Scrafton has established nothing except for, he feels good, `I’ve been vindicated’, is all that his post-polygraph test amounts to. The best analogy is that found by in evidence, Mallard v The Queen, it is the same as the Roman practice of consulting entrails prior to war and battle.
James Randi has written on the fraud which is the `lie detection polygraph test’ and has linked a considerable body of damning testimony, scientific evidence against and reports of those who have suffered injury and defamation because they were required to submit to a `polygraph juice test’.
And `polygraph juice machine’ is an accurate name for that bit of charlatanism, detonating on the assertion, it yields sound scientific evidence of lying and truth telling from guaging blood pressure changes. Well, victims of that bit of underhanded fraud might well have had their blood pressure changed, skywards.
Anti-polygraph.org has a listed of cases fought and current by those who have suffered defamation and economic damage because of the use of polygraph tests. It is govt. agencies who are the culprits. Businesses are forbidden to use the machines in the U.S. because they test nothing at all and agencies such as the FBI and the CIA use them. There is an irony in this , reflected in the evidence of a former FBI officer evidence in the appellate case named above. And another irony, a bloody one, is, the CIA’s reliance on the polyjuice machine made it easier for a KGB spy to remain in a senior position in the CIA, one consequence was the KGB killed ten CIA agents inside Russia.
Randi quotes William Safire:
Our buddy Bob Park, of the American Physical Society, has always insisted, as we have, that the polygraph — “lie detector” — is useless. Last week, noting some news on that subject, he commented that “The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you’re lying about having an orgasm.”
The New York Times columnist William Safire last week referred to “the form of torture that calls itself the lie detector.” Much to his — and to my — satisfaction, the bells-and-whistles machine that measures perspiration, heart rate, respiration, and other signs of possible psychological tension, has now been officially discredited as the judge of truth-telling. But, mark my words, that will not stop government agencies from using it, and the lobby that adores weird bits of technology will pester Federal and State officials to approve and endorse it, vigorously.
I have always insisted that the polygraph is a form of technical witchcraft, an example of wishful thinking by the tech world. The results depend entirely upon the operator and the situation as it exists at the moment the test is administered. Twice now, I myself have undergone polygraph examination — as tests of my ability to defeat the device, I will quickly add! — and I won both times. I equipped examiners with specific questions, the truthful answers to which would be embarrassing and stress inducing, so that the tests would take place under similar circumstances to those in effect when these examinations are usually done. A piece of cake, believe me.
Of course, as a magician, I am accustomed to “lying” professionally. I represent situations that are quite false, misleading, and deceptive — in order to achieve the illusionary effects I employ. That box on stage, casually shown to be empty, may not be empty; a person, who walks on stage to assist me, might have been cleverly, subtly “prompted” beforehand, without even being aware of that fact. Given that situation, it’s perhaps no wonder that I can defeat the polygraph. But criminals, spies, thieves, are also in the business of deception, though with less honourable intentions.
Experts convened by the National Research Council, an branch of the National Academy of Sciences, spent almost two years on an investigation of the polygraph, and concluded that “national security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument,” adding that “no spy has ever been caught [by] using the polygraph.”
Safire wrote, in The New York Times, that a U.S. attorney general once told him: “Look — we know it’s often wrong, but watching that needle jump is scary, and it’s our best way for police to get confessions.” Okay, I can see that technique being used successfully, but how can we depend on law enforcement using it only that way, and what’s to prevent its use in surreptitiously “proving” points to authorities who are empowered to grant broader permission for searches, seizures, or interrogations that otherwise would not be allowed?
I’m anything but soft on crime and criminals. But I signed on, as a naturalized citizen, to a system that I expect to toe the line in following the Constitution and the many freedoms — as well as responsibilities — that it requires. I expect that system to protect me and others, while I submit to its needs in administering justice and human rights.
Safire wrote:
The Supreme Court in 1998 held, 8 to 1, that only a jury can be the lie detector: “By its very nature, polygraph evidence may diminish the jury’s role in making credibility determinations….the aura of infallibility attending polygraph evidence can lead jurors to abandon their duty to assess credibility and guilt.”
Thus defeated by the high court in criminal trials, and with businesses restrained by Congress from using the intimidating device to screen employees, the “polygraph community,” as the sweat-merchant lobby calls itself, made its last stand by claiming the ability of its testers to root out spies.
Safire then pointed out the frightening fact that major Federal agencies had embraced this pseudoscience, a fact of which, back in the 1960s, a group of us from CSICOP had tried to convince a select group from the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies. As I’d feared, they had arrived at that conference with their decisions already made, and the polygraph was dear to them as an example of modern technology, they thought, that would serve them well. Safire continued:
The C.I.A. had been the first to fall for it. By relying on widespread polygraph tests to “flutter” its employees, the agency believed it was invulnerable to “moles.” But the Soviet penetrator Aldrich Ames breezed through two of those tests, causing our counterspies to lower their guard and ignore obvious clues to the source of espionage that cost the lives of ten U.S. agents in Russia.
Because professional spies are trained to defeat the device; because pathological liars do not cause its needles to spike; and because our counterspies relax when a potential suspect “passes” — the system breeds the opposite of security.
Safire went on to tell how in 1981 he had been told by William Casey, CIA chief, that a valium pill and certain simple physical tricks would easily enable him, Casey, to defeat the instrument. Safire recounted several examples in which the polygraph results were quite wrong and almost got innocent victims fired and/or convicted. He did not say how many were actually doomed by the system. Wrote Safire:
…polygraphing should be stopped not only at the Energy Department, which sponsored the Research Council study because it was losing scientists, but at the Defense Department, which subjects some 10,000 employees to the self-defeating display of distrust. If unfairness to truth-tellers doesn’t move you, try the hard-liner’s reason: Bureaucratic reliance on today’s fault-ridden system lets well-trained spies and terrorists penetrate our defenses.
We’ll see just how persuasive this revelation is…..
Another shocking and stark example, cited again by Randi, of the damage that can be caused by those who wield polyjuice machines is:
George W. Maschke tells us, concerning a subject we’ve often discussed here:
As you know, reliance on pseudoscience can have significant adverse effects on people’s lives. One such pseudoscience is polygraph “testing” — a technique that the National Academy of Sciences has judged to be without scientific basis, but that the U.S. Government continues to swear by. Some years ago, I applied to become an FBI special agent. All was going well until, in the space of three hours, a polygraph operator concluded that I was a spy, drug dealer, and drug user. (I am not! But how does one prove a negative?)
