Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode with Joelle Ogletree, Chayce Wilson, and Matt Brooks

[George W. Maschke]

The Dr. Phil show kicked off November sweeps with a titillating two-part series featuring allegations of sexual misconduct and lie detector "tests." Titled "Teacher Sex Scandal," the series aired 1-2 November 2007 and centered around the case of Joelle Marie Ogletree, a Glen Rose, Texas high school French teacher who was fired in 2002 and later criminally prosecuted after three students alleged that she had engaged in sexual acts with them. (A comment by "beinformed" on the Somervell County Salon blog alleges that all three boys passed polygraph tests at the time.) A mistrial was declared when one of the students recanted his allegations, and charges were dismissed. In 2006, the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings cleared Ogletree of all allegations of sexual misconduct in rejecting a motion by the staff of the Texas Education Agency to revoke her teaching license. (See attached decision.)

Joelle Ogletree

One of Ogletree's accusers was willing to speak with the Dr. Phil show and submit to a lie detector test on the condition that his name and face not be aired. However, as reported by the Somervell County Salon blog, the accuser's name is Chayce Wilson. The Dr. Phil show hired retired FBI polygrapher William K. Teigen of Dallas to conduct the polygraph test:

Retired FBI Polygrapher William K. Teigen

Teigen asked Wilson the following relevant questions:

• Did you lie to me today when you told me that you have had sexual relations with Joelle Ogletree?
  
  
• Today when you told me about having sexual contact with Joelle Ogletree in her classroom, were you lying to me?
  
  
• When you say to me today that you and Joelle Ogletree touched each other's genitals, is that statement to me a lie?

Teigen found Chayce Wilson deceptive with regard to all three relevant questions. Wilson, however, in a recorded telephone conversation with Dr. Phil McGraw, maintained his truthfulness.

Bill Teigen polygraphing Chayce Wilson

On a side note, it also apparent that Teigen, who uses a computerized Axciton polygraph instrument, did not use a sensor pad or strain gauge, devices that are increasingly used in an attempt to detect polygraph countermeasures.

Note absence of activity sensor tracing

Chayce Wilson agreed to meet with Teigen to discuss the results, perhaps foreshadowing a follow-up episode to come.

Dr. Phil mentions that he had invited Joelle Ogletree to take a polygraph test, but that she had declined. Ogletree's lawyer explained her refusal saying that she had already been cleared of the accusations and had previously passed a polygraph test.

In the second part of the two-part series (which was filmed the same day as the first), a second accuser, Matthew Brooks (whose last name was not mentioned on the show), came on the show:

Matthew Brooks

Brooks was administered a polygraph examination by retired FBI polygrapher Jack Trimarco, who asked the following relevant questions:

• Did you ever experience touching for sexual purposes with Joelle Ogletree?
  
  
• Did Joelle ever touch your penis with her hand?

Trimarco judged Brooks deceptive with regard to both relevant questions.

Jack Trimarco polygraphing Matt Brooks
Note that both pneumo tubes are around the subject's abdomen!

Trimarco doesn't use a sensor pad either

Despite Trimarco's accusation of deception, Brooks continued to maintain his truthfulness. In an apparent attempt to impeach Brooks' credibility, Trimarco interrupted to interrogate Brooks about the probable-lie control questions that he used in the polygraph examination. Control questions are ones to which polygraphers secretly expect all examinees to lie -- even those who answer the relevant questions truthfully. Polygraphers typically maneuver examinees into a denial and cut off admissions. (For a fuller explanation, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) So it is intellectually dishonest to use an examinee's denials in response to control questions to impeach the examinee's credibility with regard to relevant questions.

Jack Trimarco: Dr. Phil, may I? Matt, were you one hundred percent honest with me today on that polygraph?

Matt Brooks: Yes, Jack. Yes I was.

Trimarco: And when I asked you, "Not in connection with this case, have you ever lied to get out of trouble?" what did you tell me? Was that the truth?

Brooks: That's the truth.

Trimarco: Not in connection with this case, have you ever lied to someone who loved or trusted you?

Brooks: No.

Trimarco: And that's the truth?

Brooks: That's the truth.

Trimarco: And not in connection with this case, have you ever lied about anything really important?

Brooks: No.

Dr. Phil: You're the first person I've ever met that can say no to those three questions, including me....

Jack Trimarco questioning Matt Brooks about the "control" questions

In the end, as in previous Dr. Phil episodes, polygraph testing, which in any event has no scientific basis, provided no resolution of the issues involved in the case. Given the available case documentation, it is not surprising that Teigen and Trimarco would have respectively found Wilson and Brooks to be deceptive. But if both of the latter (not to mention the 3rd accuser who recanted) earlier passed lie detector tests regarding their accusations, what does this tell us about the reliability of the polygraph?

Dr. Phil McGraw does the public a disservice by suggesting that lie detector testing is somehow to be relied upon in such matters. His use of the lie detector -- almost always in connection with unsubstantiated allegations of a sexual nature -- is a transparent ratings gimmick.

