Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov. 2006 (Read 86640 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov. 2006
Nov 6th, 2006 at 10:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Pop psychologist and television talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw yet again promotes the myth of the lie detector in a two-part series that will air today (Monday, 6 November) and tomorrow:

http://www.drphil.com/shows/

An article published by the Rocky Mountain News this weekend indicates that the polygrapher featured on the Dr. Phil show will be retired FBI special agent Jack Trimarco (whom I personally know to have had at least one false positive during his career as an FBI polygrapher):

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=85

Regarding Dr. Phil's past use of polygraphs as a ratings stunt, see Dr. Phil Passes Off Polygraphy as Science and Emeritus Professor John J. Furedy's Letter to Dr. Phil McGraw on Polygraph Testing.
« Last Edit: Nov 25th, 2006 at 6:58pm by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #1 - Nov 7th, 2006 at 4:38am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
A blog has posted a blow-by-blow account of the 6 Nov. episode of the Dr. Phil Show, reporting that the polygrapher conducting the examinations was not Jack Trimarco, but rather one Howard Swabash, a former Michigan State Police polygraph:

http://applegobo.livejournal.com/54574.html

Another account is posted here:

http://jellybean73702.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!20615C873600B6DC!143.entry



  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box paris
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #2 - Nov 8th, 2006 at 5:35pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I was deeply disturbed by the use of the polygraph on the episodes of the Dr.Phil show this week. I do not know if the father is guilty or not, but I do think the man should have had a lawyer. This is why in our country it is important to have legal representation. This man is far less educated and not a professional tv personality.

Dr. Phil is a very powerful, smart, cunning man. He presented polygraphs as "scientific proof", while it is merely reading physiological responses and then interpreted. I can imagine, that this man could have been very nervous and pressured, forced to take the test, and with cameras on him! I would be nervous and confused under those circumstances.

Frankly, i am not sure why this fellow agreed to come on his show, especially if he was guilty. Smells fishy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ecchasta
User
**
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Georgia, USA
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Gender: Male
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #3 - Nov 9th, 2006 at 5:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It was this Dr. Phil show that piqued my interest in polygraph examinations.

In the past couple of days I have searched in vain to find any true double-blind study that validated "lie detecting".  Is there anyone out there that can refer me to such a study that has been done.

I can think of how I might set up such a controlled study, but I believe the only way to make it a true double-blind study would NECESSARILY violate all the "participant's" civil liberties.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #4 - Nov 9th, 2006 at 12:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ecchasta,

I'm afraid I know of no such studies to which to refer you. Perhaps Dr. Phil, who averred on national television, "I know that this test is 92 percent accurate," might be so kind as to explain how he knows this. You can ask him here:

http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9163
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box paris
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #5 - Nov 9th, 2006 at 1:37pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mr. Maschke,

Could you please give your opinion on my post above, specifically, the ramifications of putting on a "guest" and accusing him of a felony, then "bullying" him into a lie detector test, all without a lawyer.

And would not a polygraph be (even more) inaccurate if someone was under pressure of being on national TV?

This is not how our legal system works in this country!
« Last Edit: Nov 9th, 2006 at 1:59pm by paris »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #6 - Nov 9th, 2006 at 2:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
paris,

Dr. Phil is a showman, not a lawman, and his venue is a television studio, not a courtroom. I don't think he has broken any law, but by misrepresenting polygraphy as science, I think he violates the trust of guests and audience alike.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box paris
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #7 - Nov 9th, 2006 at 2:49pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Yes, Dr. Phil did not break a law. But he was running a mock courthouse, putting the man on trial and badgering responses out of him. And wouldn't the lie detector test be inaccurate, as it were, due to the fact that he had all these tv cameras and pressure on him? (I do not know if this man is a child molester or not, but Dr. Phil is taking a role of judge, jury, prosecutor.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box furedy
User
**
Offline



Posts: 26
Joined: Aug 26th, 2003
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #8 - Nov 10th, 2006 at 7:56am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
ANSWER TO "TRUE DOUBLE BLIND STUDY" ISSUE

Polyg06nov      

   There is a logical answer to this question which is one that even lay people ask about pharmacological applications, but which psychologists and psychophysiologists fail to ask about purported applications of psychophysiology like biofeedback and the polygraph.