On Polygraph.com, George Maeshke has furnished a detailed report of those affairs, his exhaustive evaluation of the machine, and links to other scientific papers and Senate reports, all damning the machine. Here, a few quotes are in order:
Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen Soldier’s Encounter With the Polygraph
George W. Maschke
I am telling my story to help hasten the day that our government ends its misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy, a practice it has with good reason prohibited the private sector from employing.
I had held a security clearance since 1983, when I enlisted as a private in the US Army as an interrogator. After taking my fingerprints and running a National Agency Check (NAC), the Army granted me a secret clearance. After completing the interrogation course at the US Army Intelligence Center (USAIC), Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and Arabic language training at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) at the Presidio of Monterey, California, I served for more than two years as a strategic debriefer with a Military Intelligence unit overseas.
I debriefed human intelligence sources (militarese for “people") in the Arabic language during this period and prepared Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) based on my debriefings. The Army twice awarded me the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) for my intelligence work. I rose through the ranks from private (E-1) to sergeant (E-5).
After my release from active duty, I returned to the university, where I continued my studies. Then, on 26 February 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, killing John DiGiovanni, Robert Kirkpatrick, Stephen Knapp, William Macko, Wilfredo Mercado, and Monica Smith, an expectant mother. Many more were injured.
Some five months later, I received a call from OCAR. An NCO there remembered me from the Gulf War, and had found my phone number from a telephone directory. She asked me to volunteer for “a mission in New York.” I agreed, and after a brief stop at OCAR’s new office in Rosslyn, Virginia and in-processing at the Pentagon, I proceeded to the FBI’s New York Field Office.
The matter at hand was indeed the World Trade Center bombing (TRADEBOMB) case…
two prosecutors from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which was prosecuting the case, came to the FBI’s offices and asked for help translating some Arabic documents. My Army colleagues and I gladly volunteered.
The FBI’s own people had been reluctant to work in the hot, stuffy offices of the US Attorney’s Office where the original documentary evidence from the case was stored… . The FBI employees preferred to work with copies of the documents in the Bureau’s roomy air-conditioned offices. But that was less efficient than working with the actual evidence, which was often much easier to read.
My fellow soldiers and I spent the next three months at the US Attorney’s Office cataloging, assessing, and translating documents that the FBI had failed to properly exploit for intelligence value. Most of what we translated was submitted in court as evidence in the TRADEBOMB case and is a matter of public record, and that is why I can discuss these details. I performed additional duties that I cannot discuss.
FBI Director Louis Freeh sent me a letter of appreciation for my work (view PDF), as did then Secretary of Defense Bill Perry (view PDF) and then Army Chief-of-Staff General Gordon R. Sullivan (view PDF).
The work I did in support of the TRADEBOMB case was the most important and satisfying work I had done in my life. I felt had made a difference.
My two tours of duty with the FBI so impressed me that I decided to become a special agent in the FBI. I wanted to make fighting terrorism my life’s work.
On 15 May 1995, I went to the Los Angeles Field Office for the polygraph exam that SSA Sue C. had requested for me. Special Agent (SA) Jack Trimarco greeted me at the receptionist’s desk and escorted me to a room inside.
He began by telling me that the Bureau had done extensive checking of my background and knew that I was a person of strong moral character. I was surprised by that remark, because I had only completed my Special Agent Qualifications Questionnaire (Form FD-843) and Application for Employment (Form FD-140) listing references – the starting point for a background investigation – the day before. I carried them by hand to the FBI’s offices on the day of the polygraph exam. The FBI had not had adequate time to investigate my background, and SA Trimarco had barely managed to squeeze me into his schedule a couple days earlier. I knew he had to be lying, but I kept this to myself.
We then discussed my background and why I wanted to become an FBI agent. I told him the same things I’ve described to you thus far, but in greater detail.
[After having rehearsed the questions]:
SA Trimarco then hooked me up to the machine and asked me the questions we had reviewed. About midway through, he complained that my breathing was slowing down and was too slow. As I tried to breath faster to please him, he asked the remaining questions. I think he repeated some questions.
When he was done, he informed me that I had shown signs of deception on the questions about unauthorized release of classified information and contacts with foreign intelligence agencies. I was shocked. How could he tell me I’m lying when I’m telling the truth?!
He showed me the charts and pointed to a region where he claimed I had shown deception, but I couldn’t make head or tail of it.
I told him he was absolutely mistaken, that I’ve never violated the trust my government has placed in me, and that I wanted to be re-tested. He told me that the records of my exam would be sent to Washington for an expedited review and that I might be contacted for a second test, but that it was unlikely.
I left the Bureau’s offices where I had proudly served just four years earlier in a state of shock such as I have never experienced before or since. I felt dizzy and numb all over. I fully appreciate now the meaning of the word “dumbfounded.” How could SA Trimarco think that I’m a spy when I answered all his questions truthfully?
When I got home, I called SSA Mike Hilliard, the chief of recruiting at LAFO, to protest my innocence. The man who had been warm and cordial just four days earlier was now cold and hostile. He claimed that “other” derogatory information about me had come to light. I told him that if he really thought I was a spy, that the Bureau had damned well better launch a criminal investigation against me. SSA Hilliard curtly replied that the Bureau just might do that. And that was the end of our conversation.
…. my own understanding of the term “control question” was different from that of the polygrapher who had explained the polygraph to me years before I sat for SA Trimarco’s polygraph exam. To an interrogator like myself, a “control question” is “one to which you already know the answer.” You ask it to check if the person you’re interrogating is being honest.
But in the polygrapher’s parlance, a control question is one that is not pertinent to what the polygrapher really wants to get at, but which he hopes and expects will provoke a deceptive response.
The polygrapher wants the subject to lie so that he can compare the subject’s physical responses measured while answering the “control” questions to responses measured while answering the “relevant” questions (in my case, the ones about espionage that really counted). If the responses to the “relevant” questions are stronger than those to the “control” questions, the subject must be lying. Or so the theory goes. If it seems overly simplistic to you, you’re right. As Professor Lykken notes, “…the theory and methods of polygraphic lie detection are not rocket science, indeed, they are not science at all.”
