Subject: Re: Woody and Mia

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:51:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>
>  Woody Allen passed his lie detector test. When will Mia submit to one?
>

Her attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who usually represents folks on the other
side in such cases and who has written articles for Playboy and
Penthouse and many law journals, knows better than to have her take one.
This is why:

	"Lie detector tests do not indicate whether or not a person is
         telling the truth."
		- Aaron Hoffmeyer

You see, a lie detector machine is a fairly simple electromechanical
device that monitors pulse, respiration, blood pressure and
electro-chemical changes at the surface of the skin.  None of these
things is a measure of truth.  The way the test has been sold to the
populace and especially all these technical wizards in the legal
profession is by telling them that people with a conscience react
physically when they tell lies.  It's like this:  they assume that I
will not react physically when I tell the truth.  Why should I?  If you
ask me my name and I say, "Aaron Hoffmeyer," there is nothing for me to
be upset about.  That IS my name.  But, they also assume that when they
ask me a question they want to know the answer to, if I am lying, I
will react physically if I tell a lie.  But that is a very wrong
assumption.

Here's why.  If I have been accused of something morally repugnant, or
even worse, something illegal and disgusting, I will probably be pretty
upset about that allegation - whether I am guilty of it or not.  But
let's assume for a second that I am not guilty of the allegation.  When
they give me a lie detector test, I answer all the control questions
(the questions for which they already know the answers) and they are no
big thing - and I don't react to them.  But all of a sudden - BLAM -
DOOSSHHZ!! - they ask me something like, "Did you ever put your son's
penis in your mouth?"  What a morally repugnant question!  My heartbeat
rate increases - temporarily, my blood pressure goes up - temporarily,
my respiration rate goes up - temporarily, electrochemical changes take
place at an increased rate at the surface of my skin - temporarily, and
the person reading the output of such a machine looks at all the
squiggly lines and tells me I'm lying.  (There are many variations on
this: examiner harassing the examinee, examiner misreading the results,
claustrophobia, anxiety attacks, nicotine fits - many possible reasons
for false positives for lying.)

Let's assume that I'm guilty.  Let's assume there are allegations that
I coached my children to make false allegations of child sexual abuse
against my spouse.  Let's also assume that I knew I would be given the
third degree over the allegations and that I have prepared for the lie
detector test.  I know how the questioning works, I know how the
machine works.  When they ask the control questions, I think about
killing baby ducks, aborted fetuses lying in a bucket, children getting
hit by cars - whatever.  To these control questions, the output of the
machine shows that my breathing, pulse and blood pressure are all
moderately high.  My skin is slightly perspiring and is a cornucopia of
electrochemical changes.  Now, when they ask me if I coached my
children, I say, "No," and they get pretty much the same response as
they did to the control questions.  The examiner finishes the test and
tells me it looks as though I was telling the truth.  (There are many
variations on this: tack in shoe to press down on for control questions,
biting the tongue for control questions, no conscience for examinee,
effects of hang-over from previous night's drinking binge - many possible
reasons for false positives for telling the truth.)

So, both of those scenarios, more common than you might think, amount to
one major ruse of the lie detector "test" - it doesn't accurately
indicate whether or not a person is telling the truth or lying.  In
fact, I've heard that as many as 50% of the positive results were false
and as many as 50% of the negative results were false.  In other words,
the test may be wrong 50% of the time - in either direction.  That's why
they are not admissable in court.

But that is only half of the tale of woe of lie detector tests.  The
other half of the story is this:  you can select and pay an examiner to
produce the desired results.  Again, I'll give a couple of examples.
The first involves a local examiner, most of the local attorneys know
this person (John Carroll).  He is known for getting people to confess
during the examinations.  Defense attorneys, who have a moral
obligation to society to make sure that their clients are convicted of
something if they are guilty, will send their clients to this person to
get a confession out of them.  This man harasses the examinees, tells
them the results of the questions indicate they are lying, why don't
they just confess, all during the test.  Many times they are guilty and
often he gets confessions out of them.  That gives the attorneys a good
understanding of who they have for clients and how they can best
represent them.  Then they can recommend that the client plead to a
lesser charge, try to rehabilitate themselves during their
incarceration, and make sure they get all the breaks possible, but also
make sure they do some jail time - if the offense warrants it.

The second example is a generic one.  Suppose someone has been accused
of something, and they really did it.  But what they did is not all
that heinous.  And this person has money - major, big-time money, and a
very crafty lawyer with a myriad of connections.  This attorney sends
this person to a "good" examiner.  This examiner instructs this person
how the test works - in great detail (after the attorney has referred
the accused to many books on the subject and has given the accused
ample preparation).  The examiner takes his time with the test, gives
the accused plenty of time to respond, let's the accused mentally
prepare for every question.  Even though the accused is really guilty,
the test says they are not.

