Jack Trimarco Spins the Polygraph on The O’Reilly Factor

Jack Trimarco on The O’Reilly Factor

On Thursday, 22 February 2007, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly spoke with retired FBI polygraph operator Jack Trimarco, whom he had hired to administer a polygraph examination to Frederic von Anhalt (who ultimately backed out) regarding the latter’s claim to have fathered the infant daughter of the late Anna Nicole Smith. At the time of writing the video is still available on-line.

During the show, Trimarco made some serious misrepresentations regarding the polygraph. Asked about polygraph accuracy, Trimarco told O’Reilly that the polygraph is “very accurate” and that “…the science tells me that 93 percent probability that I have come to the right conclusion.” In 1995, Trimarco, then still in the FBI’s employ, told AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke that the polygraph was 98% accurate. What has changed since then?

The fact of the matter is that polygraphy has not been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels of accuracy under field conditions, and the consensus scientific viewpoint is that lie detector testing has no scientific basis at all.

Continue reading ‘Jack Trimarco Spins the Polygraph on The O’Reilly Factor’ »

Ronald Bailey on Reading Minds

Science correspondent Ronald Bailey reports for Reason magazine on fMRI-based “lie detection” in “Reading Minds: Is Commercial Lie Detection Set to Go?” Excerpt:

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that human cooperation is the result of evolved brain mechanisms that enabled our ancestors to detect cheaters. Broadly speaking, cheaters are people who accept a benefit from someone on the understanding that they will reciprocate, but then fail to give back. A robust finding of game theorists is that the ability to detect cheaters is necessary for cooperation evolved. In the constrained situations that characterize games it’s easy for players to detect cheaters because their lack of reciprocation becomes immediately obvious. But what about the real world? Are evolutionary psychologists right when they claim that human beings have evolved into natural lie detectors?

Most of us think that we’re pretty good at identifying liars. However, a lot of experimental data says that we’re wrong. Most people can distinguish truth from lies at a rate no better than chance. Not even professionals, such as cops and judges, do much better. Of course, humanity has been ceaselessly seeking the fool-proof lie detector, ranging from thumbscrews to polygraph testing. With regard to the latter, the National Academies of Science issued a comprehensive report in 2003 on polygraphy that concluded, “There 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.”

Iowa Polygraph Association Past President James Reistroffer Sues Ethics Committee Members

In “City paying legal fees of officer being sued,” Clark Kauffman reports for the Des Moines Register on a defamation lawsuit brought by former Iowa Polygraph Association president James Reistroffer against three members of the association’s ethics committee:

Des Moines taxpayers are paying the legal fees of a police officer accused of abusing his position in a private organization of polygraph experts.

Sgt. David M. McDermott is one of three defendants in a lawsuit filed late last year by James Reistroffer, former president of the Iowa Polygraph Association.

Reistroffer is claiming that McDermott, Jan Caylor and Dennis Wilbur defamed him, and he is seeking unspecified damages. The defendants in the case have denied any wrongdoing.

Reistroffer says the three, acting in their capacity as the ethics committee of the Iowa Polygraph Association, conducted an unauthorized investigation into his criticism of another polygraph examiner’s techniques, then reported their “false and defamatory” findings to the American Polygraph Association.

Reistroffer says that as a result of the ethics committee’s actions, his reputation was damaged and he was removed as president of the Iowa association.

Although the lawsuit alleges no wrongdoing by McDermott in his capacity as a city police officer, the city is paying for his defense, and Assistant City Attorney Angela Althoff is handling the case on McDermott’s behalf.

One of McDermott’s co-defendants, Caylor, is a polygraph examiner for the Iowa Department of Corrections. Caylor has retained private counsel to defend her. The state is not assisting with her defense.

Des Moines City Attorney Bruce Bergman said the city is defending McDermott because his job description with the city calls for him to serve on the Iowa Polygraph Association’s board or ethics committee.