But in March, Deputy Assistant Director James A. Oppy wrote me apologizing for the delay in responding and stating:
Although your desire to become affiliated with this Bureau is appreciated, we are unable to further process your application based on the results of your polygraph examination. As you are aware, all applicants for FBI employment must successfully pass a pre-employment polygraph examination. The results of your examination were not within acceptable parameters.
This was the FBI’s polite way of telling me to go to hell. All my honorable service to my country counted for nothing, and I would not be granted any opportunity to clear my name. Because a man with a machine who had just met me the same day concluded that I am some sort of spy. No appeal.
Through the website NoPolygraph.com,
IF I WERE TO DIRECT YOU to answer a question falsely, would your false answer be a lie? As absurd as such an exercise may seem, it is a game which the United States government plays with thousands of Americans to determine whether they are worthy of being trusted with America’s most sensitive secrets.
An Important Preliminary Note
First and foremost, you must understand that your polygraph “test” is actually an interrogation. Your mild-mannered polygrapher is a trained interrogator, and his main objective is to extract damaging admissions from you.
As with criminal interrogations, anything you say during a polygraph screening interrogation can and will be used against you. But unlike criminal interrogations, our government denies you the right to have legal counsel present at a polygraph screening interrogation. David Thoreson Lykken
notes in his seminal work on polygraphy, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (Plenum Press, 1998
And also be aware that to a polygraph examiner/interrogator, a confession is like a trophy. So the slightest sliver of anything – anything that can be construed or misconstrued as damaging – that examiner has a strong incentive to say, “I got an admission; this person was deceptive; here’s the proof."7
Some polygraph operators routinely bluff every subject
David T. Lykken A Tremor in the Blood.
innocent persons might have good cause to employ countermeasures, writing at p. 277:
…[I]f I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards…
It would behoove you to read Lykken’s
Like the comic book character Wonder Woman, whose magic lasso compels all held within its coils to speak nothing but the truth, the lie detector is a fantasy created and popularized by pop psychologist Dr. William Moulton Marston
What should be pointed out is, polygraph tests are not simply useful for falsely damning and convicting a-priori someone innocent of an allegation. That the `examiner’ finds the expected result is decided by their motivation, reasons of politics for example. Bias is built in, indeed, the polyjuice machine is exactly like an oracle, a useless bit of detritus which, because it has certain marks, dents, curvatures, whatever, on it, those are treated as facts confirming whatever a-priori belief or expectation is held by the `questioner’. The point to oracular consultation is the sleight of hand of appearing to gather objective evidence and a conclusion, which follows, when it is exactly the reverse. The analogy of oracular consultation is tight, for that too is interrogation, not forensic analysis, containing the contradiction because formally the claim by the boosters of the polyjuice machine is precisely, it does yield, consistently, scientific evidence, the result is not valid data, only drivel asserted by method of interrogation and a false method of interrogation. at that, as Maschke has demonstrated in detail.
Any answers to an interrogation are independent of other evidence. In a criminal case, investigators must uncover material evidence which will tie in someone accused of a crime with the act. That the requirement can be difficult to satisfy, even thought he accused be guilty of the crime, is evident in the case of Mallard v Regina, as we shall cite.
The appellate appeal case of Mallard v. Regina is famous, infamous, perhaps, to polyjuice machine operators, because of that question, does the results of polyjuice test constitute new, admissible evidence and to satisfy that count as justification for appeal, the principle, as stated in the opening remarks of the published judgement, being scientific advances now available does issue new evidence which is germane to the claim of the appellant. The appeal, however, did not rest on that count. The appeal rests on an extensive number of grounds.
Except for a few counts, there was sufficient claimed to merit appeal and that is reflected in the preamble of the judgement of Justices Parker, Wheeler, and Roberts-Smith. The Judgement is 117 pages; the reasoning is elegant and extensively exhausts considerations germane to each count of appeal. In fact, because of the appellant’s claim, the Justices indulged a rare thing, a reprisal of the trial case, since the counts challenge in detail most of the evidence which had been presented at trial.
Two major and open matters were the murder weapon and failure to find bloodstains and DNA material on Mallard and the clothing he wore. The evidence of the forensic evidence supplied by two scientists certainly raise doubts. The evidence of Mallard himself warranted testing, given during the investigation and in court. Their honours certainly were impartial, as the text of their judgement demonstrates. Excluding the matter of polyjuice machines, the conclusions to each count resolve soundly the reasonable challenges set forth by the appellant. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mallard is guilty of having murdered Lawrence.
r view, nothing in the evidence before us relating to the likely
murder weapon alters the position as it was seen to be at trial. The more
detailed material which is before us as to the experiments of Dr Cooke,
both before and after the trial, with different implements, and the material
concerning the efforts to find an appropriate implement, go no further
than establishing that no wrench which can clearly be said to be capable
of inflicting injuries of the type seen on the deceased has been found.
Indeed, no implement capable of inflicting precisely those injuries has
been found.
106 There must at trial have been room for doubt about the murder
weapon, in part because of the evidence of Dr Cooke as to the appropriate
profile, and in part because of the evidence of Ms Raine as to the iron bar
which, if the jury accepted that she had seen the petitioner, would have
suggested an entirely different weapon. Although the evidence as to the
experiments and enquiries in relation to the murder weapon which were
conducted prior to trial should in our view have been disclosed to the
defence, the petitioner has not thereby lost a chance of acquittal
reasonably open to him. All that that evidence was capable of doing, was
giving greater weight or emphasis to evidence already before the jury
which suggested that the identity of the murder weapon could not be
established with certainty.
107 Finally, it is desirable to refer briefly to the apparent significance of
the murder weapon at trial. In some cases, it might be that even a “greater
emphasis” upon uncertainty surrounding this issue would be critical, so
that non disclosure of material touching that issue would inevitably affect
the fairness of the trial. This is not such a case, for a number of reasons.
First, as we have noted, an iron bar was an alternative weapon, on one
view. The identity of the weapon, though often referred to as a wrench
(no doubt because of the petitioner’s description) was not advanced by the
prosecution as one of the “15 things", known to the murderer, which had
been described by the petitioner. The issue about the weapon, to the
extent there was an issue, arose in the context of a trial in which it was
clear that the petitioner had at some points confessed in a manner
inconsistent with the known facts (as, for example, in the video interview
in which he described Mrs Lawrence’s purse as a “glomesh” purse).
