A Public Challenge to Nelson Andreu

[George W. Maschke]

In a 24 February 2002 Star magazine article titled "Star's Lie Detector Challenge to Michael Jackson" polygraph operator Nelson Andreu is quoted claiming that "[n]o one can beat [the polygraph]."

Andreu, a retired Miami detective who runs a company called Deception Check Polygraph and Investigative Services and was to polygraph Michael Jackson for Star, further claims that the polygraph is "very reliable," noting that "[t]o become an FBI agent, you have to pass a polygraph test." However, the recent report on polygraphy by the National Academy of Sciences states that "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" (p. 8-2).

Challenge to Nelson Andreu:

1) Publicly support your publicly-made claim that "[n]o one can beat [the polygraph]."

2) Publicly support your publicly-made claim that the polygraph is "very reliable."

If you cannot credibly support your claims to Star magazine, then please retract them.

This challenge will be notified to Mr. Andreu by e-mail to Info@DeceptionCheck.com.

[George W. Maschke]

I have sent the following e-mail to Nelson Andreu <Info@DeceptionCheck.com>, and copied to both Star magazine <letters@starmagazine.com> and Dr. Richardson:

Dear Mr. Andreu,

In a Star magazine article titled "Star's Lie Detector Challenge to Michael Jackson" and dated 24 February 2002, you are quoted as claiming that "[n]o one can beat [the polygraph]." I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org (http://antipolygraph.org), a non-profit, public interest websited dedicated to exposing and ending polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. We make a free book called The Lie Behind the Lie Detector available that, among other things, explains precisely how to beat the polygraph:

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Your claim that no one can beat the polygraph is contradicted by the available peer-reviewed research on polygraph countermeasures, which is cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. This evidence suggests not only that that the polygraph can be beaten, but that even experienced polygraph operators cannot detect the countermeasures used to beat the polygraph.

This being the case, I challenge you to publicly support your publicly-made claim that no one can beat the polygraph. One way to do this would be to accept Dr. Drew C. Richardson's longstanding polygraph countermeasure challenge, details of which you will find here:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942

Perhaps Star magazine would be interested in covering this.

You also claim that the polygraph is "very reliable," noting that "[t]o become an FBI agent, you have to pass a polygraph test." But a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/) found that "[t]here is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods" (p. 8-2). This being the case, I further challenge you to publicly support your publicly made claim that the polygraph is "very reliable."

Sincerely,

George W. Maschke
AntiPolygraph.org

PS: this message has been copied to Star magazine and to Dr. Richardson, and will be posted on AntiPolygraph.org message board, where you are welcome to respond:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1013.msg7635#msg7635

[orolan]

I know who this guy is. He once had an article posted on the Florida Polygraph Assoc. website about countermeasures. Gist of it was that during a maintenance poly, he allegedly detected signs of countermeasures being used. A subsequent search of the guy's home found materials on how to perform countermeasures, and he was sent back to prison. I sent an e-mail to Nelson asking a simple question, that being "Did the search also turn up any evidence that the examinee was re-offending?" Needless to say, I never got a response back.