Polygraph Report: Third Lacrosse Player Not Lying

[IndianaGreen]

Polygraph Report

Polygraph Report: Third Lacrosse Player Not Lying

POSTED: 7:46 pm EDT May 16, 2006
UPDATED: 8:02 pm EDT May 16, 2006

NBC17 obtained a copy of the polygraph, which was administered by Robert J. Drdak, a former senior FBI polygraphist with 28 years of experience. According to the document, Evans is telling the truth.

Below are the questions Evans answered:

Q: On March 13 or 14 at the lacrosse party, did you physically assault the accuser?
A: No.

Q: On March 13 or 14 at the lacrosse party, did you sexually assault the accuser?
A: No.

Q: On March 13 or14 at the lacrosse party, did you actively participate in a sexual assault of the accuser?
A: No.

In his report on the polygraph, Drdak said Evans scored well within the "non-deceptive" range and, in his opinion, was being truthfully.

It's important to note, however, that the polygraph test is not admissible in court.

Evans said he asked both the Durham police and District Attorney Mike Nifong for a polygaph before having one done on his own and both refused. He also said he asked the D.A. to meet with him to look at other evidence in the case he believes would prove his innocence. According to Evans, Nifong refused that offer as well.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9228137/detail.html

[FreakinDJ]

1. See I told you all

How could the DA be so irresponsible and derelict in his duties not to properly investigate the incident?

The student assisted the police in gathering evidence in the house on the morning the incident was investigated.

He went down to the police station with the other 2 residents of the house and gave statements to police WITHOUT an attorney present.

They even offered to take polygraph test to Nifong when they gave their statements

[benburch]

2. A polygraph never registers deception if you are a sociopath.

And is about as useful as a Magic 8 Ball.

[IndianaGreen]

5. So in addition to being a master of disguise, Evans is now a sociopath?

Other developments:

Lawyers also filed paperwork to further authenticate what they contend is an iron-clad alibi for Seligmann: an affidavit from a Wachovia vice president indicating Seligmann used an ATM during the only time -- according to the defense team -- that a rape could have occurred.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735102.html

Defense team wants rape evidence quickly

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun

May 15, 2006 : 10:56 pm ET

DURHAM -- Lawyers for accused Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann want a judge to hold hearings Thursday on whether to compel police and prosecutors to turn over the evidence they've compiled while investigating the alleged gang rape.

The motions have to be heard now because there's a risk that evidence that could exonerate Seligmann "will spoil if not preserved properly," lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner said. They said that could happen due to political pressure Durham officials might be putting on investigators

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735122.html

David Evans' background lacrosse-filled

BY BRYAN STRICKLAND : The Herald-Sun

May 15, 2006 : 11:02 pm ET

DURHAM -- David Evans came to Duke University from a prep program known for producing lacrosse leaders. Landon School in Bethesda, Md., a suburb of Washington, went 56-2 over Evans' three varsity seasons, including a pair of mythical national championships based on national polls.

"David was an outstanding member of our school community," Landon headmaster David M. Armstrong said in a statement released by the school Monday. "The allegations coming from Durham today are inconsistent with the character of the young man who attended our school, and they stand in stark contrast to the principles of honor and civility that are central to our school."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735123.html

[bettyellen]

7. c'mon now indy. you know better than to put stock in a coached polygraph

best results money can buy. that's WHY there not admissible in any court.

[IndianaGreen]

9. You got any evidence it was coached?

If you do, go ahead and post it!

[FreakinDJ]

13. Kool Aid theories polygraph was coached

They have no links no evidence, they just want to slander the students

[IndianaGreen]

17. and smear a respected expert polygrapher and ex-FBI agent, Robert J. Drdak

whose contributions are acknowledged in the following FBI article:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2003/podlesny.htm

[TheWraith]

16. Actually, no.

The point about the claim of being coached has already been noted. About admissibility... the reason that there's no national standard for polygraph tests being admissible in court--bear in mind that they ARE admissible depending on the local laws--is because they vary according to the skill and knowledge of the tester. It's not a red light for lie, green light for truth system. It can't be done by an amateur, and it's doesn't produce a perfectly clear cut result. DNA is either a match or not. Fingerprints are either a match, or not. A polygraph isn't as precise as those things. That's why it's not treated the same way as other evidence.

[FreakinDJ]

19. Did you hear the sound clip of Ed's show

That kid sounded pretty frustrated for having fully cooperated with Nifong and the police in the investigation.

Giving statements without the presence of an attorney
Assisting the police in collection of evidence in the house
Offering to Nifong to undergo a polygraph test

Not really the actions of guilty men at all

Granted they have a partial DNA profile - but PARTIAL DNA is very unreliable and indicates contamination in the DNA test

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.
Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

Its starting to look more like malicious prosecution

[TheWraith]

21. I don't know about malicious.

Nifong is in a really screwed position. If he proceeds with the charges, as he appears to be doing, he's essentially playing roulette with not just the entire case, but also his own political future. A loss would screw him and upset the locals. If he drops the case for lack of evidence, people are going to be even more upset, and think that the fix was in. Basically, his only hope is to go full speed ahead on prosecuting the three guys, and see if the wheels come off somewhere along the road.

This is reason number three hundred why too much media attention is a bad thing for criminal cases. It contaminates the process, and backs people into their respective corners.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Jonna Spilbor: Keeping Score in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal

Keeping Score in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal: Why, Despite Indictments, The Defense Remains Way Ahead Of The Game
By JONNA SPILBOR
----
Friday, Apr. 28, 2006

In a prior column, I argued that this case should be dropped - highlighting the lack of any DNA evidence on the accuser's person, from any of the players on the team. In this column, I will explain why further developments have only made the defense case stronger.

The Evidence of Innocence: Strong and Clear

Let's start with the time-stamped digital camera photos. There was speculation that the time-stamps might have been altered - but defense attorneys pointed out that the time stamps matched the time shown on watches in the photos themselves, disproving that theory quite conclusively.

The key photos place the accuser on the back steps of the house where the party took place at 12:30:47 a.m. - and there again (this time with a cut on her foot) at 12:37:58 a.m. - leaving only about seven minutes for the alleged rape to have occurred. Meanwhile, other photos make clear that there was no other time frame during which the rape could have occurred.

defendants, Reade Seligmann, miles away from the home at a time when, according to the accuser, he was violating her inside the home's bathroom.

At 12:24 a.m., according to an ATM receipt, Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. Was this a clever ploy by Seligmann to create an alibi by having someone else use his card while he was raping the accuser? Hardly. A cabdriver confirms Seligmann's trip, with a friend, to the bank, and it appears phone records will show him calling an out-of-state girlfriend just after the ATM trip. The driver's account is confirmed by his log of stops. And presumably, Seligmann's friend can confirm all this, too.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html

[bettyellen]

64. actually no, they ain't admissable if done/interpeted by a skilled pro

IF he's been working with and for the defendant.
to be admissable the prosecution and defense attny would have to agree to terms PRIOR and gamble together saying whatever the outcome, it will be admitted. it's very likely they couldn't agree on the terms. that's a common stalling tactic.

