At the meeting of the Oklahoma Polygraph Examiners' Board held on Friday, 15 October 2021, Assistant Attorney General Amanda Everett read a summary of the review panel's findings. The following is a transcription of her remarks:
Quote:I'm Assistant Attorney-General Amanda Everett. I'm going to recite the review panel recommendation. Just, before I begin, I will do this, um, I just want to confirm the case number. I've got the parties that you named, but I just want to make sure that we've got the correct case number on this recommendation. So it's 2021-02....
So by way of introduction, the complainant in this matter filed a complaint with the state Polygraph Examiners' Board on July 5th, 2021 regarding a licensee. On July 19th 2021, OSBI Special Agent and licensee of the board Jonathan Santiago was tasked with investigating the complaint. On September 15th 2021, the review panel, comprising of [sic] Special Agent Santiago, Special Agent Sean Ward, and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Schneider met and discussed Special Agent Santiago's investigation pursuant to Oklahoma Administrative Code Section 560 10-1-13.1 subsection g.
The review panel did not find any violations of the Polygraph Examiners Act or its rules and regulations found in Title 560 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code. Accordingly, the review panel recommends that the state Polygraph Examiners' Board dismiss the complaint without further action.
Complainant, an unlicensed person, alleges two violations against licensee. The first is a violation of OAC 560 10-1-7 (a)(1), which requires licensees to retain polygraph records for two years following an examination. Complainant also alleged the licensee destroyed such polygraph examination record in violation of the same rule.
Under the Polygraph Examiners Act, any person who is found to have violated any provision of the act or any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the act may be subject to a monetary penalty of not more than five thousand dollars for any related series of violations. And this is found in Oklahoma State Title 59, Section 1474. Licensees may also have their licenses suspended or revoked for, quote, willful disregard or violation of this act, or any regulation or rule issued pursuant thereto, end quote.
Special Agent Santiago's investigation revealed the following:
First, the licensee responded to the investigation by providing Special Agent Santiago all requested materials and proof that records were retained for longer than two years.
Number two, the licensee did provide records relating to the examination of the polygraph subject to the legal counsel or representative, and
Number 3, complainant acknowledged receiving two written reports of the examination conducted by the licensee of the polygraph subject.
To the best of its knowledge, the review panel notes the complainant has never received formal training in conducting polygraph examinations, has never been licensed in any jurisdiction as a polygraph examiner, and has never participated in any continuing education related to conducting polygraph examinations.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the review panel unanimously recommends that the Polygraph Examiners' Board dismiss the above complaint against the licensee without further action.
Regrettably, the report Ms. Everett read does not state specifically what materials Special Agent Santiago requested and received from James Kelly.
Note also how the review panel takes a gratuitous swipe at me ("...the complainant has never received formal training in conducting polygraph examinations," etc.). The fact that I am not a polygraph operator is completely immaterial to the complaint.
The review panel's lack of specificity about the materials requested from and provided by James Kelly, and their denigratory comments about me, raise doubts about the integrity of the investigation.
It is also noteworthy that if James Kelly did in fact keep records of Benjamin Petty's polygraph examination including the computerized data and any audio or video recordings thereof, then he lied to Oklahoma Indigent Defense System investigator Kathy Karmid when he claimed that he "does not keep, and has no computerized data, notes, hand scoring of polygraph charts, no recordings of any kind, and no additional file." In that event, Kelly's lie to prevent discovery of information in a judicial proceeding involving polygraph examinations that he conducted might be considered obstruction of justice.
Under Title 21, Section 21-540 of the Oklahoma Statutes, "Any person who willfully delays or obstructs any public officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his office, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Pages: 1
Complaint Against Polygraph Operator James R. Kelly of Oklahoma (Read 5747 times)