“The reason he was on the board is that it’s a job expectation,” Bergman said. “In other words, we wanted to have a City of Des Moines police officer on the board.”

Deputy City Attorney Mark Godwin said, “Mike was serving on the board basically at the request of the department. And so we felt that he was working when he was doing that since the department requested him to do it. And we, of course, have a statutory duty to defend and indemnify him.”

Godwin said he is not sure whether McDermott was paid by the city for the hours he spent working for the association.

Reporter Clark Kauffman can be reached at (515) 284-8233 or ckauffman@dmreg.com.

Smithsonian Magazine on Lie Detection

Smithsonian magazine has published in its February 2007 issue an article by Eric Jaffe titled, “Detecting Lies.” Excerpt:

An early form of lie detection existed in India 2,000 years ago. Back then, a potential liar was told to place a grain of rice in his mouth, and chew. If he could spit out the rice, he was telling the truth. If he could not, that meant fear of being caught had parched his throat, and his deceit was confirmed.

Since that time, scientists have searched for a truth tool more reliable than Uncle Ben’s—one that can separate fibs from facts with the push of a button. Such a device could slash trial length, aid job screeners and protect borders. The person to fashion this magical instrument—as precise as DNA, and far more applicable—would shift the entire landscape of forensic discovery. It could create a gap in the dictionary between “periwinkle” and “perk,” where “perjury” once stood, and a crater in the TV Guide, where “CSI” and all its spin-offs once reigned supreme.

But each advance in the field of lie detection has met with a hitch. Polygraph machines have drawn considerable scientific scrutiny and remain inadmissible in courtrooms. Functional imaging has pinpointed which areas of the brain become active when people lie, but the results are based on group averages and become less accurate when a single person is tested. Even people with incredibly accurate facial analysis skills, so-called lie detection “wizards,” were called into question last month in the journal Law and Human Behavior.

What follows is an overview of the long and continued struggle to find the perfect lie detector.

The Polygraph

In the early 20th century, Harvard psychologist William Mouton Marston created his “systolic blood pressure test,” more commonly known as the polygraph machine. Marston’s hodgepodge of gizmos included a rubber tube and a sphygmomanometer—that childhood favorite the pediatrician wraps around a bicep and inflates with each squeeze of an egg-shaped ball. Polygraph 101 is clear enough: a person has typical levels of heart-rate, respiration and blood pressure when answering a basic question like “Is it true you live at 520 Elm Street?” If these levels remain the same during questions such as “Did you kill Jane Doe?” then the person is telling the truth. If not, he or she is lying.

Despite its reputation as the default lie detector, the polygraph has never received much credibility. In 1922, a federal judge ruled that Marston’s device could not be used in a murder case; it did not hold “general acceptance” among the scientific community, wrote Justice Josiah Alexander Van Orsdel of the United States Court of Appeals. This decision, known as the “Frye standard,” has essentially kept the polygraph out of courtrooms ever since.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences orchestrated a massive review of the polygraph. The Academy concluded that the tool was not consistent enough to be used as a screening device when hiring national security employees. The physiological responses measured by the machine can be the result of many factors other than lying, including mere nervousness.

“There are many people who will speak in favor of the polygraph,” says William Iacono, who is a professor of psychology and law at the University of Minnesota. “The argument is, if the government uses it 100,000 times a year, how can it be so wrong? The reason they believe it is because of the nature of the feedback they get. Occasionally, people fail the test and they’re asked to confess, and they do. But if a guilty person passes, he doesn’t turn around on his way out and say: ‘Hey, I really did it.’ They never learn of their errors, so they don’t think there are any errors.”

In the end, Marston’s reputation made out better than that of his machine; he went on to earn fame as the creator of Wonder Woman.

Jaffe goes on to discuss the Guilty Knowledge Test, P300, fMRI, and so-called lie detection “wizards.”