[Phx_Dem]

66. It's not precise alright, it's a fraud that has been foisted on

americans for years now. The control question test is a scam, period.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Oh I see it is OK to call the students names but....

How dare anyone say any thing about the woman.

That wreaks of gender prejudice

While lie detector tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998) <1>, the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

[benburch]

27. I called nobody a name!

I am pointing out the limitations of the polygraph. It is no a scientifically valid technique.

[IndianaGreen]

29. The polygraph has been proven to be up to 98% accurate!

According to police:

Q. How accurate is a Polygraph?

A: The polygraph has been proven to be up to 98% accurate, a figure much higher than most other scientific tests. There are times when a test is termed "inconclusive," meaning that no decision is offered to determine the truthfulness of the subject. This is neither a help nor a hindrance to the subject, as many other factors can influence the Pre-testability of the subject, such as recent emotional trauma or medication.

http://www.sbpd.com/Investigations/polygraph.htm

[benburch]

30. You trust the police on ANYTHING?

I think you will find ample criticism of the polygraph if you use our good friend Google.

[IndianaGreen]

33. So now we can't trust the police?

Let's see, we can't trust the time stamp on the ATM. We can't trust the time stamp on the photos of the party, where everyone wore short sleeve shirts (remember Nifong on TV suggesting that perhaps the assailant wore long sleeves shirt as the reason for not having scratches on the students?). We can't trust the lack of DNA evidence. We can't trust the polygraph, or the polygrapher. We have a suspect that put on a fake mustache to attack the accuser, but yet, left no fibers of a fake mustache anywhere. We have wild stories about objects used in penetrating the accuser, yet there isn't any DNA evidence of the accuser in any part of the house except for the fake fingernail in the trash.

I just can't trust you guys and your endless theories without any supporting facts.

[Phx_Dem]

74. Trust the American Psychological Association

The control question test is a fraud. Not to be confused with the Guilty Knowledge test, which does work but law enforcement does not use because they can't use it to "go fishing".

[Little Star]

122. Thank You for saying that.

The operative words are 'trust police on anything'. Sometimes I wonder if I exist in a parallel universe. Has nobody heard of money can buy a rich guy anything. I say lets wait and see how this rolls out before we take sides. Man!

[bettyellen]

40. 98% SAYS the AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION!! So you like it tainted, huh?

your info- like today's test results- can't seem to come from an unbiased source, can it?
:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

43. Why did Marc Klaas take the polygraph after his daughter disappeared?

And why did the polygraph clear him of suspicion?

You are the one with no facts, only your opinions.

[bettyellen]

62. Capital crime No witness or clues, Dad is suspected because of stats only

if a victim is gone and they haven't a shred to begin an investigation with- then they are desperate enough to give a poly a shot to eliminate the knee jerk Dad / Husband/Boyfriend did it.
they'll do a poly to the whole family- to try if anyone stresses and points to Dad or Bro they'll look more in that direction.
with absolutely nothing at all to go on, they use a poly to get an idea if they should waste resources doing a wide seacrh for a kidnapping/ murder when usually it's most often dad who did it. if they can get someone whjo believes in polys, to freak out and confess, all the better.
they try to do the whole family, right away.

and if dad lawyered up, guess what? that would be very suspicous!
if he hired his own polygrapher his neighbors would probably string him up. LOL!

why don't you find a case where the fellas been IDd by a victim already, and had a month and a team of experts help... where anyone looked at the results after all that. it doens't happen. that's why you haven't googles anything relevant.

[treestar]

58. How can something that is essentially an attempt at mind reading

be 98% accurate? How is this accuracy proven?

[bettyellen]

75. experts get better results watching a person than using a polygraph

they say "UP TO 98%" - that's from the polygraph lobbying group. what's the range i wonder?

If they can maintain the idea it works, it stays useful as a tool to intimidate the guilty into a confession. and they all keep their jobs selling using the devices. no matter that a trained person can do better through observation.

[Phx_Dem]

68. The police are making shit up indianagreen. nt

[Scout]

95. "up to 98%" accurate is not good enough ... they can be beaten

by ordinary people too, not just sociopaths.

That is why they are not admissable in court.

[Dorian Gray]

45. Despite your desire to believe the victim,

which is totally understandable, as it would be inconceivable and reprehensible to make up these charges, the case doesn't look so hot for the prosecution now. They are stuck in it, and I don't see how they are going to get a guilty plea if the information available to us is made available in court. It seems that there is enough doubt as to their guilt.

As a stander-by watching the case, it is fascinating. And very sad. There really is no good outcome.

[AlienGirl]

15. It doesn't register deception at all; just physiological signs of anxiety

Sociopaths can be (and have been!) successfully caught-out on polygraphs, but only if they believed that the polygraph really was a "truth detector." Then they will feel anxiety while lying, not because it stresses them to lie, but because they fear the polygrapher is seeing through the lie.

A good polygraph interpreter can tell which questions cause stress to the person being interrogated, barring intentional cheating like the tack-in-the-shoe thing. What that stress means is sometimes not as clear--is his anxiety the result of deception, the result of fear of being accused, or the result of hearing a crime described?

The FBI polygraph people, at least, are really good at what they do.

Tucker

[Phx_Dem]

72. partly right aliengirl

There is no physiological response associated with deception. The APA did a very thorough meta analysis of polygraph research, their conclusion was that the control question test only works as an interrogative technique. When they looked at experiments where double blind conditions were used, the success rate for classification dropped to 30%!.

Edit: there is a part of the test that is called the "stim test", it's basically a magic trick to convince the examinee that the machine can spot lies. It's bull shit.

[Phx_Dem]

65. polygraph (CTT) does not register deception period. nt

[slackmaster]

84. It's also possible for a non-sociopath to beat the test

It's pretty easy to do with biofeedback techniques.

[Book Lover]

98. self-delete - dupe

[Botany]

3. Please stop it

For the love of anything you find important or holy stop it.

I want justice in that case .... and I also don't want to hear anything else about it again.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Don't watch TV or read threads about this case

and you will find inner peace.

[Jade Fox]

125. Thank you......

How nuts is it to be obsessed with something that concerns a bunch of people one doesn't even know?

[bettyellen]

6. wow, they won't be able to try this case fairly anywhere now....

because people are dumb enough to believe these results are meaningful.
these lawyers are desperate for some reason.