Some, but not all, of the inconsistencies between the confessions and the
known facts were specifically referred to by the learned trial Judge in his
directions to the jury. A confession to the use of a weapon which may not
have been that actually used, would have been but one more
inconsistency. Last, we note that before us, there was evidence of a
conversation the petitioner had with an undercover police officer, in
This leaves the polyjuice business but, beforehand, there is a pathetic, Dobby like moment, which, perhaps perverse, is amusing:
He was told that detectives needed to know more about “this person", he
Asked for a break
71 On his return from that, he denied being in the shop and denied
murdering Mrs Lawrence. He said that everything he had said had been
lies and that he did not kill her. He began hitting himself on the forehead
and when Superintendent Caporn attempted to restrain him he bit
Superintendent (as he now is – so far as possible, we refer to witnesses in
the appeal by their current titles) Caporn on the leg. The interview was
then terminated.
Polygraph evidence (Ground D)
This ground is introduced with summation of the background to the testing of Mallard. It is not strange that the media mounted the campaign to have a polygraph test admitted as evidence, one reveals the great wailing and much handwringing of T.V. current affairs programmes, whining, ain’t it a shame Mr. Mallard cannot be allowed to establish his innocent be a fool proof scientific method. As paragraph 203 relates, A journalist of The Australian arranged the test. The transcript continues with a description of the polygraph machine and the test, as claimed by the boosters. The credentials of Mr. Van Aperen, a former police officer curiously enough, who conducted the polygraph interrogation of Mr. Mallard, and who is one of `only two polygraph examiners in Australia’, are listed in regular form for any expert witness. The transcript of the test is furnished, of some of which will be quoted below, in section D of the published judgement examines the claims for the validity of and admissability of polygraph tests. The justices proceed impartiality, the arguments not falsely driven by any urge to prove or disprove the merits or lack of of the machine. As the evidence furnished is laid out, however, the arguments accumulate into a damning evaluation, and some `experts’ don’t walk away altogether credibly, to the say the least.
Now, in view of all the above, and in view of what is cited below, while Mr. Scrafton might feel pleased, smug, satisfied, he has not demonstrated anything at all. A polyjuice machine is a bit of gut used as an oracle and one of the many countermeasures to defeat it is, appropriately enough, to tighten the sphinctre, as maeshke relates. No facts have been established, nor valid arguments from evidence establsihed because not the first can be yielded and, per force, no conclusions at all material to whath he has alleged can be made.
The Prime Minister Mr. Howard is absolutely correct:
Asked if he would match Mr Scrafton’s decision to take a lie detector test, Mr Howard said he was not interested in “getting into gimmicks like that".
Aperen’s expert evidence in Mallard v regina was shredded, burnt, the remnants buried. One of the reasons for that treatment of the polyjuice `evidence’ is contained in his statement;
Yesterday, Mr Scrafton submitted to a lie detector test administered by Melbourne-based Australian Polygraph Services. Its director, Steven Van Aperen, told Channel 9 Mr Scrafton showed no fear of being caught out lying.
This leaves Scrafton’s boast as at best, entirely a vacous outburst. Scrafton, no doubt is decent but that has no bearing vacuous entirely:
Mr Scrafton said he felt totally vindicated
Scrafton, no doubt is decent but that has no bearing on his allegation , and a polygraph offers no grounds for confidence that anyone’s integrity is demonstrated, as Maschke found out.
The meja’s role in this latest bit of public hand wringing and shit stirring, is a disgrace. Having led, duplicitously, the charge to press for the admission of polgraph tests as admissable evidence in court cases, only to be met with not just one decisions but, in fact, many rulings stating, polygraph machines and tests are rubbish and, if allowed, were pervert the course of justice, none-the-less insist on mounting a campaign using the tactics of nothing more than charlatans, and with the aim of attempting to damage the Prime Ministers’ reputation, and that is all that the publicity amounts too. What is worse, however, are the morons still campaigning for the admission of polygraph tests as evidence: to spell it out to the idiots, that would reduce trials and procedure to nothing more than witch sniffing affairs.
The Latest media stunt, which Scrafton is complicit in, his a disgrace, a descent into mumbo jumbo rubbish.
Scrafton, if that is his motive, could have felt `vindicated’ just as readily by staring at the dead twigs in his garden or, talking to Mystic Susie, or, better still, slaughtered a chook and examined the guts: my, I am a good guy. Fuck, what a joke. Any way, to continue;
203 In early March 2001, Ms Colleen Egan, a reporter with “The
Australian” newspaper contacted Mr William Glare on behalf of the
petitioner. We were informed that Mr Glare and Mr Van Aperen are the
only two polygraph examiners in Australia.
204 Ms Egan supplied Mr Glare with a brief of the petitioner’s trial,
which he read. On 13 March 2001 he conducted a polygraph examination
of the petitioner at Casuarina Prison. He subsequently produced an
affidavit sworn 17 December 2002 to be used in this appeal. However,
prior to the hearing he unfortunately suffered a serious illness which
incapacitated him and he was unable to testify.
205 On 3 July 2003 at the instigation of those advising or assisting the
petitioner, Mr Steven Van Aperen conducted a polygraph examination of
the petitioner at Casuarina Prison, details of which are contained in his
affidavit sworn 17 July 2003.
206 Mr Van Aperen is a certified forensic polygraph examiner. He
conducts his own business.
212 Mr Van Aperen has conducted numerous presentations on
polygraphy to various police departments and other organisations in Australia.
213 Since 1996 he has conducted 338 polygraph tests in cases including
homicide, rape, sexual assault, theft, fraud and other matters.
214 Mr Van Aperen described polygraph techniques as being derived
directly from “basic scientific principles and research in psychology and
human psychophysiology". He asserts that physiological measurement
techniques for the detection of deception have been developed and
subjected to scientific evaluation for almost 100 years.
