Woodland Hills, CA, /PRNewswire/ -- "Almost no human being can beat a polygraph test," says Dr. Louis Rovner, a noted psychologist and polygraph expert in California. In fact, lie detection technology has become so sophisticated that a polygraph can now detect a person's efforts to try to beat the test.
In a recent Deputy Sheriff Magazine article, Dr. Rovner writes that there are several books and pamphlets available on the Internet which claim to teach people how to beat a polygraph test. None of these, he says, can do what they claim.
Dr. Rovner feels that the idea of beating a polygraph test after reading a short book is absurd. "This is about the same as saying that you will be able to perform a Beethoven Piano Concerto at Carnegie Hall by simply reading a book about piano playing." The interplay between the sophisticated technology of the polygraph, the experience of the examiner, and the involuntary physiological reactions of the subject is so complex that almost no one can look truthful on the polygraph when he is actually lying.
"Beating the polygraph," says Rovner, "is impossible for most people." The polygraph is a scientific instrument which records physiological changes in our bodies. Polygraph examiners are trained to look for subtle abnormalities in these changes as a person answers a series of questions. The changes are involuntary reactions that occur in our bodies when we are not being truthful. "In order to beat the test," he says, "a person must use his central nervous system to override the involuntary activity of the autonomic nervous system, and he must do it on cue." Given the anxiety of a typically polygraph subject, it is extremely unlikely that anyone could successfully fool the polygraph.
Scientific research into polygraph accuracy has been going on for more than 40 years. "Overall," says Dr. Rovner, "we are confident that polygraph tests have a 96% accuracy rate when done properly." That statement is backed up by hundreds of research studies and experiments. Rovner's own published research shows that people cannot beat a polygraph test simply by reading about it.
Source: Rovner & Associates
Jussie Smollett, by all accounts a fine actor, has done the unthinkable. He went sobbingly on TV to present himself, especially to the intersectionality of African-Americans and LGBT individuals (he being both), as a defenseless victim.
For whatever reason, he pointed his finger at two "violent" men whom, he complained to the police, violently attacked him one night, last month in Chicago in a racist, homophobic rant. A "hate crime" if ever you saw one!
And now, based on their accounts, it appears that Smollett may be the true wrongdoer, not them.
It appears to be a set up, presumably designed to present Smollett as a very public victim, for reasons still unknown; and who would want to speculate about the reasons given how the story has so radically turned? The result? The police un-arrested the two men and decided to re-interview the "victim" - or should we call him the accuser? Now, Smollett's role in this mess is his own doing, but what about his lawyers? This cannot be an easy time for them.
After there was considerable public speculation that Smollett's account was false, Smollett's lawyers made a supportively public statement sticking to his original "victim" account, and maintaining that the accusations of a false report by him were just false. In other words, Smollett's lawyers backed his story. Surely, a zealous lawyer is ethically entitled to believe and act on his client's account by making a public statement on the client's behalf even in the face of compelling evidence against it. And counsel may also rely on his client's account to him even if he himself doesn't really believe it. Of course, the wisdom, strategically, of making a public statement supporting the client's account after the worm has turned so publicly and unfavorably is another story. A lawyer's duty is to at least try to talk the client out of doing something stupid.
But what's a lawyer to do when the evidence is piling up and the police want to re-interview the client? Yes, the trusting lawyer can bring the client for the interview even if he doesn't believe the client, as long as the client has consistently denied to him the scam. But any competent lawyer would know that an interview will likely make the situation worse for the client. The police will simply have far more information - not to mention the accounts of the two alleged "confederates" - than when, at intake, the client presented himself as a handkerchief-toting, sympathetic victim adorned with bruises occasioned by the alleged assault.
Now, some lawyers will ask the client to take a "private," privileged lie detector examination given confidentially by a polygraph expert retained by counsel. If the result is favorable, they will tell and give the exonerating results to the police. If bad, the result will, appropriately and consistent with the attorney-privilege, never see the light of day.
But short of a favorable polygraph, "bringing the client in" would likely be a dreadful mistake. Yes, there will be a price to be paid for declining a police re-interview or refusing to testify before a grand jury if such a request eventuates. The public will invariably learn of such a declination from a leak - especially when the police believe they've been hosed. But if Smollett is ultimately charged, to have engaged in a second series of lies will only have made the situation worse.
And that's really where the lawyer's obligations and strengths come into play. Telling a client - even a client who wants to stick to his increasingly bizarre story for those who continue to be his wide-eyed public (despite mounting evidence against him) - that he needs to stand down may be the hardest job a lawyer will face. That will be the test of how good the lawyers really are. This especially when a refusal to be re-interviewed is, it appears, likely to lead to Smollett's potential arrest - no judgment intended - for having made a false report, at a time when such false reports sorely undermine serious hate crime complaints by others made in good faith. (By the way, it seems that Smollett may have new lawyers, and it's not hard to imagine why).
Indeed, it seems, the only worthwhile reason to bring the client to the police for a re-interview is if the client - willing to bite the bullet, after having acknowledged to his lawyers the fact of his false complaint - recognizes that a remorseful admission to the police (and to the public at large) will be the path of least resistance, and the path resulting in the least amount of pain for him going forward. A hard job indeed for the lawyer, and a place where he really earns his keep (once he really knows what happened).