[IndianaGreen]

8. This is why the polygraph is significant

The polygraph is significant in that Nifong refused to give one to Evans, a rather strange thing for a prosecutor to do. While polygraphs are not admissible in court, if a suspect were to volunteer to take one given by the authorities, it puts the prosecutor in a great position. If the suspect passes the polygraph, the prosecutor can say "Look, polygraphs are not admissible in court." If the suspect fails the polygraph, the prosecutor then can trumped the fact that the suspect failed.

Nifong's conduct as prosecutor has raised many eyebrows!

BTW, polygraphs are routinely given in murder cases and child abduction cases to help lift the veil of suspicion from a suspect.

Marc Klaas, father of Polly Klaas, took a polygraph!

Polly Klaas (AP)

As was standard in such cases, both Eve Nichol and her ex-husband, Polly’s father, Marc Klaas, took polygraph tests. Both were ruled out as suspects.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/klaas/3.html

[FreakinDJ]

11. Polygraph test are commonly used by police

The only question is why Nifong refused to administer test to the students when they first started to investigate this case

Admissibility - Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation.
http://www.truthorlie.com/admissible.html

While lie detector tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998) <1>, the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

[bettyellen]

12. if it wouldn't help him in court, and they are so very unreliable (min 20%

why would he want it?
and why would he want to do it on the defense attorney's terms? as we see tonight, the lawyer is capable of some nasty dealings. for all we know, this offer was made last week, after the kid had a month to rehearse with his FBI coach.
if that lawyers worth his fee, he wouldn't let ever the suspect test without knowing the outcome.
the results leaked to the news are tainted, and worthless. but of course many people are going to be too ignorant to know it.
this is a dirty trick.
i thought someone said this lawyer had a good rep as being ethical?

[FreakinDJ]

14. Not true

Police use them all the time to elimenate possible suspects.

The Supreme Court left it up to the individual States to decide admisability. Unfortunately I do not have the link for North Carolina statutes of admisability

United States v. Scheffer (1998) <1>, the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

Given the fact this student offered Nifong the polygraph test the first day of the investigation when the student DID NOT have a lawyer I imagine Nifong had the admisability waver in his file cabinet ready to sign.

Nifong refused the students offer to take polygraph test the first day of the investigation

[bettyellen]

28. what part of they are useless aren't you getting? innacurate, inadmissable

unless you get lawyers on both side to agree on all the terms, questions and tester PRIOR - and that's only in a few states now....
it's inadmissible.
a baseline 20% failure rate. that's without hiring a coach to get you through it. the report they released today is useless, written by someone who is paid big bucks by the family, there's no denying that, is there? .
i heard that man say he offered to take the test, i don't believe he said when specifically. not at the press conference.

[IndianaGreen]

31. So why did Nifong refuse to administer a polygraph to Evans?

Evans wanted to take a polygraph, but Nifong refused to administer one. Why?

Frequently Asked Questions about Polygraphs

Q. How accurate is a Polygraph?

A: The polygraph has been proven to be up to 98% accurate, a figure much higher than most other scientific tests. There are times when a test is termed "inconclusive," meaning that no decision is offered to determine the truthfulness of the subject. This is neither a help nor a hindrance to the subject, as many other factors can influence the Pre-testability of the subject, such as recent emotional trauma or medication.

http://www.sbpd.com/Investigations/polygraph.htm

[bettyellen]

38. YOUR LINK HAS STATS AND REFERRAL TO THE AMER POLYGRAPH ASSOC!!!!

and i thought you didn't have a sense of humour!

http://www.polygraph.org/

[IndianaGreen]

39. That was the Santa Barbara Police Department

and you still have no evidence that Evans was coached or that the polygrapher staged the polygraph!

[bettyellen]

42. you didn't read it all? they got that stat from the Polygraph Association

not caring where your links or polygraph results are coming from, huh?
you're a trusting soul, but some of us like to consider the source.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Why don't you tell the FBI, CIA, DOD, and other government agencies

that you are an expert in the field of debunking polygraphs, and to please stop using them for investigations.

Consider the source (you) who has yet to provide one scintilla of evidence to back your assertion that Evans was coached. If the polygraph is a phony instrument, why coach the subject?

You are all wet!

[politicat]

46. Sorry, but the basic premise is bad.

Here's the premise: Machines can only do things that humans can do because we can't teach a machine to do something that we cannot possibly do. Machines may do it faster or more efficiently or less invasively or more safely, but they can only do the same basic actions that humans can. And they don't deal at all well with emotions.

Humans cannot really detect lies. There are some people who are good at intuition and condensing nuance into conclusion, but even they don't know how their process works. If we could detect lies, even if we were slow and inefficient at it, we would have documented the process. But we can't. And if we can't do it ourselves, we can't teach a machine how to do it.

It is one of the basics of robotics.

Polygraphs supposedly tell if people are more stressed during a certain question than during control questions. But when asked about something that is stressful (like did you commit the crime?) even if perfectly innocent, people are going to react. False positives all over the place. And since we can't sort out the false positives from the true positives in such cases, the test becomes unreliable.

And polygraphers want people to believe that PG is perfectly accurate, while Voice Stress Analysis is hokum, and the VSA people want us to believe the opposite... and police departments use both to coerce confessions from suspects so that they don't have to do as much footwork. A confession is much cheaper and faster than actually investigating a crime, no matter what Law & Order tells us. Even if the confession is a lie or coerced.) Cops are people too - they want to go home at the end of the day and get their promotions, too. And when promotions are based in part or in whole on conviction rates, they have an economic incentive to get a confession that may or may not be accurate, but will stand up before a judge.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Do you know of any prosecutor that wouldn't jump at the chance

of polygraphing a suspect that comes willingly and without a lawyer to him/her and asks to take one? Like I said elsewhere, a polygraph voluntarily given by a suspect is a win-win for the prosecutor. If the suspect fails the polygraph, the prosecutor can tell the media that the suspect failed it. If the suspect passes the polygraph, the prosecutor can merely say that polygraphs are not admissible and besides, there is other evidence tying the suspect to the claim.

In this case, the prosecutor only has the accuser's identification of the suspects and no evidence pointing out that a crime was committed in that house, much less committed by the indicted students. A polygraph would have helped the credibility of this prosecutor. His refusal, together with other questionable actions taken by him, such as Nifong's attempt to coerce a defense witness to change his story (the cab driver) and influence Kim Roberts (the other stripper) by bringing up a prior, makes me think that the entire case is built on the alleged victim's identification out of a photo line up.

You might indict a ham sandwich, but going to trial is going to take some solid evidence which so far none of us have seen.

[politicat]

67. I'm not trying the case outside a courtroom.

I'm neither a lawyer nor involved.