Department of Defense Polygraph Program Gets Makeover

Steven Aftergood reports in the Federation of American Scientists’ Secrecy News newsletter & blog that on 25 January 2007, the Department of Defense issued a new directive governing polygraph policy:

The Department of Defense has revised and supplemented its polygraph program to include non-polygraph techniques for detecting deception.

A new Pentagon directive (pdf) introduces the term “Credibility Assessment (CA),” which refers to “The multi-disciplinary field of existing as well as potential techniques and procedures to assess truthfulness that relies on physiological reactions and behavioral measures to test the agreement between an individual’s memories and statements.”

The new directive also transfers the polygraph program from the Defense Security Service to the secretive DoD Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). The program will be overseen by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

Eleven military and defense intelligence organizations listed in the directive are authorized to conduct polygraph and credibility assessment examinations.

The reliability of polygraph testing for employee screening is widely disputed on scientific grounds. But many government security officials nevertheless insist on its value and utility, and the practice persists.

See “Polygraph and Credibility Assessment Program,” Department of Defense Directive 5210.48, January 25, 2007.

Significantly, the new directive tightens control over DoD agencies’ use of any “credibility assessment” technology other than the polygraph. This seems a likely reaction to the post-9/11 debacle wherein some DoD components began using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) to interrogate prisoners. The manufacturer of this quack device, the so-called “National Institute of Truth Verification,” has admitted in court that CVSA “is not capable of lie detection,” and the company was recently the subject of an ABC News exposé. DoD eventually put an end to its use of CVSA. The new directive ensures that henceforward, DoD agencies will use only officially approved pseudoscientific techniques for “credibility assessment” purposes.

The new directive also changes the name of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI) to the “Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment” (DACA). At the time of this writing, the DoDPI website has not yet been updated to reflect this change.

Holocaust Denier Who Assaulted Elie Wiesel Demands He Submit to Lie Detector Test

The man who allegedly assaulted Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel in a San Francisco hotel elevator is demanding that the latter submit to a polygraph test. The San Francisco Examiner reports on the incident in an article titled, “Nobel laureate accosted at peace conference.” Excerpt:

SAN FRANCISCO – In a bizarre attack, a well-known author and Holocaust scholar was dragged out of a San Francisco hotel elevator by an apparent Holocaust denier who reportedly had been trailing him for weeks.

Police escorted Elie Wiesel to San Francisco International Airport on Feb. 1 after a man accosted Wiesel in the elevator at the Argent Hotel, at 50 Third St., after Wiesel participated in a panel discussion at a peace conference and before Wiesel was scheduled to catch a flight back to New York.

Police confirmed this week that the attack took place and that officers escorted Wiesel to the airport following the attack. According to police, the suspect accosted Wiesel in the hotel elevator at around 6:30 p.m., saying he wanted to interview him. Wiesel said he would do the interview in the lobby. That’s when the attacker pulled him out of the elevator, police reported.

In a posting Tuesday on the anti-Zionist Web site ZioPedia, a writer using the name Eric Hunt takes credit for the attack: “After ensuring no women would be traumatized by what I had to do (I had been trailing Wiesel for weeks), I stopped the elevator at the sixth floor. I pulled Wiesel out of the elevator. I said I wanted to interview him.”

Wiesel grabbed at his chest and yelled for help, according to the posting. “I told him, ‘Why don’t you want people to know the truth?’ His expression changed, and he began screaming again. …” the posting reads. Police reported that the suspect tried to force Wiesel into one of the rooms, but ran away when Wiesel started yelling.

The online posting states that the writer intended to “bring Wiesel to my hotel room where he would truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his non-fiction Holocaust memoir, Night, is almost entirely fictitious.” Later in the posting, the Holocaust is portrayed as a “myth.”

The ZioPedia posting referred to in the Examiner article, titled “Elie Wiesel and the ‘Big Lie’,” concludes with the bizarre demand that Wiesel submit to a lie detector test:

I demand that “Holocaust Survivor” Elie Wiesel submit to a videotaped polygraph test using questions prepared by French Professor Faurisson, who was nearly beaten to death by the Jewish mafia. Wiesel has most likely fled to the Zionist entity, their criminal command center for their “New World Order” in the geographical center of north, south, east, and west. Every hour Wiesel refuses to take a lie detector test is the hour it takes to read “Night.”