     Ron Heslegrave and I wrote a rather technical account of the reason why the “specific effects” logic needs to be applied to the polygraph (and biofeedback) as it is applied to pharmacology (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy/Papers/ld/some_elab.doc), but let me try to summarize this argument here in more lay terms.

     First, the pharmacological example.  The claim for aspirin is that it reduces headaches.  The appropriate double-blind study is to contrast an aspirin with a placebo condition, where neither the subject nor the experimenter knows what condition the subject is in.  If the aspirin condition contains fewer and less severe headaches than the placebo condition (as has been found), then we can conclude that aspirin has a specific beneficial effect on headaches although we still don’t know the mechanisms through which aspirin produces this specific effect (it turns out that after many years of research, we still don’t know exactly how aspirin works).

            The claim for biofeedback is that the provision of precise psychophysiological information about some physiological function not subject to voluntary control to the subject (e.g., second-by-second information about heart rate changes) will, in itself, produce an improvement in the subject’s ability to control those changes (e.g., producing heart-rate deceleration).  Usually biofeedback’s specific beneficial effects are medically relevant (e.g., decreasing blood pressure).  Therefore the double-blind evaluation of whether biofeedback does have such a specific (beneficial) effects is to a completely accurate information condition with one where the information is less than completely accurate (if it’s obviously inaccurate then the subject is no longer “blind”, and an improvement may be due to a placebo effect, i.e., the belief that biofeedback is beneficial).  Such a study has not only not been done in the clinic (where it may be difficult to do), it has not even been done in the lab with the outcome that shows that biofeedback is beneficial.  This, as I have argued (Furedy, J.J. (1987).  On some research-community contributions to the myth and symbol of biofeedback.  International Journal of Psychophysiology, 4, 293-7.), is a serious methodological failing of the psychophysiological research community.  Moreover, Diane Riley and I published an earlier study where we did use this proper reduced-accuracy-of-feedback control, and found no beneficial effect of biofeedback on the ability to produce heart-rate decelerations, although subjects did learn, through instructions to improve this ability  (Riley, D.M., and Furedy, J.J. (1981).  Effects of instructions and contingency of reinforcement on the operant conditioning of human phasic heart rate change.  Psychophysiology, 18, 75-81).  But that is simply the same as the old country doctor telling an older male not to have arguments with his wife, and therefore avoid accelerating his ailing heart.  For this instructional advice, no biofeedback or the software for expensive psychophysiological equipment for measuring second-by-second change in heart rate are necessary.  Rather, this equipment is placebo paraphanalea for peddling biofeedback as the shake oil of the 21st century.

                 Despite being called a “test”, the CQT polygraph is not a specifiable procedure like the giving of aspirin or the provision of precise psychophysiological information, but for the purpose of applying the logic of the double-blind evaluation (which is a necessary condition for establishing the benefits of any treatment), let’s assume that it is a test, especially as, in the laboratory version, it is more specifiable and standardizable than in the field version.  Granting this test-status assumption, the purported benefit of the polygraph is that, by providing precise psychophysiological information to the experimenter or examiner, the accuracy of the examiner or experimenter (i.e., in differentiating truthful and deceptive subjects, or innocent and guilty subjects) is enhanced.  The appropriate double-blind control in the lab, therefore, is to provide examiners in one condition with precise and completely accurate information about the examinee’s autonomic responses to various questions, while in the other condition, there the psychophysiological information is less accurate, but not so inaccurate that the examiner can tell which condition he is in.  While this may be a difficult study to conduct in the field, it is easy, in principle, to conduct in the lab.  Then, if the psychophysiological information is more than a mere interrogatory prop, the examiner under the completely accurate condition should be better at detecting deception or guilt than the examiner under the degraded accuracy condition.  Such a study, to my knowledge, has never been performed, or a least published in the refereed journal literature even in the lab, let alone the field.