The issue is polygraph, and prosecutors don't like them for the very reasons you state. Most people don't know much about them, and from TV they think they're somewhat accurate, so admitting them means that the prosecutor has to deal with the obverse in court - if the defendant fails, then the defense pulls out the "these are unreliable" and if the defendant passes, then there's reasonable doubt created in the jury's mind. There useful for the prosecution in the pre-trial stage, but a shot in the dark if handed to a jury. Since both defense and prosecution do their bests to make sure that the jury is made up of people whose minds are usually so open that their brains have fallen out, giving a jury a nice plum like reasonable doubt is dangerous.

And stats from neither the Polygraph Institute or the trade org for VSA can be trusted. Since the Feds use them for employees, their stats are unreliable as well, since they have a vested interest in keeping them respectable. Skeptics have an interest in disproving them. So the only source of data that can be really trusted to not be inherently biased are academic sources, and there just aren't many studies.

[jberryhill]

49. Desperate?

If I was accused of something I didn't do, and was living under a cloud of suspicion, there is no question that I would pay or do anything to try to show my innocence if my mug shot was on TV every night.

The accused have no way to "clear" themselves. As everyone knows, even a "not guilty" verdict merely means the prosecution didn't prove its case. So, everywhere anyone from that team ever goes in life, the silent entry on his resume' after their name is going to be "accused rapist".

So, heck yeah, if I was in this position, or his parents' position, I would do exactly the same thing if it would help someone believe me when I said "I didn't do it".

It's all well and good to say, "Oh, there will be a trial". There still might not be a trial in this case. Evans just graduated from college - you think he's out job-interviewing?

You think it is an impudent stunt or "despearate" because you believe he is guilty... how DARE he.

I don't find it surprising at all that they did this.

Given the various criticisms of the polygraph, it doesn't mean anything one way or the other to me, but I'm not at all surprised they would do this.

I guess others would enjoy the attention or being forced to wear a big red "R" around their neck on national television.

Face it. You don't like this guy because of his family's economic position, and his prior citations for alcohol possession and noise violations. So you are going to find anything he does to try to say "I didn't do this" to be offensive, desperate or whatever.

As far as being "desperate" in the actual case, it is not "defense spin" that the victim said he had a mustache, and it is not "defense spin" that the nail with the partial DNA came out of his bathroom traschcan. None of that means he "didn't" rape the alleged victim, so anyone is free to call this guy a rapist forever, no matter what the outcome of any legal proceeding in this case.

[bettyellen]

59. i simply meant that using voo doo psuedo-science looks desperate

to anyone actually aware how inaccurate polygraph results can be. it looks like a ploy. that is all.
no need to over think it.

[jberryhill]

70. If I had to abandon my house...

...because it had become a site of protests against me;

if there were armed militants in town who wanted entry to the grounds of my school;

if my name and face were on every television and newspaper with the word "rapist" next to it;

then, yeah, I'd feel pretty desperate if I hadn't done it.

In a PM, someone said to me:


he blinked like a xmas tree whenever he said innocent.


So apparently there is at least someone around here who does believe autonomic nervous responses have some bearing on truth-telling. A polygraph does measure muscle movements like eye-blinking. Tell me about "voodoo", Betty.

I agree that polygraphs don't mean a whole lot, that's why I didn't even comment on it in the other thread except to say they were generally inadmissible for the purpose of showing that someone told the truth in an out-of-court statement (they may be admissible for other reasons). Law enforcement uses it as an investigative tool. But like any investigate tool - such as a "Mr. Potato Head" photo-ID where you can invent facial features and still get an ID, or DNA testing a sample that was quite obviously in an environment where you'd expect contamination from the suspected source - it has its limits.

But if *I* were accused of a crime I didn't do, then I'd do a Ouija board seance on live TV if I thought it would do anything to get people from staging protests against me or looking for me while carrying knives.

You betcha.

[bettyellen]

77. So we know it's a cheesy PR stunt, but i wonder where the REAL EVIDENCE

the lawyer claimed to have is? this is a poor substitute for the iron clad alibi he claims, isn't it?
that's why it looks desperate. biased poly results ain't going to help him any, but evidence might.

[jberryhill]

90. It's in a storage locker

With the broomstick, the mustache, her right shoe, and Richard Bloxsom's boyfriend.

They release photos...

"the photos are doctored"

They release DNA results...

"they only said 'on her body'" (which wasn't true anyway)
"the attackers used a broomstick" (when she clearly says 'penis' in the photo session)

They release Evan's face...

"he must have worn a fake mustache"

They release Evan's statement about helping the police during the search...

"he picked up the nails on purpose to contaminate them with his own DNA"

I particularly like the last one. I mean, the suggestion that he intentionally sought to implicate himself, as a strategy for saying he didn't do it, takes a special kind of thinking.

No matter what this guy or his attorney says or does, it'll be morphed into some nefarious ploy to make him appear not guilty.

Why, the NERVE of this rapist, to run around with a lawyer saying he didn't do it.

After all, we know that the first symptom of an alcoholic is denial. Seems to be the same thing for rapists. The fact that he keeps denying it, and would pull a stunt like this to deny it, only proves how guilty he must be.

[timber84]

92. Nail meet hammer!

Good post

[bettyellen]

96. weren't you the one laughing at evans for saying "he helped" gather

evidence?
just like a lawyer, playing both sides of the street! ;)

[jberryhill]

99. Yes, I was laughing at him...

...but we weren't laughing for the same reason.

You were laughing, it appeared, because of a perceived transparent attempt to contaminate the evidence, and seemed to take his apparent desire to be upfront, helpful, and not hiding anything, as some kind of show.

I was laughing, because the dumb schmuck didn't realize that by handling evidence, he'd show up in the test of it. Not that it mattered, considering that the nails were on his own bathroom floor and then in the trash.

A lot of naive innocent people think that if they are innocent, then they should cooperate with the police, give statements without lawyers (as Evans did), and so forth. Most people don't realize that, no matter what the facts, you will NEVER tell the same story about an event the same way twice. And when all this stuff gets recorded and written down, then the differences between the versions are paraded around as lies and inconsistencies.

The humor in it, for me, is the naivete on Evans' part.

[bettyellen]

102. you should stop ascribing motivation because again, you're way off.....

again and also making stuff a lot more complicated than it is, again.
i never gave a thought to contaminating evidence, never said a thing about it either.
i was also laughing because he was acting like a dumb schmuck- the only difference (or maybe not, i shouldn;t assume) is that he seemed like an incredibly well rehearsed dumb schmuck.
so, you read me wrong again, not so good at this, are you?

[jberryhill]

104. That's why I'm not a polygraph examiner

I don't swing pendulums over pregnant women's bellies to determine the sex of a child either.

If you mean "well rehearsed" for the first time this guy has probably ever been on TV, much less live to a national audience and repeated hundreds of times a day, then I guess he rehearsed enough.

Bush could take a lesson.