216 According to him, the most commonly employed testing format is
the comparison question test, or control question technique ("CQT"). In
the CQT there are three categories of questions. The first category
comprises those which relate to the particular matter under investigation
(eg did you steal that $500 cheque?). These are referred to as relevant
questions. The next category is control or comparison questions. They
are asked within the same format of the test and are deliberately designed
to produce a “lying” response (such as “have your ever deliberately
harmed anyone?"). The purpose of the control or comparison question is
to provide a meaningful way to compare and interpret the relative strength
of physiological reactivity to the relevant questions. The remaining
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Document Name: WASCACCA2003WASCA0296.doc (KC) Page 65
217 Interpretation of the test outcome is made by systematically
comparing the strength of reactions to the relevant questions against the
comparison or control questions. Negative scores (indicative of
deception) are assigned when reactions to relevant questions are stronger
than reactions to control or comparison questions. Positive scores are
assigned when the reactions to control or comparison questions are
stronger than reactions to relevant questions. The scores are subsequently
tallied for the entire test. All relevant questions combined, a total
numerical score of minus six (or a greater negative number) indicates
overall deception to the relevant questions. A total of plus six or greater
indicates overall truthfulness to the relevant questions. A total score
between minus six and plus six is deemed to be inconclusive.
218 In his affidavit and evidence Mr Van Aperen also described his
understanding of the Guilty Knowledge Test ("GKT"). This is
administered in two forms – the Known Peak of Tension test and the
Searching Peak of Tension ("SPOT") test.
219 A Known Peak of Tension test is used to determine if the examinee
has knowledge of a particular case fact in respect of a crime that is known
only to the perpetrator and the police.
220 A SPOT test is used to determine a case fact known only to the
perpetrator of the offence.
221 The assumption underlying both of these is that only the perpetrator
would have knowledge of the particular facts surrounding the crime (and
will produce an autonomous reaction when asked about such facts).
222 A polygraph examination procedure begins with a “carefully
structured” interview (the pre-test interview) in which the issues to be
tested are discussed in detail with the examinee. According to Mr Van
Aperen, the intent is that during the pre-test interview, questions
concerning the issues under investigation are constructed between the
examiner and the examinee so that they are clear, succinct and clear of
ambiguity. The examinee is instructed to answer all questions with a
simple yes or no. During each testing phase recordings are made of the
examinee’s physiological responses to each of the questions. The entire
set of questions is asked at least three times.
223 In the petitioner’s case Mr Van Aperen conducted an extensive
pre-test interview. In the course of that he informed the petitioner that no
matter what the results of the examination were, they would be provided
to the Office of the DPP. The petitioner agreed to that.
224 Mr Van Aperen utilised an Axciton computerised polygraph for the
testing. That recorded on a moving chart, relative changes of blood
pressure, rate and strength of pulse beat, electro-dermal response and
thoracic and abdominal respiratory patterns.
225 Mr Van Aperen conducted first what he described as a GKT or
SPOT test to determine whether the petitioner had knowledge of what
type of instrument was used in the murder. That test was conducted in the
following way:
“X This part of the test is about to begin. Please remain still
p.66
TESTER: No. Okay. Um. Now, my job today is to find out
whether or not you were involved in this and what I need to do
in order to do this, I want to find out exactly a little bit more
about the type of person you are. There’s - - I guess what I want
to be able to show is that you’re not the sort of person that
would do something like this but also - -
TESTER: Now, ah, the next, ah, three questions I’m going to
ask you are very important because, ah, they’re specific issues I
need you to be, you know, upfront with me in relation to these
issues. Okay.
MR MALLARD: Absolutely.
TESTER: Um. So what I’d like to ask you. These questions
are going to relate to before, ah, the death of Pamela Lawrence,
so before this incident. Okay.
MR MALLARD: Mm Hm.
TESTER: So I don’t want to have any cross-over into that
period of time. So just bear with me for a second. Now, what
I’m going to do I’m just going to write them up so just bear with
me.
MR MALLARD: Okay.
TESTER: I won’t be long - - -
TESTER: - - - won’t be long.
MR MALLARD: Okay.
TESTER: Okay. On a scale of 1 to 10, how truthful would you
rate yourself, 1 being not very truthful, 10 being 100 per cent
truthful? What would you give yourself as a self-assessment?
MR MALLARD: Ten.
MR MALLARD: Ten.
TESTER: Ten. Okay. Are you the sort of person that would
deliberately hurt - - physically hurt people or - -
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: - - intentionally hurt people?
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: Okay. Um. What I am going to do now is I’m just
going to run through some questions. Now, these relate to
before this incident. Okay. So, um, forget about the incident,
I’m going to talk about before that, and there’s going to be - - the
questions are going to be quite self-explanatory. Um. Firstly,
let me ask you. Are you the sort of person that would
deliberately hurt someone?
MR MALLARD: no.
TESTER: Okay. If I was to say to you between the ages of 15
and 30, so between the ages of 15 and 30 did you ever
deliberately hurt someone physically?
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: So there was never ever any stage that through
growing up or, um school or anything you deliberately went out
to hurt someone?
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: Okay.
MR MALLARD: In fact I was bullied at school.
TESTER: Okay. Um. Was - -
MR MALLARD: Was there a victim as I am now.
TESTER: Okay. Was there any time that - - do you have a
MR MALLARD: Any form of physical harm, a slap or a kick
or a punch or anything like - - anything to that effect.
TESTER: No problem.
MR MALLARD: I’ve just thought of an incident at school
when I was young, early age, where in retaliation of being
beaten, I punched the guy in the stomach - -
TESTER: Mm hm.
MR MALLARD: - - but that was it.
TESTER: Okay. Well - - okay. No problem.
MR MALLARD: Trying to be honest.
TESTER: Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Um. So was it just that
one time?
MR MALLARD: Yes. Yes.
TESTER: Okay.
MR MALLARD: That was early in my school - -
TESTER: Sure. No, that’s fine.
MR MALLARD: - - that - - that was second year of high
school, I think.
TESTER: Sure. Okay. In that case, I’ll put - - I’ll actually ask
you this. Other than what you’ve told me, so it excludes that
one time - - so other than the one you told me. Between the
ages of 15 and 30, did you ever deliberately hurt someone
physically?
MR MALLARD: No. No.
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: Okay. The other question I’ve got for you is are you
the sort of person that would lie to someone in authority?
MR MALLARD: No. Definitely not.
TESTER: Okay.
MR MALLARD: Absolutely not.
TESTER: Okay. Good. In that case, I might ask you this
question. Before 1992, did you ever lie to someone in
authority?
MR MALLARD: No.
TESTER: Okay. All right. So that could be teachers, that
could be parents, could be anything along those – nothing major
perhaps?
