Polygraph evidence presented in Birkbeck retrial
Published 5/3/07 in The Times-Herald
By ELIZABETH RICHARDSON
erichardson@newnan.com

New evidence involving a polygraph test of the defendant was presented as the retrial of Benjamin Birkbeck, the East Point Police Officer accused of molesting a young woman, continued Wednesday in Coweta Superior Court.

Assistant Coweta Circuit District Attorney Kevin McMurry said Birkbeck voluntarily submitted to the polygraph test on April 12 with consent from both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecution called Steve Duncan, an investigator and expert polygrapher with the Georgia State Patrol, to testify about the polygraph he administered.

"The results clearly indicated that he was deceptive with his answers to those [relevant] questions," said Duncan. "[The results were] not a close call at all."

Duncan explained the science of polygraphy. As a polygrapher, Duncan tests a subject's cardiovascular system, breathing and sweat production. Tests are not 100 percent accurate because of such variables as the technique of the person administering the test, the equipment and the phrasing of the questions.
"Maybe 2 to 3 percent [of polygraph tests] are ever deemed inconclusive," added Duncan.

The questions asked of Birkbeck were "designed" by both the defense council and prosecution using Duncan's methodology, according to his testimony.

On April 12, Birkbeck had a cold and was on three medications. Duncan advised it should not skew the results but gave Birkbeck the option of postponing. Birkbeck gave consent. Duncan discussed each question's exact wording with the defendant to ensure he understood everything being asked. In the test, the victim was referred to as "that girl" so as to avoid emotion, Duncan said.

Prior to the test, Birkbeck underwent a practice test, during which he lied about something irrelevant to allow the instrumentation to adjust to his physiology.

Despite Birkbeck's cold, Duncan "saw no problems as far as conducting the test" and described it as "textbook."

Birkbeck was asked 10 questions three times that addressed the sexual allegations as well as his overall honesty, according to Duncan.

Birkbeck was asked if he was seated; if he intended to answer truthfully; if he believed Duncan would only ask the agreed-upon questions; if prior to 2006 he had ever lied about work issues; if he had touched the girl in a particular manner; if prior to 2006 he had ever falsified an unofficial report; if he'd touched the girl at his home; if there were other things he was afraid Duncan would ask him about; if prior to 2006 he'd ever lied to someone in authority; and, finally, if he'd touched that girl in a sexual way.

In cross-examination, Birkbeck's attorney, John Frederick Nebl, questioned the validity of the test by further pushing the issue that Birkbeck had a cold at the time. He also said that Duncan's polygraph instrumentation adjusted to Birkbeck's physiology by assuming he'd lied to the control question, when he may not have. Physiological results indicated Birkbeck had truthfully never falsified documents, which was meant to be a control question that most people would lie to.

Duncan rebutted that the test was more likely to call a liar honest than to call an honest person a liar.
Also, according to Nebl, Birkbeck requested to take the test again when advised of the results, and Duncan denied his request.

Asked during redirect by McMurry whether he doubted the results in any way, Duncan said there was "no question in my mind."

http://content.times-herald.com/296043988588920.bsp

Birkbeck guilty on all counts
Published 5/10/07 in The Times-Herald
By ALEX McRAE
alex@newnan.com


After a day and a half of deliberations, a Coweta Superior Court jury found East Point police officer and Coweta resident Benjamin Birkbeck guilty on six criminal charges involving sexual battery and child molestation.

Superior Court Judge Jack Kirby sentenced Birkbeck to a total of 40 years in prison plus 12 months in the Coweta County Prison work camp.

"We're satisfied with the verdict and think it is a good decision for the victim and all the citizens of Coweta County," said Coweta Judicial Circuit Assistant District Attorney Kevin McMurry, who tried the case. "Lots of people worked very hard on this case, and we are very pleased with the outcome."

This was the second trial for Birkbeck on the same charges. The first ended in a mistrial in February.

Before pronouncing sentence, Kirby asked the young woman accusing Birkbeck if she wished to speak. The woman — a relative — thanked court officials, law enforcement and the district attorney's office for their hard work. She also spoke of how much she had been hurt by the ordeal.

She said she was glad Birkbeck had been found guilty and that she hoped putting him in prison would prevent another victim from being harmed.

"It's good to know he won't be doing this to any other girls," she said.

Birkbeck was also allowed to speak before sentencing. He continued to maintain his innocence.

I did not do this," he said. "I don't know how someone could make up something like this."

Birkbeck also complained about not being able to present certain evidence in his defense. His remarks were cut short by Kirby, who presided over both trials. Kirby said he had seen all the evidence and was convinced jury members had the information they needed to reach the guilty verdicts.

McMurry said the state had a stronger case on the second go-round.

"We had much more good evidence and testimony," McMurry said. "We also had the polygraph evidence, and that helped a lot."

McMurry was referring to a polygraph taken by Birkbeck and presented as evidence during the trial. McMurry said Birkbeck "failed miserably" on the polygraph.

...

All the posts are very negative regarding the polygraph examiner that just put a sexual predator away for years to come, wow, what a bad thing he did.  Decision should be reversed and the predator should become your next door neighbor.  In this case who gives a rat's butt about the statistics involved?  This examiner may have the totals he testified regarding false positives, negatives and inconclusive s, how would you know?

You follow your instincts to discredit polygraph regardless of the consequences of the guilty.

You state he lied and then you posted statistics from polygraph sources that you totally disagree with, so where are your ethical standards at this time, in the toilet.

You are quoting states that you totally disagree with to prove an examiner incorrect in his testimony, so challenge the decision of the court, not the examiner.

Figures don't lie, but those that figure do lie, and you are one of them.  You use polygraph statistics to prove your point, when you disagree with the premise that polygraph is in fact accurate.  You argue with yourself not me or the stats.  You are very confused and only wish to prove that polygraph does not work and is less than a coin toss.  Try that on someone else.  Your argument does not hold water IMHO. Argue with yourself, I tire of BS, and that is where your are.  You want to prove your point regardless of the facts. 

Quote:



Is this the same Steve Duncan whom was/is associated with American International p/g school?
An associate that attended one AI p/g satellite schools had SD as an Instructor. Reportedly, Duncan
used to hand out answer sheets with each Friday 'test' and tell the class not to achieve 100% so as
not to arouse suspicions.

Yip. sounds like the same Steve.