[bettyellen]

106. bush really could take a lesson from evans

and you could learn to use this preface "i'm guessing you think this because ...."
that would be nice.
or i have a really wild suggestion, you could be respectful enough to ask!! :P

[BrownOak]

118. Right, the only time to ascribe motivations

are when you label something a hate crime despite the fact that the victim, the police, and the prosecution say it wasn't.

[Kingshakabobo]

108. Reminds me of a story a cop I used to work with told me......

He had a suspect he KNEW was guilty of burglarizing a home. During the interview, he gave the suspect a can of pepsi. Guess where the can went after the interview......in an evidence gag along with the suspects prints. True story.

Of course, this is the same guy who liked to brag about writing fictitious parking tickets against people who "smarted-off" to him. He used to waive the pen in the air and say: "power of the pen"

[bettyellen]

119. so, what happened after you turned him in?

you didn't let that innocent person rot in jail, did you?

[Kingshakabobo]

120. No. He was a Chicago policeman......

If I knew the who, what, where, and when I would have turned him in.....or at least contacted the attorney.

[lindisfarne]

18. No scientific evidence that polygraph tests reveal anything; the

National Academy of Sciences had a panel which said this very strongly a few years ago.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Background on Robert Drdak, former FBI polygrapher

Robert J. Drdak served as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 28 years, retiring in December 1999. During his service in the FBI, Mr. Drdak was instrumental in the investigation and prosecution of major cases throughout the United States. For the last 11 years of his career, he was the senior examiner and manager for the FBI’s polygraph program in North Carolina. He has conducted over 1000 polygraph examinations. He also served as the Behavioral Science / Criminal Profiling coordinator and the Informant Program coordinator. Mr. Drdak is a FBI certified Police Instructor and has been the featured speaker at regional and national training seminars. He has received numerous awards and commendations from the Director of the FBI.

Mr. Drdak is a 1968 graduate of Wake Forest University. He graduated from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) in 1988 and the FBI’ s course in Advanced Polygraphy in 1990. He has completed a Polygraph Instructor’s course and an 80-hour Quality Control course offered by DODPI, as well as two 40-hour courses in Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing (PCSOT), for which he is certified by the American Polygraph Association (APA). He has served as an instructor / counselor at DODPI and has performed polygraph related services for several federal agencies on a contractual basis. Mr. Drdak authored the polygraph protocol for a pilot program in the federal Western Judicial District of North Carolina designed to monitor sex offenders on federal probation.

Mr. Drdak’s professional affiliations include the American Polygraph Association, the American Association of Police Polygraphists, the North Carolina Polygraph Association (past president), the South Carolina Association of Polygraph Examiners (charter member), and the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is a licensed polygraph examiner in North Carolina and South Carolina.

http://www.nationalpolygraphconsultants.com/drdak.htm

[bettyellen]

23. and now he's a hired gun consulting for some of the most expensive lawyers

in the state. nothing more, nothing less. lets not be naive about who butters his bread these days.
he's one of an army of experts the law firm employs. i bet they all have stellar resumes and big fat paychecks, that's how the system works.

[IndianaGreen]

25. I ask you to post your "evidence" that he coached Evans

You got nothing but your Kool-Aid driven conspiracy theories, just like Nifong: no facts, no evidence.

[bettyellen]

34. that's how things are done. every single thing you see the defendant do

is rehearsed, evaluated, coached, and rehearsed some more. EVERYTHING.

good law firms have experts/ consultants/ coaches for hire to help with every aspect of the case.
is this somehow news to you? i thought this was common knowledge.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Where is your evidence that Evans was coached and the polygraph

staged? You are beginning to sound like OJ looking for the killers of Nicole Brown. Any fantastic explanation is possible once one eliminates the most obvious answer: Nifong has no evidence!

"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-- Sherlock Holmes

[bettyellen]

80. it is fantastic how high priced law firms operate.

but it's not that big a secret either.

[marions ghost]

76. this is how it's done, yes

but I don't think it's common knowledge.

[timber84]

83. I Guess the prosecutor's don't coach either?

what's the point?

[bettyellen]

88. polygraph= meaningless. coaching testimony is SOP and not in dispute here

so it would seem you're going off on a tangent no ones concerned about. :hi:

[timber84]

89. funny seems you are the one going off half cocked about

"coaching"

[bettyellen]

110. lawyers coach. why so surprised by this?

learn something new today?

[IndianaGreen]

126. So Clinton was coached by Bob Bennett?

That was some coaching!

Perhaps you watch too much LA Law, but in real life lawyers are officers of the court and they must abide by a very stringent code of ethics, violation of which can lead to suspension or disbarment.

[bettyellen]

127. a TV show? bill clintion? WTF ?? you think you could get back to reality?

it seems like your rambling on about these media things because you don;t have much real life experience.
do you think everything legal is always alike or something? is that what your trying to tell me?
:hi:

[NashVegas]

97. He Wouldn't Have To Coach

The simple fact he's in the employment of the defense is enough to create a low-stress/no stress situation for the test-taker. Isn't it the fear factor that helps polygraph tests get their results?

[joeunderdog]

103. He's no Barney Fife.

My question is, even though this is inadmissable in court, it is a common tool for Prosecutors. Why didn't the DA get one before doing the indictment? If it took this long to gather the evidence against this suspect, then why not use polygraphs to lead investigators into clues in the questions that subjects appear to be lying about?

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Polygraph tests arenot admissable in court

There's a reason for that.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Read FreakinDJ's post 14, they can be admissible under some conditions

Q. Is a Polygraph admissible in court?

A: Generally, the answer is “No”. However, if there is a stipulation by the defense and prosecution to admit the results, the court will then consider the results of the polygraph. The Santa Barbara Police Department often conducts polygraph examinations that are requested by both the prosecution and agreed to by defense counsel to verify the truth on many cases.

http://www.sbpd.com/Investigations/polygraph.htm

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Practically anything can be admissable if it is stipulated to

by both sides.

[IndianaGreen]

35. which brings us back to the question of why Nifong did not polygraph Evans

There is a whiff of prosecutorial misconduct in the air.

[HuffleClaw]

37. bwaahahahahaaaa

wow, some folks just are determined to emulate the nancy grace school of 'justice'.

[IndianaGreen]

41. You got no DNA, no scratches on any of the players

you have the troublesome time stamps on the ATM, the dorm, and the photos (which in some instances show the time on the watches). You have the mustache that cannot be explain except by the unproven theory that it was fake (and it left no fibers as evidence). You have Kim Roberts who changed her story after contacting a publicist, and after Nifong arrested her for a prior. You have the cab driver that drove Reade Seligmann at the time the alleged assault took place. You have a window of 7 minutes in which the alleged rape took place.

You have a prosecutor that rushed to the grand jury before the police completed their investigation, and before the primary in which he stood for reelection.

None of this doesn't sound like the ovary busting outbursts of Nancy Grace or Wendy Murphy!