All the best, John
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box radiogal
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: Nov 16th, 2006
Gender: Female
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #9 - Nov 16th, 2006 at 5:28am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Please forgive the length but I am offering a complete detailed article on what happened in that three part series.
I, too, was appalled at how Dr. Phil manipulated his show to paint this young father guilty of child molestatioin and to make the young woman appear straight as an arrow. As a former police trainer, actress, and 20 year journalist, let me share with you what I saw. By the way, it may shock some viewers of that three part series even further to know that "Dr." Phil McGraw made a very brief, butt saving, underwhelming announcement after the show's credits ran -- thereby eliminating many of the viewers -- that the young man had taken two polygraph tests paid for by the show budget, not one. And that further, he had passed one of the polygraph tests. Some late watchers taped this very brief backpedaling by McGraw.
Here is how McGraw set up the young father imho:
He placed him in an adversial position, head on with him, and screamed at the man, bullied him, and aggressively negated any defense the seemingly slow thinking young man tried to make. He baited the yojng man mercilessly.
In contrast, McGraw positioned the young woman sitting next to him on a small sofa, very cozy with him --  and even when he --gently -- suggested she may have coached the little girl t make this accusation, he soft pedaled all he said. He was clearing the decks for her in the only way he could -- pooh poohing this act away as "nothing serious." Which he did again when she failed the part of the "Poly graph" (more sensationalism for the ratings-- another "cliff hanger") -- that she had already admitted to doing. Clever, clever McGraw.
Coaching a child to say her father touched "my pee pee", is very very serious in a court case. I have seen one mother lose custody of her five year old daughter for doing that.
McGraw repeatedly showed the film the mother had provided of this three year old crying and saying "He touched my pee pee." Never did the child say "My daddy touched my pee pee." Isn't that a bit strange?  Why
didn't this very intelligent professional questioner pick up on that? No controversy, no show, folks.
Further, McGraw screamed at the audience that polygraphs are 92 percent accurate. We all know that is not true. They are not allowed in court because their rate of INACCURACY is so high they are not considered dependable.
Next, McGraw badgered the young man's new wife, literally bullying her into changing her statement of total support for her husband to "I don't know. He failed the lie detector test so now I don't know what to think."
He even bullied her into saying to the mother, who had a free ride if I ever saw one, that she would not want to endanger the child --as if she did cooperate in that act! McGraw literally put the words into the young pregnant woman's mouth and bullied her into saying them.When her husband tried to defend her, McGraw opened up the box of slurs he had in waiting. He growled that the young woman had an affair and the child was not the young man's! Since the man seemed to be totally aware of this fact and not disturbed by it, why would McGraw air it? Just to discredit the woman. Nothing more. Totally unscrupulous. He may be a showman, as has been said, BUT HE REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A PROTECTOR OF CHILDREN AND A PROFESSIONAL THERAPIST. HELLO? Why would a protector of children air this awful tape of this helpless child. And then say over and over, "I am all about Kaylee" mentioning even her name on air. Hey, we as journalists have a code NOT to out an underage child. No matter what mom and dad say.
Worse, McGraw represented his polygraph tests as "completely objective." Hogwash. Even that part of his show was designed to condemn the young father.
The so called polygraph expert (allegedly in  the narrow field of child molestation( said on air that the father tried to manipulate the exam to win. (After McGrw led the quesiton) That the young man had obviously used the internet to find out how to beat the test. Well, your own site tells how.. . and each thing listed on the Internet was used by THE MOTHER!
Mommy sat as calm and relaxed as if she was meditating with the Dalai Llama.   Coached and reassured of the results prior to the test????
On the other hand, the father was very emotional and once weeping  while obviously answering the examiner's questions. Mother said nothing -- not a peep_ but "yes' and "no."
Father's replies were emotional and not just "yes" or "no". Here's the clue: the audience NEVER HEARD THE EXAMINER'S QUESTIONS. The man was set up to look out of control.
This is the most unethical television program I've ever seen.
If I sound passionate, it's because of what happened to my neighbor and her son recently.