MR MALLARD: Nothing. No, nothing to the way you’re
putting it. I know what you mean. I have, um, exaggerated
and, um - -
TESTER: Nothing - -
MR MALLARD: - - nothing of a serious deception, no.
TESTER: . . . (indistinct) . . . be able to show that you’re not the
sort of person that would - -
MR MALLARD: Yeah, no.
TESTER: Yeah.
MR MALLARD: No. I can truthfully say no.
TESTER: Okay. All right. Um. One of the other questions
I’m going to ask you is, is your first name Andrew?
MR MALLARD: Yes. My first names are Andrew Mark.
TESTER: And the other question is - - I’m going to ask is, is
there something else you’re afraid I will ask you a question
about even though I told you I would not, because I’m not going
to, but I just want to make sure that you know that I’m not going
to. So the question is: is there something else you’re afraid I
[2003] WASCA 296
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Document Name: WASCACCA2003WASCA0296.doc (KC) Page 74
will ask you a question about even though I told you I would
not?
MR MALLARD: No, and even if you were, I would be fine
with that - -”
232 Following this, Mr Van Aperen rehearsed the test with the petitioner
before reattaching the petitioner to the polygraph machine and then
conducted the test as follows:
“TESTER: Yeah, that’s good. Now, just before we start. Once
again, I need you to sit perfectly still during the test; no finger
movements or facial movements or feet movements or anything
like that. Just simply answer the questions yes or no. Um. And
p74
233 According to Mr Van Aperen’s analysis of the three charts the
petitioner’s polygram showed no strong or consistent unresolved
responses to the relevant questions. The results indicated a total overall
score of plus six. It was his opinion that the petitioner was truthful in his
responses that he did not strike Pamela Lawrence on the head. He said
that on the basis of scientific research by Ansley the confidence in the
truthful outcome is approximately 96 per cent. The polyscore chart
analysis of the series 2 CQT test returned a result “strongly no deception
indicated, probability of deception is less than .01%".
234 The final portion of the polygraph examination was directed to
ascertaining whether the petitioner was being truthful in his responses that
he had never told the police that it was him rather than someone else who
struck Pamela Lawrence.
235 Once again Mr Van Aperen conducted a pre-test interview in which
he discussed the questions he was going to ask.p.75
239 Mr Van Aperen’s hand-scoring analysis of the three charts showed no
strong nor consistent unresolved responses to the relevant questions.
There was a total overall score of plus nine. He concluded that the
petitioner was truthful in his responses that he had never told the police
that it was him rather than someone else who struck Pamela Lawrence.
The Polyscore chart analysis returned the same result as that for the
Series 2 CQT tests.
240 The respective positions of the parties on the issue of the polygraph
were advanced through the evidence of Mr Van Aperen and by Professor
Charles Honts who were called by the petitioner and Professor William Iacono, Professor John Furedy and Dr Drew Richardson, who were called
by the respondent.
The above transcript makes plain, polygraphs are an exercise in nothing at all.
The Justices cited an extensive body of case law involving the admissibility of polygraph tests, noting the position of U.S. courts Federal and States, as matter of principles in addition to case law.
They begin by examination of whether scientific criteria is satisfied, without reflecting on the merits or demerits of the machine itself, observing, that a machine is new doesn’t preclude acceptance of it as a measuring instrument, though from the above, the claim of `one hundred years in of developing and perfecting the machine, begs the question: why so long if it is a valid instrument?
241 The submissions on behalf of the petitioner may briefly be
summarised in the following way.
242 The test for the admissibility of expert opinion evidence should be
taken as that articulated in Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316 at
336 in which Gaudron and Gummow JJ said that:
“Expert evidence is admissible with respect to a relevant matter
about which ordinary persons are ‘[not] able to form a sound
judgment … without the assistance of [those] possessing special
knowledge or experience in the area and which is the subject of
a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently
organised or recognised as a reliable body of knowledge or
experience’.”
243 It was submitted that ordinary persons cannot form a sound judgment
about whether or not a witness is telling the truth and that accordingly
polygraph evidence would enable a jury to form a sound judgment about
that – the only question then being whether the requirement of
“reliability” is satisfied. This was said to have been recognised by Kirby J
in State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Construction
in State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Construction
Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 at 618 where at [88] Kirby J
approved
Counsel for Appellant claimed,
“Vast literature” has developed in relation to the validity of polygraph
Examinations and that the polygraph is now generally accepted in the
Relevant scientific community as a valid test, which produces reliable
Results, or at least, (as it was put), results significantly better than chance.
Respondent claimed:
The respondent contends the evidence is simply inadmissible. It was
argued that the statements made by the petitioner to Mr Van Aperen on
3 July 2003 are self-serving hearsay, made nine years after the relevant
248 It is contended that the opinion expressed by Mr Van Aperen as to
the truthfulness of the petitioner’s answers is an inadmissible opinion
because the basis upon which he purports to state it is not a proper subject
for expert opinion. There is nothing in the material which establishes
polygraphy as the subject of a reliable body of knowledge or experience.
Furthermore, credibility is a subject within the experience of, and
uniquely the province of, a jury.
249 Further grounds of objection are that Mr Van Aperen is not an expert
in the scientific field upon which polygraphy purports to be based and
several of the conclusions he asserts about the accuracy of the results of
polygraph examinations are unsupportable even according to the evidence
of Professor Honts.
250 Finally, it is submitted that the evidence Mr Van Aperen seeks to
give is intended to do no more than bolster the credibility of the petitioner
and is therefore strictly inadmissible in any event.
251 In Australia, the starting point for the admissibility of expert
evidence is usually taken to be the judgment of Dixon CJ in Clark v Ryan
(1960) 103 CLR 486 at 491:
(Expert Evidence, Law Book Co, Vol 1 p 1890) note that in the US the
preponderance of authorities are against the admission of polygraph
evidence.
256 The only reported Australian case is Murray (1981) 7 A Crim R 48,
a decision of Sinclair DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales. In
the course of the trial an accused sought to adduce evidence of the results
of a polygraph examination conducted by Mr Glare. His Honour held the
evidence to be inadmissible for the following reasons (at 49):
“(1) The sole purpose of the evidence is to bolster the credit of
the accused as a witness. However, the veracity of the
accused and the weight to be given to his evidence, and
other witnesses called in the trial, is a matter for the jury
to assess and on general principle such evidence, as
counsel seeks to adduce, is excluded.