[HuffleClaw]

128. its also pretty funny how quick some are to dismiss the polygraph

if it had indicated guilt...

[IndianaGreen]

48. Herald Sun: Lie detector report released

Lie detector report released

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
May 16, 2006 : 10:36 pm ET

DURHAM -- In a lie-detector examination he apparently passed, indicted Duke University lacrosse player David Evans said not only that he didn't assault the accuser, but also that he didn't see or hear anyone else assault her, nor does he know about anyone else assaulting her.

Evans' attorney released a copy of the polygraph examiner's report Tuesday, a day after District Attorney Mike Nifong indicted Evans on one count each of first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense and first-degree kidnapping. The report is not admissible in court.

The polygraph examiner, Robert J. Drdak of Advanced Credibility Assessment Services in Charlotte, wrote attorney Joe Cheshire that he believed "this examination strongly supports the truthfulness of Mr. Evans?."

Drdak said Evans' answers were "well within the non-deceptive range" and were cross-checked by two methods. One of those was a computerized scoring algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory, a nonprofit technology development organization at Johns Hopkins University.

<snip>

Several other attorneys said Tuesday they considered it unusual for Nifong to reject Evans' polygraph offer, even though results are not admissible as evidence.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735509.html

[rpgamerd00d]

50. Its so ridiculously easy to fool a polygraph. Google tells you how.

Nuff said.

[IndianaGreen]

51. So Marc Klass fooled his polygrapher and he should have been a suspect

in the disappearance of his daughter, Polly Klaas? Marc Klaas is on TV a lot, particularly when there is a child missing, and he always says that people should take a polygraph so that they are not seen as suspects and to free the police to pursue other leads. Polygraphs have legitimate uses, and are used widely in law enforcement and in counter-intelligence.

You can Google conspiracy theories about 9-11 too!

[bettyellen]

60. that doesn't follow any reasoning. very sloopy thinking for sure.

your links lead back to the american polygraph association stats.
haven't naticed all the others are 80% at best, huh? LOL wow indy, that's real honest of you!

[MadHound]

52. It's a polygraph test, done at the behest of the defendant

Meaning that it's huge grain of salt time. Polygraph tests are notoriously easy to beat, which is one big reason why they're not allowed into a court of law as evidence. The fact that this was done on the initiative of the defendant raises even more red flags. All this test really shows is that the defense team is still trying this case in the court of public opinion, perhaps trying to taint the jury pool.

I think I'll wait for the court verdict, thank you very much.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Evans did ask the prosecutor to give him a poluygraph

and Nifong unexplicably refused.

During Monday's news conference, Evans said he had offered to submit to a police polygraph examination, but that Nifong wasn't interested. Evans then turned to Drdak instead, he added.

Several other attorneys said Tuesday they considered it unusual for Nifong to reject Evans' polygraph offer, even though results are not admissible as evidence.

"In my view, it would be absolutely ridiculous for a prosecutor to ignore a suspect's request to do a polygraph," said Durham lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player.

"You get to hear his answers to very serious questions," Thomas added. "There is no greater investigative tool for a prosecutor and police. I cannot think of a sound reason why law enforcement would refuse a polygraph exam to a defendant or possible defendant. Whether or not you believe the guy being tested, you get a chance to really grill him about what might have happened."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735509.html

[MadHound]

55. And Nifong was right to do so

A polygraph test serves no purpose. If Evans had passed it, it would have been touted by the press, thus further tainting the jury pool. And if Evans had failed, it wouldn't have been admissable in court, and I'm sure the defense would have found some way to spin it to their advantage.

With all of the effort on the part of the various defense teams to taint the jury pool, it is starting to appear to me more and more that they've got something to hide. Normally you don't do this sort of pre-trial grandstanding, risking contempt charges unless your case is in deep shit. But we'll see:shrug:

Like I said earlier, I'll wait for the jury's verdict.

[IndianaGreen]

56. And after the jury acquits the defendants some in here will be screaming

racism and conspiracy, and we will have another Tawana Brawley case, and another setback to rape victims because of a case that should have been investigated thoroughly before it was brought to a grand jury.

[MadHound]

57. Frankly, given the circumstances surrounding this case

I actually think that the DA is doing a good job. Unlike the defense team, prosecutors don't have the luxury or leeway to go around and try the case in the media beforehand. So while the defense wails and gnashes its teeth, Nifong is quietly and calmly going about his business, all in the midst of a three ring media circus, incredible pressure from all sides, and in the middle of an election season. Frankly I doubt that he would sign up for this monsterous headache unless he was pretty damn confident that he could get a conviction. So he simply continues to play his cards close to the chest, and plugs on along to trial.

And frankly, I don't think that if it comes up not guilty that this will be a great setback to rape victims. I didn't see much fallout from the Tawana Brawley case, and I don't think that there will be much from this one:shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

114. I wonder why he is postponing trial till spring of '07?

I say he needs to put-up or shut-up.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

53. I think we are all losing sight of one important principle

in our system of criminal justice.... It is the prosecutor's job to demonstrate through evidence that the accused have committed the crime; it is NOT the defense's job to prove itself innocent of the charges (rather, its job is to inject 'reasonable doubt' about guilt).

In my humble opinion, the fact that the defense is going at great lengths not only to inject reasonable doubt but also contend full innocence for the accused makes a reasonable person think that perhaps there is some serious problem with the charges brought forth.


*Disclaimer: yes, I love Duke - the university and men's basketball team. This does not mean I am blind to the accuser's plight, nor am I blind to the accused's plight. I do not have all evidence in front of me and, while I have personal thoughts about this sordid mess, I keep them private.

[ieoeja]

63. Reasonable doubt because they're trying so hard?

I was on a jury once. Traffic accident. In the initial vote 9 people voted against the plaintiff while 3 people voted in favor. I was one of those who voted in favor of the plaintif. My reasoning was quite simple: (a) lawyers for the defendant admitted the defendant ran a stop sign sideswiping the plaintif's vehicle and (b) 100% of the medical evidence presented in the trial indicated the plaintif was injured. The defense presented nothing to counter this.

In the face of this, the 9-3 vote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As the 9 were White, the 2 who joined me were Black, and the plaintif was Mexican, I think I have a pretty good idea why they voted the way they did. But let's not go off on that tangent.

While I made my points (a) and (b), the other two gave their reasons. One said she figured the plaintif was lying but that he had also probably spent a lot of money on this case and shouldn't suffer as the result of following his lawyers advice! The other -- this is where we finally get to the point of my post -- said she figured he wouldn't have gone through this much effort to sue the other individual if he was lying.

That last argument is an awful lot like yours. The defense is fighting this real hard, so they MUST be telling the truth. That is an incredibly specious argument.

