July 16 2001
Condit
in the Headlights
Lie Detector
Lies
We're no fans of the man from Modesto,
Gary Condit. But it was troubling to see him being hounded by
the cable news shows into taking a polygraph test, and then trashed
for using his own polygrapher. Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that
the polygraph wasn't any good for detecting deception. He dropped
the test for analysis of his own men-but used it to coerce confessions
out of civilian suspects.
The polygraph was invented
in 1915 by a Harvard man called William Moulton Marston, who
claimed that his clunky little gizmo could detect lies by measuring
blood pressure. Marston's main claim to fame derives not from
his machine, but from a doodle he came up with: the cartoon character
Wonder Woman.
In the past 85 years, the polygraph
hasn't changed much from the Marston prototype. The secret of
the polygraph is that their machine is no more capable of telling
the truth
than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep in chicken
parts," says Alan Zelicoff, a physician and senior scientist
at the Center for National Security and Arms Control at the Sandia
Labs in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Zelicoff gave us this view in
an article in the July-August edition of The Skeptical Inquirer.
Zelicoff writes that the polygraph
administer is a kind of confidence artist or modern day mesmerist
who tries to seduce (or scare) his subjects into believing in
the power of the machine to catch them in the most minute inconsistency.
"The subject, nervously strapped in a chair, is often convinced
by the aura surrounding this cheap parlor trick, and is then
putty in the hands of the polygrapher, who then launches into
an intrusive, illegal and wide-ranging inquisition," Zelicoff
writes. "The subject is told from time to time that the
machine is indicating deception. It isn't, of course. And he
is continuously urged to clarify his answers, by providing more
and more personal information." At an arbitrary point, the
polygrapher calls off the testing, consults the spools of graph
paper and makes an entirely subjective rendering on whether the
subject has given a "deceptive response."
"Every first year medical
student knows that the four parameters measured during a polygraph-blood
pressure, pulse, sweat production, and breathing rate-are affected
by an uncountable myriad of emotions: joy, hate, elation, sadness,
anxiety, depression, and so forth," says Zelicoff. "But
there is not one chapter-not one-in any medical text that associates
these quantities in any way with an individual's intent to deceive.
More importantly, dozens of studies over the past 20 years in
psychology departments and medical schools all over the world
have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling
and lying."
Connoisseurs of the Wen Ho
Lee affair will remember that at one point the FBI falsely told
the Taiwanese nuclear physicist (accused on spying for the Chinese
in Los Alamos) that polygraph tests showed he was lying. Cops
play these sorts of tricks all the time, faking forensic reports
and then shoving them under the noses of their suspects, shouting
that they're proven liars and that they'd best sign a confession
right away.
The most comprehensive review
of the polygraph was conducted in 1983 by the Office of Technology
Assessment, a research branch of congress. The OTA concluded,
"There is no known physiological response that is unique
to deception." The report did note that the CIA and its
companions "believe that the polygraph is a useful screening
tool." However, OTA concluded that the available research
does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph for
this purpose. The best that OTA could say about the polygraph
was that it might have some limited validity in "specific
criminal incidents." But the report went on to observe that
in such cases, "the polygraph test detects deception better
than chance, but with error rates that could be significant."
As for the supposedly revealing physiological responses the congressional
study reported that they could be masked "by physical movement,
drugs or other techniques to avoid detection as deceptive."
There are numerous ghastly
stories of federal employees abused by the machine and its operators.
Take the case of Daniel M. King, a 20-year veteran of the US
Navy, who was suspected of selling classified information. King
was locked up in military prison in solitary confinement for
500 days and subjected to repeated polygraphs. Some of them lasted
for as long as 19 hours. A military judge dismissed all the charges
against him.
A few years ago FBI agent Mark
Mallah was given a routine polygraph. The polygrapher, who had
only 80 hours experience with the machine, concluded that Mallah
had lied. (Zelicoff notes that even barbers must have 1,000 hours
of training before getting a license to cut hair.) His life soon
transformed into a Kafka story. He was stripped of his badge,
subjected to midnight searches of his house, his diary and appointment
book seized and scrutinized his neighbors, friends and relatives
interrogated his every move outside monitored by helicopters.
In the end, Mallah's life was pretty much destroyed, but nothing
was ever proved against him. The FBI finally apologized and Congress
outlawed the use of the polygraph for civilian employees in 1988.
It's worth noting that the
Walker brothers and Aldrich Ames both beat the polygraph with
no sweat. Kim Philby settled himself with a dollop of Valium
before breezing through his polygraph exams.
One investigator (and CounterPuncher)
for a defense lawyer in California's Bay Are tells us that while
the polygraph isn't admissible in most courts it's used all the
time by prosecutors, mostly to seal plea bargains. "It's
a perilous option, because the utility of the polygraph is almost
totally up to the operator. There are good polygraphers, but
many who work for the district attorneys have only minimal training."