(2) The witness seeks to express an opinion as to ultimate
facts in issue, which is peculiarly the province of the jury
to determine on facts presented to them by witnesses who
perceived them by the exercise of their physical senses.
(3) It purports to be expert evidence but the witness is not
qualified as an expert, he is merely an operator and
assessor of a polygraph. Furthermore the scientific
premise upon which his assessment is based has not been
proved in this Court or in any other court in Australia.
(4) Devoid of any proved or accepted scientific basis, the
evidence of Mr. Glare is simple hearsay, which is
inadmissible and of no probative value.”
257 Having referred to two Canadian cases (Wong (1977) 1 WWR 1(BC)
257 Having referred to two Canadian cases (Wong (1977) 1 WWR 1(BC)
and Phillion (1974) 53 DLR (3d) 319 his Honour concluded that (at 50):
“The polygraph technique purports to be a scientific diagnosis
of the testimony of a witness. Whatever may be the situation in
some States of the United States of America, this ‘evangelical
sideline’, as it was described, in passing, by Mr Glare which no
doubt holds a genuine fascination for some people, has no place
in a criminal trial in New South Wales where a machine
operator seeks to express an opinion as to the veracity of an
accused person’s denial of the substance of the charges brought
against him.”
263 At the time of the petitioner’s trial (and indeed as the law presently
stands in Australia) polygraph evidence was inadmissible. The petitioner
himself seems to have understood that a lie detector test was not
admissible in court as he specifically adverted to that in his letter to
Mr Hogan. It seems clear enough that Mr Hogan did not pursue the
matter because he too, believed such evidence would be inadmissible.
275 The party offering the novel scientific evidence has the burden of
demonstrating that it has been accepted as reliable among impartial and
disinterested experts within the scientific community (Kluck v Borland
413 NW 2d 90 (1984) at 91).
276 The courts will have regard to whether or not the proponent of novel
scientific evidence has some personal vested interest in securing its
admissibility. In People v Young 391 NW 2d 270 (1986) it was held that
the evidence of a State police detective who performed tests on evidence
at a State crime laboratory was inadmissible as failing to meet the
criterion requiring impartiality and lack of financial interest.
277 In the 1980s some United States courts moved away from the Frye
test, preferring to focus more on the relevance of the evidence and an
evaluation of its propensity to mislead or confuse. Freckleton and Selby
observe (supra, Vol 1, page 2255) that the result was a stringent standard
which focussed both upon relevance and reliability, rather than merely
upon acceptance within the relevant profession (citing United States v
Downing 753 F 2d 1224 (3rd Circ 1985).
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Document Name: WASCACCA2003WASCA0296.doc (KC) Page 90
solely to the credibility of the petitioner, we should nevertheless accept
there is a difference between self-serving statements by an accused or a
paid “oath-helper” and an expert, impartial examiner who gives evidence
of the results of a technical examination. In support of this submission
counsel rely on the statement in Phipson on Evidence (2000, 15th ed
Sweet & Maxwell, London, [37-13]) that evidence of a polygraph
examination “… is in reality little different from a police officer giving
evidence that during an interview the accused shuffled, stammered or
sweated profusely".
290 We note, however, that the passage quoted immediately continues:
“While a jury might draw certain conclusions about the
truthfulness of a man who behaved in this way as a result of
their own intuitions about human behaviour, it is thought that
such evidence would be inadmissible, in part at least because
the conditions of a police interrogation are so different from the
ordinary circumstances of life to which the jury and the accused
are accustomed. For the same reason, we do not think that
evidence of the results of polygraph tests would be admitted in
England in their present state of development.”
291 In any event, we do not agree with the initial observation. We
consider that the learned authors misapprehend the nature of polygraph
evidence. The fundamental difference between polygraph evidence and
that of the police officer example is that the latter gives evidence only of
his or her physical observations. Such a witness is not permitted to say
that based on such observations he or she thought the accused was lying
(or telling the truth) – yet that is exactly what it is sought to have the
polygraph examiner do.
292 The Supreme Court of Canada has excluded the results of polygraph
examinations sought to be led to establish the truth of an accused’s denials
of committing the crime. In Phillion (supra), the appellant at his trial for
murder had sought to introduce evidence of a polygraph operator based on
a polygraph test he performed on the appellant to determine whether the
appellant’s denial to him of having committed the murder was true. The
evidence was offered to show that the appellant had lied to the police
when he confessed to them. The trial Judge refused to admit the evidence.
The appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed, as was the
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. All members of the Court held
the evidence was inadmissible. Richie J, with whom Martland and
Judson JJ concurred, said (at 140):
It is frequently argued that the polygraph represents
an application of modern scientific knowledge and experience
to the task of determining the veracity of human utterances. It
is said that the courts should welcome this device and not cling
to the imperfect methods of the past in such an important task.
This argument has a superficial appeal but, in my view, it
cannot prevail in the face of the realities of court procedures.
I would say at once that this view is not based on a fear of the
inaccuracies of the polygraph. On that question we were not
supplied with sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.
However, it may be said that even the finding of a significant
percentage of error in its results would not, by itself, be
sufficient ground to exclude it as an instrument for use in the
courts. Error is inherent in human affairs, scientific or
unscientific. It exists within our established court procedures
and must always be guarded against. The compelling reason, in
my view, for the exclusion of the evidence of polygraph results
in judicial proceedings is two-fold. First, the admission of
polygraph evidence would run counter to the well-established
rules of evidence which have been referred to. Second, while
there is no reason why the rules of evidence should not be
modified where improvement will result, it is my view that the
admission of polygraph evidence will serve no purpose which is
not already served. It will disrupt proceedings, cause delays,
and lead to numerous complications which will result in no
greater degree of certainty in the process than that which
already exists.”
295 At page 417 - 418 his Honour continued:
“What would be served by the introduction of evidence of
polygraph readings into the judicial process? To begin with, it
must be remembered that however scientific it may be, its use in
court depends on the human intervention of the operator.