RIBGY - All charges have been dismissed against a Rigby man accused of sexually abusing a minor. Ryan Leon Grover was charged over a year ago, but earlier this year Grover voluntarily submitted to a polygraph test administered by law enforcement. Court documents show he passed the polygraph test.
As a result of the test and "other factual issues in the case," the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office decided to dismiss three counts of lewd conduct with a child under 16, according to court documents. Prosecutors felt the evidence gave them cause to doubt Grover's participation in the alleged crime. The charges against Grover were dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors can refile charges in the future.
The teenager who accused Grover was forensically interviewed at the Rexburg Family Crisis Center where she told authorities about the alleged assaults. The accuser said Grover had sexual intercourse with her multiple times over the course of several months. She was 14 at the time of the alleged incidents, which reportedly started in October 2016.
President Trump's slam of the "coward" that wrote a scathing New York Times op-ed has been met with a call for all top aides to undergo a lie detector test. Less than an hour after the president and his top staff slammed the nameless "senior official" who said the president is need of hand-holding on policy decisions, the group Americans for Limited Government suggested the polygraph testing.
In a statement, the group's president Rick Manning said, "Every single person within the White House, starting with the National Security Council staff, should be polygraphed and anyone who fails or refuses to take a lie detector should be shown the door. It is that simple. It is time to rid the White House of the vermin who joined the administration with a goal of undermining it."
The administration has been saddled with critics, many left over from the Obama administration. The Times did not indicate when the anonymous critic was hired.
Senator Rand Paul, longtime proponent of smaller government, suggested Thursday that a good response to as anonymous whistleblower within the Trump Administration would be to administer lie detector tests to everyone with a security clearance in the White House. Echoing Trump's own assertion that the individual should be turned over to the government, Paul declared it a matter of national security and hinted that sharing this information about one's own work in the White House could be illegal.
CNN quoted Rand Paul on Thursday, a day after an op-ed from an anonymous Trump Administration official declared him immoral and a danger to the nation. Paul's quote suggests a lie detector and urges the Trump Administration to determine who shared the unofficial policy of fighting the president's whims and impulses.
I think it's not unprecedented for people with security clearances to be asked to whether or not they were revealing things against the law under oath and also by lie detector. We use a lie detector test routinely for CIA agents and FBI agents. I think if you have a security clearance in the White House I think it would be acceptable to use a lie detector test and ask people whether they are talking to the media against the policy of the White House. This could be very dangerous if the person who is talking to the media is actually revealing national security secrets so yes, I think we need to get to the bottom of it.
Trump himself has said that the individual's identity must be revealed and the writer must be turned over to the government for national security purposes. It's not the first time that Rand Paul has recommended a polygraph test for the purposes of rooting out dissidents, either. Last year, when transcripts showing Michael Flynn's contact with Russia were leaked publicly, Paul suggested the same route. Speaking on ABC's This Week, Paul said that anyone who had access to the information should be subjected to a lie detector test.
There can only be a certain handful of people who did that. I would bring them all in. They would have to take lie detector tests.
A series of amendments Rand Paul proposed to the Patriot Act in 2015, that remain listed on his campaign website even now, include expanding protections for whistleblowers. Specifically, Paul stated that he would prohibit "professional retaliation" against whistleblowers. On the other hand, speaking to Reason magazine, he said there should be a punishment for revealing information publicly. However, he tempered this, suggesting that if the leaked information revealed a crime, the guilty party should also face consequences.
TORRINGTON - The focus of an investigation into allegations of abuse of an 11-month-old child in the care of Little Bears Daycare has shifted from daycare owner Jennifer Murphy.
According to a press release from the Torrington Police Department, Murphy took and passed a polygraph regarding her involvement. According to the TPD release, Murphy "showed no deception" concerning any knowledge of injuries the child sustained.
The investigation "will now focus on the cooperation of the parents of the 11-month-old child," the release concluded.
CONVERSE, Ind. - A Grant County teacher is no longer facing a child seduction charge following a polygraph test. Hueston was arrested on that charge in February after a 16-year-old girl accused him of fondling and touching her in the summer of 2016. Prosecutors say Hueston denied the charge and pleaded not guilty.
State police later administered a lie detector test that found that Hueston "truthfully answered the relevant question." The results of the test led prosecutors to drop the charge Tuesday.
"We were convinced that we could never carry our burden of proof in the case," said a prosecutor. "Therefore, the only reasonable and correct course of action was to dismiss the charge." Prosecutors say they do not plan on charging the teen with false reporting since there is no evidence that they have seen to prove that she lied to police.
"By itself, the polygraph examination report is not proof that the child lied," said a prosecutor. "Of course, the polygraph result is not admissible in any trial other than Mr. Hueston's trial."
Hueston was placed on administrative leave from Oak Hill High School as a result of his arrest. It's unclear at this time if or when he will be reinstated. The Oak Hill United School Corporation says it is aware that Hueston's charge has been dropped. That information will be considered at a school board meeting in June.