Every adult should walk into any public high school and demand to read a copy of the book their children are being brainwashed with. Read it and decide for yourself.

Any excuse Wiesel creates for refusing to take a lie detector test should be taken as an admission of guilt.

Almost the entirety of white people are completely brainwashed. Even if you believe six million Jews were thrown alive into ovens and gassed in showers by Germans “just following orders”, you should demand Wiesel submit to a lie detector test.

How ironic that one who denies the well-documented Nazi genocide of European Jews so readily credits the lie detector, a bogus technology roundly rejected by the scientific community.

New Book: The Lie Detectors by Ken Alder

The Lie DetectorsNorthwest University professor of history Ken Alder has authored a history of polygraphy. The Lie Detectors: History of an American Obsession (Free Press, 2007) will become available on 6 March 2007. An excerpt is available here. Alder will be conducting a book tour currently scheduled for the following cities and dates: New York, NY (6 March); Washington, DC (8 March); Denver, CO (12 March); Seattle, WA (14 March); San Francisco, CA (15 March).

The following is excerpted from a press release from the publisher received by AntiPolygraph.org:

Over the course of the past eighty years, lie detection, one of America’s most hyped forensic techniques, has been dismissed time and again as pseudo-science. Yet it lives on, fueled by a public image born not in the laboratory, but in newspapers, film, TV and politics. In The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession (Free Press; On sale date: March 6, 2007; $27.00), critically-acclaimed author Ken Alder exposes the history of an invention that succeeds because of the public’s belief in it its effectiveness, an image of infallibility that has been cultivated since the 1920s, when the press first coined the term “lie detector.” The result is a noir journey into the heart of America’s belief in truth, justice, and science.

Alder takes us inside the lives of the men who made the search for the truth their life’s work, an obsession that ultimately ruined them. Lie detection was far from a new idea in the 1920s when John Larson, the nation’s first cop with a PhD, began experimenting on the relationship between physiology and lying, but he was the first to develop a machine that could be incorporated into police interrogation. It is telling that the first crime “solved” by the lie detector exemplified the secret of the machine’s success—the lie detector itself did not have to solve the crime. Unexpectedly, the apparently guilty party collapsed under the emotional stress of the ordeal, and confessed. So began Larson’s life-long scientific quest to expose the truth, and the public’s obsession with the lie detector: a device that the press glorified as an incorruptible, objective instrument of justice.

In vivid detail, Alder transports the reader to Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Chicago during an age when nothing sold papers like tales of true crime. His book recreates the famous and infamous cases of the day in which the lie detector played a starring role. As Larson tested everyone—from burglars, bootleggers, and murderers to musicians, housewives, and students—the machine became whatever the circumstances called for: a police tool, a marriage counselor, a priest. For Chief August Vollmer, the nation’s most famous police officer, the lie detector was a chance to enforce the law without resorting to brutality. It was Vollmer who introduced Larson to young Leonarde Keeler, a collaboration that would determine lie detector’s fate.
Ironically, working on the lie detector bred mistrust. It was not long before Larson regretted taking Keeler under his wing, as he watched his student transform his inquiry into the human psyche into a purely commercial venture. Their relationship further deteriorated when Keeler began to use the machine as a kind of psychological third degree that Larson likened to torture. Keeler touted the machine as infallible, cultivating the public myth of the lie detector’s effectiveness. Larson, meanwhile, became obsessed with individual cases, forever fretting as to whether he’d definitively solved each one. In the end, the lie detector even controlled both men’s personal lives; both married women they met while interrogating them on the machine.