My neighbor, who is in her 60s, works at Wal-Mart. Her middle aged son, who lost his good job in Dallas when the downsizing, outsourcing hit Texas in full force, moved in with her until he could pull his life together again. He had lost his income and his apartment. Her income and her late husband’s social security payments kept them afloat. Then he found a decent job. They started to pull out of their poverty spiral. Let’s call him John, although that's not his name.
The elderly mother was at work that night at Wal-Mart. Her son was at home alone. A knock came at the door. He opened it part way. Before he could identify the two men at the door, they pushed into the apartment and attacked him with a baseball bat. As they hit him in the head with the bat, one shouted, “If you ever talk to MY kid, I’ll come back and kill you.” Then they walked out, leaving John seriously injured on the floor. 
Now John is unable to work; his memory is severely limited. His neurologist says the assault damaged his brain. Today, he lost his job. NOW GET THIS. THEY HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS. THEY HAD THE WRONG MAN. THEY EVEN HAD THE WRONG AGE MAN! It seems a younger man of 20, who had been arrested at age 12 for molesting a 2 year old, lived somewhere near by. The police have not caught John’s assailants BUT HE WILL LIVE WITH THE RESULTS OF THEIR ASSAULT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
McGraw, when the young man expressed fear that he might be "mugged on my way out of the studio," led the audience to applaud enthusiastically. Unbelievable.
As a former journalist and producer on radio, television and print, I am appalled with McGraw. He rode the tail coats of Dateline's Predator series to raise his ratings and position himself as a protector of children. Not true.  McGraw is all about McGraw and his growing empire. I've stopped watching him. I will boycott any products ever connected with him.  Radiogal
  

Believe only half of what you see and nothing of what you hear.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box furedy
User
**
Offline



Posts: 26
Joined: Aug 26th, 2003
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #10 - Nov 16th, 2006 at 8:12am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
McGRAW'S NEXT CAREER AS A POLYGRAPHER?

The American Polygraphic Association should be delighted with Dr. Phil if ever he wants to take up the profession.  He has given an admirable demonstration of how the polygraph can be manipulated between the usual hostile condition and the "friendly" condition, even if the same questions are asked and the autonomic responses measured.  In this case, he was hostile to the father and friendly to the mother.  Of course the differences in his behavior were a bit crude, but no doubt he'll learn with experience.  In any case, unless the polygraph is videotaped, the judge or jury have no idea about these friendly/hostile manipulations which are possible with the CQT polygraph, but not with the GKT version (which is used in Japan for criminal casses.)

All the best, John
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box paris
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 8
Joined: Nov 8th, 2006
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #11 - Nov 16th, 2006 at 2:15pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It's amazing that DR. Phil put the disclaimer that the man "passed" the 2nd version! He should be sued for slander, as this was all but hidden.

Now I see that a "lie detector" test does not detect lies, but detects only the sympathetic system. So on a job interview, i am nervous, so I could be considered a liar. Dr. Phil did indeed badger the poor man. Example: "oh, isn't your screen name Anal (something)?" OK, so what if it is? "Oh, do you use the internet, where there are thousands of hits for how to beat a polygraph test"? Yes, said the poor Jeremy, he uses the computer sometimes....but so do 50 million other americans use the internet. Feeble circumstantial evidence! "Did you feed cake with your tongue to Kayle?" Jeremy: "oh......hmmm..." (a moment of confusion, trying to recollect what he could be talking about" Aha! you hesitated. you're guilty! But if the man was lying, he could have just said "no" automatically.

Poor, innocent blacks have been tried and hung many a time due to this kind of treatement, before Miranda.

Should we contact Dr. Phil's show to complain about the 2nd polygraph test not being revealed during the show?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #12 - Nov 16th, 2006 at 2:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
paris wrote on Nov 16th, 2006 at 2:15pm:
Should we contact Dr. Phil's show to complain about the 2nd polygraph test not being revealed during the show?


It can't hurt. You can use the e-mail form:

http://www.drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=9163

or send a letter to:

Dr. Phil show
5482 Wilshire Boulevard #1902
Los Angeles, CA 90036
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #13 - Nov 22nd, 2006 at 11:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It appears that the lie detector has been a successful ratings gimmick for Dr. Phil McGraw:

Quote:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6394517.html

Breaking News
Syndicated Ratings: Dr. Phil Edges Closer to Oprah
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/22/2006 2:20:00 PM

Dr. Phil edged closer to talk leader Oprah in the syndicated ratings for the week ending Nov. 12, the first full week of the November sweeps, with his highest ratings since May 2005.