FYI: in my case we ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant. I'd have been better off without my two allies in the initial vote. Any attempt to argue the fact that 100% of the evidence presented in the case supported the plaintif was pushed to the side as everyone kept arguing the stupid arguments brought up by the other two. And I wasn't going to pull a 12 Angry Men moment over a small claims court. I am happy to report that the judge and all lawyers, including the defense attorney, told us they thought it was an open and shut case for the plaintif and were astonished when the ruling went the other way. I didn't know they actually questioned jurors afterwards. But I spoke right up and told them I thought racism was the only possible explanation then walked out (the questioning is optional) to the bleating of my fellow jurors.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

69. I think my point was more like

why would someone claim not only that he didn't do it, but that he was completely innocent? After all, it's not the defense's job to prove innocence. That's what I was trying to make sense of; these are not your run-of-the-mill lawyers; they are all well known in NC.

I'm not saying that the accuseds' stories must be right because they are vehement.

[Blackhatjack]

81. Unless a majority vote was sufficient, you did not follow the law...

Unless you were serving in a jurisdiction that allows jury verdicts to be returned with less than a unanimous vote of the jury panel, what you did most likely violated the law.

You will recall the charge the judge gave you regarding the law you were to follow, and most likely at the time you were seated on the jury you swore you would listen to all the evidence and apply the law given in making your decision. If you were convinced the plaintiff's case was proven by a preponderance of the evidence(ever so slightly more believeable than the defendant's version) then you had a legal duty to vote consistently in favor of the plaintiff regardless of how the other jurors voted. Even if it inconvenienced you by having to continue to deliberate.

Your comment " I wasn't going to pull a 12 Angry Men moment over a small claims court" indicates you may have compromised your vote for some reason other than the fact you were convinced the plaintiff should not prevail after considering all the evidence presented and the law you were to follow.

How would you feel if you were the defendant or plaintiff in a trial, and someone voted a certain way because it was more convenient to them rather than based upon the evidence? You may have been right about the "racial" reason for the votes by others on the jury panel, and if that is the case, they acted unlawfully as well. However, the jury system cannot produce fair and just decisions for the people if they do not follow the instructions of the court.

[ShaneGR]

94. There's a big difference between a traffic accident and rape charges...

Just pointing that out, also, it's the defenses job to raise issues of reasonable doubt. And if you're on a rape jury, and you have reasonable doubt as to the defendents guilt by law you are supposed to vote not guilty.

[texasleo]

61. I actually agree with IndianaGreen

worlds are colliding.


run!!!!1

[Freddie Stubbs]

71. Doesn't mean that he is telling the truth

But it may mean that he believes that he is telling the truth.

[Blackhatjack]

73. Here is the truth about polygraphs .....

I have had experience with defendants who have undergone polygraph examinations, almost always against the advice of counsel.

A polygraph machine does not detect "truth or lying." It does not prove "deception." It only records measurements of heart rate, breathing, and galvanic skin response("sweating"), none of which is evidence of guilt or innocence.

A polygraph operator is an integral part of the "polygraph examination." Therefore the credibility of the polygraph operator and the procedures he follows are key to any conclusions you may draw from a polygraph examination.

It is just not true that a person can be "coached" to pass a polygraph examination. Some people can be scared by the examination process to produce fluxuations in the data recorded, but that does not indicate they are lying either. Other people, though rare, can control involuntary responses like heartbeat rate.

The questions asked in a polygraph examination must be properly framed to draw any kind of conclusion from the data recorded. Likewise, in every polygraph exam there are likely only a half dozen or less questions that are germane to the charges being investigated. All other questions are control questions --asking about known true facts that are beyond dispute, and asking the individual to state a known untruth, so that the polygraph operator will have baseline responses to compare with the crucial question responses.

The problem with polygraphs, and the reason they are not admissible in most courts has nothing to do with the individual's behavior while undergoing the exam, but rather the circumstances under which the exam is administered, the procedure used to administer the exam, AND the interpretation of those results to make a determination of "deceptive, not deceptive, or inconclusive."

Two or more professional polygraph operators can view the same printed data results that correspond to the questions asked, and reach entirely different conclusions as to "deceptiveness."

Also, if you only concentrate on the "crucial questions" and the data recorded in response to those questions only, you cannot render a valid opinion. Why? Because everything an individual is exposed to prior to testing, and during testing prior to the crucial questions, conditions the individual and their responses to the crucial questions. If the person is told that the machine will absolutely tell whether they are lying or not, and they believe it, and the crucial questions are presented in an accusatory manner, data responses are likely to be unreliable.

That is why most polygraph examinations are now videotaped from the first contact of the individual with the polygraph operator until the conclusion of the test, or at the very least audio recordings are made.

Federal polygraph operators are not without flaws, but they are some of the most highly trained and reliable individuals performing this function today. That is why defense attorneys usually seek out the services of a retired federal polygraph operator to conduct an exam for their client since the credibility of the operator is essential if you are to persuade the DA of the results reported.

I always advised my clients not to submit to a polygraph exam because the conclusion of the polygraph operator is always, at least in part, based upon his "subjective" opinion of the objective data and what that means regarding "deceptiveness." And if the results are not what you hoped for, there is no effective way to challenge a "subjective interpretation" of objective data results obtained in a setting which is difficult to accurately analyze. For example, it is hard to prove that a person "felt intimidated" by objective direct evidence, even though that may have been the case.

It is for these reasons that polygraphy results are usually not admitted in court, and never admitted in NC courts. Judges and juries should make decisions based upon facts that are proven trustworthy and reliable, and not established on the basis of opinions that might be subjective.

The US government uses polygraphs as an investigatory tool because they believe as flawed as it is, anything that "might" give them additional information in making highly sensitive decisions is preferable to having no additional information at all. Do I agree with that? No. I have seen people wrongly accused and punished by the US government because of "bad" polygraphs.

The most "telling" aspect of a polygraph is that a defendant voluntarily takes it and that the defendant is willing to undergo same when it is not required under the law, and if his data responses remain within his "normal" baseline response ranges it certainly means he is not exhibiting the expected stress responses you might observe of someone worried about being discovered lying.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I thought I would share my experience in this area to dispel erroneous information that has been erroneously posted about this topic.

[BlooInBloo]

78. Shorter blackhatjack: There's a reason polygraphs aren't admissible.

:)

[Phx_Dem]

82. The control question test is a fraud

There is no physiological response associated with deception. The ONLY reason the control question test works at all is because people think it does--the stim test done at the beginning reinforces this effect.

The American Psychological Association published an extensive review of the research, you can find it in the journal "American Psychologist".

One of the key findings was that when a test was administered using double blind conditions (one examiner, one scorer) like is required for any good experiment, the rate of correct classification dropped to 30%. Overall the test produces excessive false positives, which for a psych screening tool is OK but for a Polygraph it is very very bad.