Whatever results are recorded by the polygraph instrument,
their nature and significance reach the trier of fact through the
mouth of the operator. Human fallibility is therefore present as
before, but now it may be said to be fortified with the mystique
of science. Then, it may be asked, what does it do? It provides
evidence on the issue of the credibility of a witness. This has
always been a collateral issue and one to be decided by the trier
of fact. Is the trier of fact assisted by hearing, firstly from
witness ‘A’ that he was not present at the scene of the crime, and
then from witness ‘B’, a polygraph operator, that ‘A’ was
probably truthful? What would the result be, one may ask, if
the polygraph operator concluded from his test that witness ‘A’
was lying? Would such evidence be admissible, could it be
excluded by witness ‘A’, could it be introduced by the Crown?
These are serious questions and they lead to others. Would it be
open to the opponent of the person relying upon the polygraph
to have a second polygraph examination taken for his purposes?
If the results differed, which would prevail, and what right
would there be for compelling the production of polygraph
evidence in the possession of a reluctant party? It is this fear of
turmoil in the courts which lead me to reject the polygraph.”
Idaho Rules of Evidence. The Court referred to one of its earlier
decisions holding that for scientific evidence to be admitted, it must be
supported by appropriate validation, establishing a standard of evidentiary
reliability, and must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue.
F.3d at 609. the polygraph results in this case do not help the
trier of fact to find facts or to understand the evidence as
required by I.R.E. 702. to admit these results is an attempt to
substitute the credibility determination appropriate for the jury,
with Dr. Honts’ interpretation of the alleged involuntary
physiological results from the polygraph examination.
Dr. Honts usurps the role of the jury as the ultimate finder of
credibility.
Therefore, this Court holds Dr. Honts’ testimony as well as the
polygraph results, inadmissible and reverses the decision of the
district court” (our emphasis).
306 In addition to the affidavit and oral evidence of the expert witnesses
to which we have adverted, we have been referred to extensive articles,
journals and other publications bearing on the topic. It clear from the
evidence and the material that there has been a long running dispute
between polygraphers who argue for the use of polygraphy as evidence in
courts and certain psychologists, physiologists and others who regard
306 In addition to the affidavit and oral evidence of the expert witnesses
to which we have adverted, we have been referred to extensive articles,
journals and other publications bearing on the topic. It clear from the
evidence and the material that there has been a long running dispute
between polygraphers who argue for the use of polygraphy as evidence in
courts and certain psychologists, physiologists and others who regard
polygraphy as lacking any scientific basis and not having been shown to
be reliable and therefore oppose their evidentiary use
314 Professor William Iacono is Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry,
Law and Neuroscience and an Adjunct Professor of Child Development at
the University of Minnesota in the United States of America.
He has studied polygraph testing for
about 20 years
316 Professor Iacono maintains there is no such thing as a “lie detector
test". He says there is no pattern of physiological activity that is uniquely
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Document Name: WASCACCA2003WASCA0296.doc (KC) Page 100
associated with lying or any human emotion. All that can be determined
when a polygraph procedure is administered, is whether a person responds
more strongly to one type of question than another. A polygraph cannot
be used to determine why a person responds differentially to certain
questions.
317 Professor Iacono says that the CQT is not a test, but is rather a type
of interview that is assisted by a physiological recording. He says that it
is neither objective nor standardised. Instead, each examiner formulates
questions based on his or her understanding of the facts of the case and
how the “pre-test” interview with the suspect proceeds. Two examiners
giving a CQT to the same suspect are thus likely to use different
questions.
318 He points out that the scoring of the CQT is also subjective and is
itself influenced by the examiner’s impressions of the suspect’s
truthfulness.
319 He emphasises the importance of noting that the control question in a
CQT is not a control in the scientific sense. If it were it would be
identical to the relevant question in all respects but one, namely whether
the answer was truthful or a lie.
320 Professor Iacono posits that in the present case, a true “control” in the
scientific sense would exist if the petitioner was accused of two murders,
that of Pamela Lawrence and that of another woman murdered under
similar circumstances. Unbeknown to him, however, the second murder
would be a fiction invented by the police so that he could be asked a
question on the polygraph examination that would involve both a serious
accusation and a known truthful response. If the petitioner responded in
the same way to both questions, it could be inferred that he was telling the
truth about the real murder. If he responded more to the question about
Pamela Lawrence, it would be known he was lying.
321 Professor Iacono explained that CQT so called “control” questions
differ in many ways from true scientific controls in that it is not known for
certain if the subject is lying in response to them, nor how the accusation
they contain compares in significance to the accusation made in the
relevant questions – hence it is not known why a person might respond
more to a control than a relevant question. A control question may have
special significance to an examinee that is unknown to the examiner.
322 In terms of general acceptance, Professor Iacono testified that
scientists generally at arms length from the polygraph profession who
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Document Name: WASCACCA2003WASCA0296.doc (KC) Page 101
have expressed opinions regarding the scientific basis of polygraph testing
have repeatedly found the test to have little scientific support. He
maintained this has been shown in surveys of scientists, how polygraph
test validity is dealt with in psychology text books and in independent
scientific reviews. He referred to a number of these in evidence and
several of them were provided to us.
323 One aspect of Professor Iacono’s evidence which should particularly
be mentioned is his observations about the possibility that the petitioner
may have “habituated” to relevant questions.
324 The polygraph examination conducted by Mr Van Aperen was the
second polygraph examination undergone by the petitioner. The first was
that conducted by Mr Glare.
325 Mr Van Aperen’s polygraph examination took place more than seven
years after the petitioner was convicted of the crime. The murder itself
occurred some nine years before the test. From the time of his arrest,
through his trial and incarceration, his first appeal and the first polygraph
examination, the petitioner has repeatedly discussed and answered
questions about the allegations. According to Professor Iacono, such
rehearsal and repeated questioning gives the subject an opportunity to
become emotionally prepared for questions about the crime and reduce
the likelihood that strong physiological reactions will continue to be
elicited by such queries. In psychological terms, the subject may have
habituated to the stimuli represented by the relevant questions. The
control questions, by contrast, involve new matters not previously raised
and are thus more likely to elicit a strong physiological reaction.
326 Professor Iacono was severely critical of the report by Ansley cited
by Mr Van Aperen in support of his contention that the accuracy of “real
life” polygraphy testing has been estimated at 98 per cent. The article by
Norman Ansley was published in a polygraph trade journal “Polygraph".
Professor Iacono’s evidence was that this is not a scientific journal and
Mr Ansley does not have scientific credentials. The report purports to
rev