The investigator described
a recent case where a defense witness in a homicide case, who
had passed a polygraph given by a former FBI polygrapher with
20 years experience, was sent to the DA for another test given
by their examiner, a relative novice with the device. Defense
lawyers can't be in the room while the test is given, even when
their clients are being examined. The prosecutors videotape the
session, and while the results of the polygraph can't be used
at trial, the videotape can become evidence. In this case, the
defense lawyer waited in the hall until the witness emerged from
the room "with his face red as a beet." The lawyer
heard the DA's investigator threaten the witness: "You little
slimebag, I know your lying. We're going to revoke your parole."
The DA's examiner had interpreted the readings from one of his
answers as being "deceptive."
The only disagreement we would
have with Zelicoff is his deprecation of animal parts as any
sort of reliable guide to the future. Prophets and soothsayers
in ancient times would use all sorts of materials that would
be disdained by such modern exponents of "scientific"
forensics as, let's say, the FBI Crime Lab, which theoretically
espouses scientific methods but which simply manufactures or
suppresses data as each case requires.
So what would a good look at
a liver plucked from a recently slaughtered chicken tell us?
The color and condition would indicate what sort of feed the
chicken factory was using, thus offering useful evidence about
the economic and indeed moral propensities of the chicken breeders.
Furthermore, since this feed varies according to the futures
prices on the Chicago Commodities Exchange, an educated glance
at the liver would be suggestive about future economic and meteorological
trends, as assessed by the collective analytic wisdom of the
Exchange.
Condit
Scandal Goes Baroque
The
Condit affair has reached the point of baroque fantasy. This
is a common feature of many a fizzing political sex scandals.
Forty years ago, in the twilight of Harold MacMillan's Conservative
government in Britain, the country was obsessed with the Profumo
scandal. John Profumo, a government minister, was caught having
an affair with Christine Keeler, a good time girl who'd also
had a fling with a Soviet attaché called Ivanov. After
weeks of uproar MacMillan confided mournfully to a friend that
he was now hearing that about half his cabinet and several bishops
were involved in collective orgies with the Profumo crowd.
In Condit's case former New
York rep John LeBoutiller had a signed article carrying the title
CONGRESSMAN GARY CONDIT: GAYS, BISEXUALS AND MURDER that appeared
Friday, July 13, 2001 on NewsMax.com,
a popular website run by Chris Ruddy which carried much ripe
rumor in the great days of the Lewinsky affair, particularly
about Vince Foster's terminal moments. After being a headliner
for most of the day, LeBoutiller's article was pulled without
explanation.
Invoking the authority of "RJ"
- an "inside-the-Beltway source who, over the years, has
never steered me wrong", LeBoutiller quoted RJ as telling
him that "Condit has been known inside the gay community
here in DC for being a big, big user of gay male prostitutes
- especially blacks from the Caribbean who ride motorcycles and
love to wear black leather.
"Now, here is the dirty
little secret behind the disappearance of Chandra Levy: Condit
goes both ways. He likes to get sodomized by male prostitutes
before having sex with women. The gay sex turns him on and he
can then 'perform' with women.
"Condit had one particular
Caribbean male prostitute that he frequented. When it was determined
that Chandra had to go, this guy was given the assignment. He
picked her up on his motorcycle, took off some where, killed
her, and dumped her body. Then, on orders from Condit and with
money from
Condit, he headed back to Haiti or wherever he came from - far,
far away from investigators and the Feds."
Kinda explains everything,
doesn't it? Maybe Condit should be taking an AIDS test. As in
the Profumo affair there's a "security" angle too,
since Condit served on the House Intelligence Committee. So if
we are to believe LeBoutiller's "R.J.", the nation's
most precious secrets could now be in the possession of a gay
Caribbean biker. Best place for them.
In a useful article for the
McClatchy newspapers, Michael Doyle reports that Guideline D
of the federal government's "Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information"
specifically notes that "sexual behavior is a security concern
if ... it may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion,
exploitation or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion."
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt named Condit to the House
intelligence panel in 1999. Like all members of the select panel,
according to Doyle, Condit "essentially was granted a courtesy
clearance. For lawmakers, standards like Guideline D don't apply."
"He's a valued member
of the committee, and I count on him," Doyle quotes Rep.
Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who chairs the Panel, as
saying. "He asks what I would call questions on behalf of
the American taxpayer ... and he has a great deal of common sense."
You can bet that the CIA keeps
files on members of the Intelligence committee, not least as
blackmail material in case some uppity rep starts questioning
the Agency's budget or activities. CP
|