The lie detector test is a game.  It has no more to do with the truth
than determining whether or not a person can look you in the eye when
they tell you something.  It is voodoo.  It is like using a divining
rod to find water, or sticking pins in a doll to hurt someone.

So, Woody passed one.  I'm sure Jan Martin Obten sent him to a "good"
examiner.  Alan Dershowitz, Mia's attorney, realizes that Mia would be
under the gun if she took such a test now, and she could very well
fail, whether she is lying or not (See COIN TOSS).  So, he has
protected his client's interests to date, and kept her from taking such
a test.

You see, centuries ago, women used to get accused of being witches all
the time.  Probably for no more reason than some monks put the word
"witch" in the Bible around 600 years ago - in statements like, "No man
shall suffer under the power of a witch."  Well, to figurativists, that
could mean that all witches could be and should be killed.  But how do
you tell if a woman is a witch?  Create some tests, of course.
Everyone knows that witches are evil, supernatural beings, supernatural
beings are not of this earth, they are not made of matter etc.  So,
using deductive reasoning, one can conclude that, if we threw a woman
out of a boat in the middle of a lake, if she was a witch, and not made
of matter, the water will reject her, and she will float on or above
the surface, or maybe even melt.  If that happens, then she should be
burned at the stake.  However, if she is not a witch, but is made of
matter and is not a supernatural being, the water will accept her body
and she will be absorded into its depths.

Pretty good test.

Oh, there were other ways of telling if someone was a witch or a
warlock.  They might pour molten metal or scalding water over the
accused's body.  If the accused didn't burn, he or she was a witch or
warlock.

Several hundred years ago, the belief was that a witch could use her
supernatural powers to make someone go into convulsions.  Well, a few
girls got together and starting acting especially weird (for Puritans)
and when confronted, rather than admit they were acting weird and get
in trouble for it, they claimed to be possessed by witches.
Immediately, the hunt was out for the witches.  I forget how many
witches ended up being crushed by rocks or hanged or drawn and
quartered, the numbers 19, 32 and 100 come to mind.  I think 32 were
killed and over 100 women were imprisoned as witches (19 was how old I
was the first time I rode a horse bareback sitting behind a girl).  You
see, the burden of proof back then was for these witches to prove,
clearly and convincingly, that they weren't witches, and they didn't
have a receptive audience.

Today, in 25% of custody disputed divorce cases, according to USA
Today, August 25, 1992, women make allegations against the father of
sexually molesting the children.  According to Wakefield and Underwager
(1991), 80% of these allegations are blatantly false and 75% of the
mothers making such allegations are borderline psychotic
personalities.  There is an epidemic of false allegations.  Kind of a
"hysteria."  Kind of the same word that we now use to describe what
happened in Salem, Massachusetts some 300 years ago.

The lie detector test is just the scalding hot water, or sink-or-swim
test of the late 20th century.

Suppose Woody had failed that test.  1)  His attorney would not have
disclosed it.  2) His attorney would have taught him how to pass it. 3)
His attorney would have sent him to someone else to take another one.
(Go back to beginning of paragraph and repeat until he passes).

What if word got out that Woody failed his test.  Now, would everyone
just automatically assume that he was guilty?  Even after I've told you
how the test works and that it is no more accurate than flipping a coin,
you would believe that he was guilty?  Or how about this?  Suppose he
failed the first one, but passed a second one?  Which one is the ONE?

Or how about this?  If he cannot prove that he DIDN'T do it, to protect
the children, we should assume that he did do it.  He should not get
custody and he should not be allowed near the children without a
professional or quasi-professional of the mental health industry
present as a supervisor.   Woody can easily afford Jane social worker
for a few hours a week.  Mia, because no one has accused her of doing
anything any more heinous than talking to her children about what Woody
might or might not have done to them (even if she might have asked a
lot of leading and accusing questions and even if she was videotaping
the whole thing), should be absolved of all guilt, unless Woody can
prove, via clear and convincing evidence, that she coached the children
to maliciously make such allegations.  Unless that happens, she should
get sole custody.  After all, she is the little dears' mother.

What?  That doesn't sound kosher to you?  Well, that's pretty much how
these cases are handled and how they have been concluded for the last
15 years.  Surely you don't think the legal profession has dropped the
ball on such an important issue and, by making such biased
assumptions, have actually encouraged such allegations?  Nahhhh.
That's not possible.  Not our legal system.  We have the best legal
system money can buy.

Personally, I believe that if we cut off Woody's skin and he still
lives, then he is supernatural, evil, and probably abused his
children.  However, if he dies, he was probably a simple human, was not
evil, and was not guilty of anything.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[email-masked]