Although the polygraph flourished in the world of police investigation, it faced a crucial obstacle that went to the heart of its credibility. In 1923, in a ruling that set a legal precedent for the next seventy years, the lie detector was deemed inadmissible in court because it had not gained acceptance in the scientific community. Denied access to the legal arena, Keeler brought the lie detector into the business world, and millions of American employees were soon being obliged to undergo fidelity checks. Keeler later pioneered the government’s adoption of the polygraph, testing German POWs during WW II and using the device to safeguard the secrets of U.S. nuclear technology.
While the lie detector thrived, the men behind the machine suffered. In an ironic twist, Keeler’s marriage dissolved in mistrust: the creator of the detector was blind to his own wife’s infidelity. Her betrayal confirmed Keeler’s view of the world as corrupt, and he spent his last years philandering and drinking until his death at the age of 45. While Keeler had conceived of the lie detector as a mechanical god that condemned the guilty and absolved the innocent, for Larson, it had become a kind of Frankenstein’s monster. Larson came to believe that his innovation had been misused, and that the young man he had trained had betrayed their common purpose. He died of a heart attack at the age of 74 knowing that his name and scientific aspirations would be forgotten, but that the monster he had created would live on.

Live on it did, as the U.S. government became the world’s largest user of the lie detector. Keeler’s work during WWII paved the road for the CIA to begin using the machine during the Cold War. It became a prop of political theater during the era of McCarthyism, an arena in which it still thrives today. And just when it seemed that the era of the polygraph might be drawing to a close, September 11th renewed interest in the technique to protect homeland security, and spurred an effort to develop new techniques that could peer directly into the duplicitous brain. Apparently, America still dreams of a science that will render human beings transparent.

A gripping tale of doubt and truth, The Lie Detectors offers a unique window into the American soul, illuminating our values and beliefs.

Symposium Casts Doubt on fMRI “Lie Detection”

Emily Singer reports for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review in “Imaging Deception in the Brain” (Wed., 7 Feb. 2007). Excerpt:

Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable, yet thousands of employers, attorneys, and law-enforcement officials use them routinely. Could an alternative system using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technology that indirectly measures brain activity, better detect deceit? The U.S. government is certainly interested–it’s funding research in the area–and two companies have already sprung up to commercialize this use of fMRI. But a recent scientific symposium concluded that little evidence exists to suggest that fMRI can accurately detect lies under real-life circumstances. Scientists who attended the symposium worried that this new generation of lie detectors will follow the path of the polygraph–a widely used technology with little scientific support and broad potential to do harm.

“As we move forward, we don’t want to make the same mistakes as with the polygraph,” said Marcus Raichle, a neuroscientist at Washington University Medical School, in St. Louis, and a speaker on the panel, which was sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an independent policy research center in Cambridge, MA. He emphasized that, like the physiological changes monitored during polygraphs, the brain-activity patterns measured during fMRI are not specific to deception, making it challenging to identify a brain pattern that definitively identifies a lie.

“The great danger is that something like fMRI is adopted as a means of lie detection and becomes the standard before it has been scientifically evaluated for this purpose,” says Raichle in an e-mail written after the symposium. “The federal government does [approximately] 40,000 polygraphs a year, and I have heard speculation that as much as 10 times that amount may be being used in the private sector. If these numbers are anything like the real circumstance, then to have fMRI take over such an agenda prematurely would be very bad indeed.”

Classic CBS 60 Minutes Exposé on the Polygraph

In this 1986 exposé of the polygraph trade, CBS 60 Minutes set up a test in which three polygraph examiners chosen at random from the New York telephone directory were asked to administer polygraph examinations to four different employees of the CBS-owned magazine, Popular Photography, regarding the theft of a camera and lens. In fact, no theft had occurred.

Each polygrapher was told that a different employee was suspected as the likely culprit. In each case, the polygrapher found the person who had been fingered to be deceptive.

(The following video is 38 mb in size and may take some time to load)

Continue reading ‘Classic CBS 60 Minutes Exposé on the Polygraph’ »