That was part of a generally buoyant week for talkers and most magazine shows.

Phil was up 11% from the prior week to a 5.9 and was the only talker up over the same week last year, with a 7% bump. He was helped by a 6.6, just making it into his top-five all time ratings performances, for a Nov. 6 episode in which it took a lie detector to settle a family dispute. Oprah still led the way at a 7.2, but that was down 6%.

...
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6119
Location: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 Nov. 2006
Reply #14 - Nov 25th, 2006 at 5:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have now watched the Dr. Phil lie detector series that aired on 6-7 November 2006 and think a few points are worthy of note. First, it appears that Howard Swabash polygraphed Jeremy after he had already passed Krista Mehl and her mother, Bonnie Dyjasek. The results of those examinations would have tended to bias the outcome of Jeremy Park's polygraph result.

Second, it seems odd that Krista was apparently polygraphed sitting in a normal, hotel room chair:


Krista in normal chair


but Jeremy was polygraphed in a more traditional polygraph chair with flat armrests:


Jeremy in polygraph seat with flat wooden armrests

In the episode that aired on 6 Nov., it is revealed that Howard Swabash believed that Jeremy employed polygraph countermeasures. Here is a partial transcript:


Polygrapher Howard Swabash

Quote:
Dr. Phil: Now in the audience is licensed forensic polygraphist and investigator Howard Swabash. Now, sex offender testing is one of his specialties. He is a former Michigan State Police polygraph examiner with twenty years of lie-detecting experience. You believe that these tests are fair and accurate and highly reliable given the instrumentation that you've used and the protocol that you've used, correct?

Howard Swabash: Yes sir.

Dr. Phil: Now Howard you first determined that Jeremy had not smoked marijuana or taken any illegal drugs 24 hours before the test, correct?

Howard Swabash: That's correct.

Dr. Phil: And we had all the results double-checked by a independent review board, correct?

Howard Swabash: Yes sir.

Dr. Phil: We took your protocols, your printouts, your procedures, everything, had it reviewed by independent people --

Howard Swabash: Yes sir, that's correct.

Dr. Phil: -- at that point. Now, I noticed that you were telling Jeremy to be still during this and stop moving around. Ah, what was going on there?

Howard Swabash: What I was doing at that point was I wanted to make sure that he did not employ any countermeasures to defeat the test.

Dr. Phil: Were you concerned that you were seeing some countermeasures?

Howard Swabash: Yes sir, I was.

Dr. Phil: And you can learn these things, what, where, by going to the Internet? What--?

Howard Swabash: Yes, there's at least one thousand sites on the Internet that teaches people how to beat polygraph, but what people don't know is that I read those sites, and I also go to federal and state institutions to learn how to counteract countermeasures, so I've been taught how to do that.

Dr. Phil: In your opinion, were you observing countermeasure efforts on Jeremy's part?

Howard Swabash: Yes I was.

Dr. Phil: So you think he was attempting to defeat the test?

Howard Swabash: Yes sir.

Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): Is that true?

Jeremy: Huh. I wouldn't... Like I said, I wouldn't have any idea how to do that.

Dr. Phil: Do you have access to a computer?

Jeremy: At the library, yeah.

Dr. Phil: Do you know how to use a computer?

Jeremy: Ah, I know how to get on the e-mail, that's about it.

Dr. Phil: Do you have an e-mail address that is analbastard@[redacted].com?

Jeremy: Yeah, I do.

Dr. Phil: All right. (Holds up a sealed manila envelope with Jeremy's polygraph results.) I'm gonna read 'em when we come back.

[A video montage from the polygraph examination includes Howard Swabash saying: "I read Jeremy as being a very manipulative person, very theatrical. He seemed to be crying for a few seconds and then the tears went away.]