For commentary on other Dr. Phil lie detector episodes see:

Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode with John Swartz, 5 September 2007

Dr. Phil Lie Detector Episode, 4 April 2007

Dr. Phil Lie Detector Series, 6-7 & 28 Nov

Yet Another Dr. Phil Polygraph Episode (17Nov06)

Dr. Phil Passes Off Polygraphy as Science

[lacie schneider]

I am a former student of hers and was very close to her. She could never .fo anything like that. Know one should believe a word out of those boys mouths. Iv lived down the street from her house ever since they have lived there. She's the sweetest, most honest women you'll ever meet. Love u Mrs. Ogletree.

[Sydney Schauman]

Nobody ever knows who a person really is on the inside. We only see what's on the outside and based on this I have full respect for these three boys. I personally don't think that anyone would make this up and not only did they stick up for their opinion but they provided rich details.

[ELIE Mosseri]

I want to know if there is a better way to find out if someone
is lying. Can we rely on a polygraph test to tell us a
PROBABLE or close enough answer when we do not have
a better way to do it.
I am always thinking about the question "how do we find out
the truth" in any situation. Are there any rules?
I appreciate your comments.

[Courtney k]

Nobody ever knows who a person really is on the inside. We only see what's on the outside and based on this I have full respect for these three boys. I personally don't think that anyone would make this up and not only did they stick up for their opinion but they provided rich details.

First of all, one of the three boys admitted that he made it all up because he felt pressured to say that he had encounters with mrs. Ogletree. He was lying. Second of all, you do realize that the boys details of how things happened have been changed, adding things, leaving things out along the way? Also, anyone can make up details. They've had a long time to think these things up. I believe they made a mistake, got pressured into saying this, or were just trying to be cool by telling these lies about her, and it got out of hand. Because it all became such a Big deal, and with the family's of the boys being respected members of the community (one of them also very religious) they knew their own and their family's reputation would suffer greatly if people knew they made something so horrible up. Nobody would believe anything they said again. But if they just went with it, they would be seen as victims, and people would feel bad for them, and congratulate them for speaking up.

[Ex Member]

Nobody ever knows who a person really is on the inside. We only see what's on the outside and based on this I have full respect for these three boys. I personally don't think that anyone would make this up and not only did they stick up for their opinion but they provided rich details. 

You contradict yourself. First you say nobody knows who a person is on the inside, yet you project yourself into the hearts of the three boys and advocate for them.

[Ex Member]

I want to know if there is a better way to find out if someone is lying.

If this question perplexes you, I suggest reading "A Tremor in the Blood" (Lykken). He probes this issue very intuitively.

[pailryder]

Ark

The question perplexes me as well, and I have read ATITB, so help me out here.  Specifically, what is the better way?

[Ex Member]

Pailryder,

I'm referring to the GKT. Judicious use of this technique and subsequent analysis is probably the closest one can come to lie detection. The CQT does not detect lies. What it can detect at best is that the subject is "bothered" by the questions.The polygrapher at this point tries to extrapolate this discomfort to lying--which in some situations, may indeed be the case, but in others not so--therein lies the gremlin.

[pailryder]

Ark

I have used GKT, or as some prefer, the
CIT, Concealed Information Test, for many years and agree it is our best polygraph technique.  But you overstate your case to argue that it detect lies.  CIT works just like CQT, it can only detect that the subject is bothered by the question.   

[pailryder]

I am always thinking about the question "how do we find outthe truth" in any situation. Are there any rules?

ELIE

In situations where deceptive misrepresentation is suspected, interview/interrogations are often  conducted using techniques that may include verbal or written linguistic analysis, observation of body movement and expressions, recording of psychophysiological data and the use of psychological persuasion techniques.

Rules vary with military, government, law enforcement, employment or private matters, but one rule reigns supreme.  Nothing confirms like confession.

[Ex Member]

I said it was the "closest we can come" to detecting lies. As Lykken points out, there is no lie detector. If there were, it would have a revolutionary effect on our society.

[Dan Mangan]

Nothing confirms like confession?

The Chicago PD learned the hard way that's not always the case.

[Drew Richardson]

I said it was the "closest we can come" to detecting lies.

Actually, if performed correctly, the GKT/CIT has nothing to do with detecting lies--it has to do with detecting or not detecting evidence of memory encoding/memory retrieval for some issue of interest. 

More specifically, although David's GKT resembled a multiple choice question format, it differs in a significant way--no questions are asked or answered and no truths or falsehoods are uttered. 

A subject area (one of several in the overall GKT exam) is outlined (e.g., "The murder was committed in one of the following rooms of the victim's residence.") and the examinee simply repeats the alternative possibility following the examiner's vocalization of same (e.g., "the living room, the bedroom, the bathroom, the kitchen, the screened porch") as they are sequentially presented at some regular period (e.g., every 20 seconds) with one of the proposed alternative choices being key or correct, the contextual significance of which is known only to the perpetrator/witness of the crime, and all of the possibilities being equally plausible to a non-knowledgeable examinee.

If the aforementioned GKT paradigm is in any way confounded with a lie detection paradigm, the meaningful statistical analysis of the GKT can no longer be appropriately applied. Again--one of the important strengths of the GKT is that is not a lie detector test lacking in diagnostic validity.

[Ex Member]

Thanks again for taking the time to explain that Doc, very enlightening. I suspect my coupling was a little too loose. I had imagined that someone who denies being at a bank robbery yet shows reaction to a picture of the bank teller presented along with miscellaneous pictures of women in a GKT could be considered lying about not being there. But I guess this is more inference than detection.