have a look-see, since the "failed Poly" in the DW case has been a big item for discussion and research on polygraphing.  I have visited your site before but never posted.   

My interest in DW arrest, trial and conviction is not "sudden."  It has been ongoing since the trial began.  http://hometown.aol.com/onejuror/myhomepage/rant.html   

P.S. - I would NEVER take a polygraph under any circumstances that I can think of.

Kayle