Dr. Phil: Well, in my hand I hold Jeremy's lie detector results. A study published in February of 2006 by Johns Hopkins University says that results using this instrumentation and software, properly administered, has a 92% accuracy rate.

[Results are read, Jeremy failed 4 out of 5 relevant questions, discussion ensues]




Dr. Phil holding Jeremy's polygraph results


Here are the relevant questions that Jeremy was asked:

1. Have you ever put your tongue into Kaylee's mouth while kissing her?
2. Have you ever touched Kaylee's vagina for your own sexual gratification?
3. Do you know for sure how Kaylee's labia became torn?
4. Have you ever put your penis or anything else into Kaylee's vagina?
5. Have you ever taken pictures of Kaylee's bare vaginal area or buttocks?

During a video montage from Jeremy's polygraph examination, only one of the "control" questions asked was revealed.

"Have you ever done anything that you're ashamed of that you can think of right now?"

Dr. Phil doesn't explain to the audience that polygraph "tests" are scored by comparing reactions to relevant questions with reactions to "control" questions to which the examinee is secretly expected to lie. It is not hard to imagine that any father wrongly accused of sexually molesting his three-year old daughter might well react more strongly when answering any of the above five emotionally charged relevant questions truthfully than when deceptively answering a "control" question such as the one above.

Quote:
Dr. Phil (to Jeremy): ... Did you attempt to evade this test or defeat this test with what our examiner calls countermeasures?

Jeremy: No.

Dr. Phil: So, you didn't move around, you didn't hold your breath, you didn't... (addressing Howard Swabash) What did you observe?

Howard Swabash: I observed a couple things. Number one is, when he was breathing, he'd breathe different. He'd pant for a while and then he'd take long, deep breaths, and start panting for a while. He was moving around in the chair when I told him to remain still and quiet, and also I put two finger platelets on his fingertips and he was always manipulating his fingers.

Dr. Phil: And that's what you read if you Google up "beat a polygraph," it tells you to do those things.

Howard Swabash: Yes sir, it does.

Dr. Phil: But you didn't attempt to defeat the test?

Jeremy: No.


Jeremy's behaviors that Howard Swabash characterized as "countermeasures" are things that no one who understands polygraph procedure would ever do. And if you "Google up" (as Dr. Phil puts it) "beat a polygraph," the first result returned is AntiPolygraph.org. We certainly do not suggest such things as panting, deep breaths, and fidgeting as polygraph countermeasures. If Jeremy did these things, it seems a pretty good indication that he was telling the truth when he said he "wouldn't have any idea" how to defeat a polygraph test.

Howard Swabash also appears in the segment that aired the following day (which was taped on the same day as the previous segment). Toward the end, Dr. Phil questions him:

Quote:
Dr. Phil: You have no doubt.

Howard Swabash: No doubt at all.

Dr. Phil: You have no doubt that he is molesting his daughter.

Howard Swabash: No sir.

Dr. Phil: And you base that on his results, but also his test behavior.

Howard Swabash: Many years of experience dealing with people who are sexual predators.

Dr. Phil: Uh, and, you know from twenty years of experience dealing with it, well more, but testing 'em for that long, you know that the kind of high-horse arrogant behavior here is also very indicative of---

Howard Swabash: Correct.

Dr. Phil: --those people. So, is there another possibility? Frankly, there is. You can never be sure unless you, you just keep piling up data. I think we're making a responsible run at it, and I appreciate you--

Howard Swabash: Thank you very much.

Dr. Phil: --and thank you for your time and effort.


So here we have an admission by Howard Swabash that he uses non-polygraphic data in reaching his conclusions. I must disagree with Dr. Phil's notion that relying on such quackery as lie detectors constitutes "making a responsible run" at determining the truth.

Finally, at the very end of the show, Dr. Phil appears alone with an announcement:


Dr. Phil makes a last minute announcement


Quote:
Dr. Phil: Since taping this program, Jeremy took another lie detector test, one that he did pass, which raises more questions. We've been following this family, and we will have everyone back here to continue our quest to uncover the truth and protect this precious child.
« Last Edit: Dec 2nd, 2006 at 11:29am by George W. Maschke »  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov. 2006

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X