[rucky]

79. "actively participate" in all questions

sounds like they're avoiding witness-type questions

[jberryhill]

86. Sure, if you don't actually read all of the questions...

Sheesh, its linked to the story cited above:

http://www.nbc17.com/download/2006/0516/9228051.pdf

------------------------------
A. Did you see or hear anything on March 13 or 14 that would indicate the accuser was sexually assaulted at the lacrosse party? Answer - No

B. Do you have any first hand information that the accuser was sexually assaulted at the lacrosse party on March 13 or 14? Answer-No
-----------------------------

But because the press story doesn't quote the whole thing, then people like Rucky STILL claim to find an "angle" in it.

This is why it is nigh unto useless for the defense to release anything.

And, again, the polygraph test doesn't mean a thing one way or the other, but it's perfectly understandable why they did one.

I mean, hey, it only asks "Did you see or hear anything". Why didn't they ask him if he smelled or felt anything. Maybe they put something over his head, so he couldn't see or hear it.

[rucky]

100. Thanks for the info!

message boards are useful for busy people who want to keep up with things, but don't have time to read all of the source material - especially with a minor story.

when I DO have the time, I'll be sure to do my share of research.

[jberryhill]

101. didn't mean to sound cranky /nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. What kind of idiot believes this shit?

First off, he had the polygraph administered himself. That's the kind of thing the Weekly World News does to prove the existence of extraterrestrial bigfeet.

Secondly, polygraph tests don't work. The only purpose they serve is to fool people who think they work, namely petty criminals who've refused counsel, and thus tricking them into a confession.

[KitchenWitch]

87. Proves nothing

I will wait until the jury of his peers hears all the evidence and comes to a verdict.

[Blackhatjack]

91. Questionable whether there is enough evidence to get to the jury ......

The prosecution's burden of proof to obtain an indictment is "probable cause" to believe a crime may have been committed.

The prosecution's burden of proof at trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Much higher, requires evidence in support of the charges that "convinces to a moral certainty" according to the NC Pattern Jury Charge.

[ShaneGR]

93. It is strange the DA would refuse to meet, and refuse to administer poly..

I know if I was the DA I would gladly administer a Poly to a possible defendent. In fact, I've seen on numerous occasions DAs giving them as using it as a basis for their indictment with the press.

Anyways, as of now the case against these guys is pretty weak from everything I've seen.

[IndianaGreen]

117. Don't forget that Nifong has no DNA evidence!

Why, In This Case In Particular, the Absence of DNA Indicates Innocence

Often, women do not report sex crimes for days or weeks - washing much, or all, of the DNA evidence down the drain long before police and prosecutors can collect it. But not in this case. Here, the victim submitted to a "rape kit" examination only hours after what she said was the time of the alleged attack.

Often, rape is accomplished by fear, not force. But in this case, the crime alleged was brutal and barbaric. The accuser said, for instance, that her acrylic fingernails were torn off as she tried to defend herself.

And often, an attacker will use a condom precisely to destroy the chance that he will be caught via DNA. But here, the alleged victim made no mention of any of her attackers using a condom. (Also, while a condom might prevent organic DNA from being deposited on or around the accuser, it would have left its own trace evidence, especially if coated with spermicide. Here, it appears that no such evidence was found.)

For all these reasons, it seems very unlikely that if the attack alleged occurred, none of the attackers' DNA would have been collected from the accused's body or clothing - or from underneath her fingernails. D.A. Nifong has pointed out that the accusers' clothing could have protected them - but their hands, face, and necks likely remained exposed. What is the chance that the accuser would not have made contact with any of their hands, faces or necks if a brutal attack truly occurred?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060414_spilbor.html

[Zynx]

105. Polygraph is worthless. Measures stress, not truth.

[noonwitch]

107. Are polygraphs admissable in NC?

They're not in Michigan-the police use them to intimidate people into confessions, or to eliminate suspects. The one case I know of in which it was used to eliminate a suspect involved a case in which a woman was carjacked and murdered. The polygraph was given to her husband, initially, to rule him out as a suspect and keep the media from camping out in front of his house.

The police caught the scumbag who did it and his woman accomplice a couple of days later.

Most of the time, however, it is used to intimidate the unsophisticated criminal into a confession. The local cops take the suspect to the MSP headquarters in Lansing. There are a couple of good accounts of what happens then-one is in the case of Lawrence Delisle, who drove his kids and wife into the Detroit River, but brought a life jacket along for himself. The court threw out his confession because the judge felt that it was induced by the polygraph examiner (coupled with the killer's low IQ and history of mental health problems). He was convicted without the confession, because of the evidence.

The other occasion is well-covered in a book called "Forever and Five Days" by Lowell Caulfield, about the Grand Rapids lesbian nursing home murderers. In that case it was used to determine that the confessing woman was telling the truth, because she was a lying sociopath. I still have questions regarding whether the murders actually took place.

[Blackhatjack]

109. Results of Polygraph Exam Are NOT Admissible in NC ....

eom

[jesus_of_suburbia]

111. Anyone who slanders these young men at this point....

Without waiting for the trial...

has serious issues with men.



Just like anyone who slandered the young lady from the get go has serious issues with women.

[Igel]

112. There's one thing I don't understand, maybe somebody can

help. Completely different topic, for which I humbly apologize. If it's been posted and disgusted, please refer me to the appropriate thread.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4149067

Why postpone the trial until spring 2007? Wouldn't the alleged victim's memory just become more faulty, unless it's refreshed by referring to notes and photographs? Surely we don't expect new evidence to suddenly appear in the men's house, or for some test to take 8-10 months to come back?

[Kingshakabobo]

113. WTF? That's efing ridiculous!

[jberryhill]

116. That's his expectation....

Not a schedule.

That said, it doesn't sound like an unreasonable estimate.

Expert reports, depositions, preliminary motions, then the evidentiary hearings will get you well into next year.

[Igel]

121. That's insane.

Just my personal opinion, of course, but ...

That's insane.

[jberryhill]

124. Quite

That's why most criminal defendants, guilty or not, make a deal.

Finnerty, for example, took the offer of the diversion program over a trial in the DC assault case, so that he could then have people say he "got off" because he was privileged or whatever.

Just being charged with a crime is your full time occupation for as long as the prosecutor wants it to be.

Although in this instance there will be plenty of delay on the defense side as experts, lawyers, detectives, etc. clean out the parents. After they've cashed out a lot of what they have and have 90% equity second mortgages, then things will speed up a bit.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, I understand a fourth African American Virginia Union University student has been indicted for the gang rape of that white woman from the University of Richmond. Their case will probably go much more quickly.

[Nikia]

115. This guy passed a ploygraph and was found guilty

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Health/story?id=591736&page=1

[Orsino]

123. Polygraphs are lie detectors.

There is no scientific evidence that they can be used as such.

The only effect at work is the placebo effect. Nothing more.