The History of Polygraph Invention, Its Accuracy in Detecting the Deception

The polygraph is a great tool many law officials use to infer deception, and is right 85 to 90 percent of the time, but too many times the polygraph has failed the innocent, causing them to be unrightfully convicted. Doing so, the polygraph is now rarely brought up in a court. Many people believe they can game the system and lie through the test and pass, but few can achieve that.

First, taking a polygraph test is when someone is asked a series of structured questions while their body is very closely given attention too. A polygraph monitors three autonomic arousals by studying their blood flow, or beats per minute (BPM) and blood pressure, their breathing, and their skin conductivity. Nervousness can cause an increase in heart rate, someone to breathe heavier, or to begin sweating. The examiner will use a blood pressure cuff to monitor cardiovascular activity. To observe the respiration and depths of breath of the examinee, they will have a Pneumograph wrapped around their chest. The perspiration and skin conductivity is measured by attaching electrodes to the examinees’ fingertips. Deception is inferred by a significant spike on the data sheet. A spike on any of the three detectors results in a failed test. In 1902 Sir James McKenzie, a British heart surgeon, focused his main study in cardiac arrhythmias. Through his involved research, he broadened the study of energetics of the heart muscle and was the first to make simultaneous records of the arterial and venous pulses. This enabled doctors to see inside the human body, giving them the ability to evaluate the condition of the heart. Through his research came the invention of the “lie detector test”. An ink-writing machine better known as the polygraph in 1906. Using a rubber diaphragm (tambour) over a vein in the neck, while another is placed on the arterial pulse in the wrist. As the vessels vibrate with each heartbeat, the diaphragms transmit through the rubber tubing through two recording arms, which record the pulse as continuous lines on paper. This would detect problems such as a faster or irregular heartbeats and also increased sweating.

John Larson, a medical student from the University of California, later refined Sir James McKenzie’s heart monitor into the first modern polygraph instrument in 1921. Larsons’ machine was much more accurate in its results, recording several different physiological responses. It recorded blood pressure, pulse rated and respiratory rate on a rotating drum of smoke paper. In 1925 Leonarde Keeler refined Larsons’ instrument by replacing the smoke paper with ink pens in order to ensure the efficiency of the machine, where he later improved his polygraph version by adding a measuring component, galvanic skin resistance. As the polygraph continued to advance throughout the years, it was John Reid, who was introduced to and taught the technique of the polygraph by Fred Inbau, who at the time was the Chicago Police Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory director. After this introduction to how the polygraph machine worked, John set out to study it. Becoming an expert in its technique, he established a private polygraph practice in 1947. As his business grew, he made several contributions to the technique, conducting many studies refining the observations and experiences he and his now growing staff conducted. His findings are now known as “The Reid Technique”, a method of questioning suspects in crime investigations. “The Reid Technique” is a registered trade mark of John E. Reid & Associates and is widely used by law enforcements in the United States. The three-phase process in the Reid technique begins with Fact Analysis, followed with Behavior analysis (designed to develop investigative and behavioral information) and once appropriate this flows to the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation. These steps are practiced throughout investigations daily. In 1955 a man that was convicted of a crime, using Reids technique he was later determined to be false after another man confessed. This brought many questions to how accurate the machine really is. The now free man was paid $500,000 by the state of Nebraska in compensation for his wrongful conviction.

There are many disagreeing opinions on the accuracy of the polygraph test and if it should be used to determine the innocence or conviction of one in question. Polygraphs can deliver false positives, asserting that someone is lying who is actually telling the truth; whereas polygraphs may also offer a slight insight on a person telling the truth about a particular incident, but this is only with a well-trained examiner. Many people believe to have found ways around the polygraph. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Tice, has taken many polygraphs throughout his career, in his own personal finding, he claims “you can calm your own nerves to slow down the heart letting you pass the test without question. No matter, the easiest way to fail an examination is to lie, but this is not the only way. Ironically, it can afflict those of outstanding integrity.” Those that feel guilty for injustices totally unrelated to their actions or lives, or those who fail due to an exceeding sense of responsibility, or simply the guilt felt due to –thinking- about doing wrong, are the “guilt grabbers”. Guilt grabbers are those who tell the truth, but it is registered as a lie.

The Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of scientific evidence in the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. Although the case wasn’t specifically about the polygraph examination, the effect of allowing anyone to request a motion on whether or not the polygraph can be used as evidence was a result. In court hearing since, the decision on whether or not to allow the finding of a polygraph on courts is left to the judge. However, Military courts have banned the use in their system. No matter if you are stating the truth, or trying to cover a lie, until technology provides the polygraph with a brain scanner, it is unlikely that the courts will ever stand firmly behind the device and as we are now, the error rate will never reach zero. The “Pinocchio response”, a sensor attached to the brain reporting physiological responses, but not actually detecting lies or truths, only reporting, is the psychologists argument on the accuracy of the device and what is read. With the basic readings being blood pressure, heart rate, and increased sweating psychologists do not agree with the test and how it is used. In the US each state has their own laws concerning the polygraph test, or also known as the ‘lie detector.’ States which do use the polygraph are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. There are only five states that use it in court, but both parties must agree California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Florida. In very rare instances both parties will agree that the results of a polygraph should be admissible, and the court could allow it as evidence. Without agreeing consent, and for purposes of court procedures, absent a stipulation to the parties, the results of a lie detector test are likely never admissible.

NSA whistleblower Tice, has taken many of the test throughout his career, in his own personal findings claims “you can calm your own nerves to slow down the heart letting you pass the test without question. No matter, the easiest way to fail an examination is to lie, but this is not the only way. Ironically, it can afflict those of outstanding integrity, those that feel guilty for injustices totally unrelated to their actions or lives, or those who fail due to an exceeding sense of responsibility, or simply the guilt felt due to –thinking- about doing wrong, these are the ‘guilt grabbers.’ Guilt grabbers are those who tell the truth, but it is registered as a lie.” There are many techniques people use to try and cheat on a polygraph test. One in particular is sticking a thumbtack under the big toe and pressing on it every time you answer truthfully. Through testing and further examination it has been proven to be ineffective in trying to pass the test. Pressing on the tack will not alter the tests outcome, or cover a lie. It will only bring pain, followed by blood. Another is staying calm, cool, and collected. This technique has proven for itself to work. The examinee will have to think of the ocean side, kicked back and sunbathing. Keeping their breathing and heart rate steady. It works because if there is not a change, the test will not detect deception. Another technique involves spraying your fingertips and wrists heavily with antiperspirant. The antiperspirant is supposed to make the wrist cuff and the electrodes have difficulty collecting data. This did not prove to be effective in altering the test, but made the examinee smell great. (National Geographic)

There are many different court cases where the use of the polygraph has failed the innocent, with each of these following 3 cases, the polygraph was inconclusive, yet law enforcement told each in question they had failed. These cases were all in the Chicago area and are known as some of the most notorious cases in history. In 1992, Holly Staker, an 11 year old girl from Waukegan area, was raped and stabbed to death. Juan Rivera spent nearly 20 years behind bars before an Illinois appeals court reversed the verdict in 2011 when a DNA test cleared Rivera of all accusations. Although he never confessed to the crime until after he was led to believe he had failed a polygraph, with this belief drilled into him, it left a huge impact mentally. (Chicago Tribune) Another case, very similar to that of Rivera’s was the one in 2004, convicting Kevin Fox of murder and sexual assault to his 3 year old daughter, Riley. The Will County sheriff’s police department zeroed in on Fox, telling him if he passed a polygraph he would be cleared as a suspect. During a 14-hr interrogation, Fox was told he failed. Kathleen Zellner, Fox’s lawyer said “In these false confessions cases, polygraphs are used as a weapon.” Again, DNA freed Fox of all accusations, but only after he spent 8 months in jail for the sexual assault and murder of his daughter. (Chicago Tribune) In 1993, Gary Gauger was accused and convicted of the slaying deaths of his parents, landing him 3 years in prison, and 9 months on death row. After Gauger was told by investigators he had failed the polygraph, he began to speculate how he might have killed his parents. The psychological effect it had on Gauger still haunts him, he was eventually freed of all accusations when the truth was revealed convicting two other men of the double murder. No matter if you are stating the truth, or trying to cover a lie, until technology provides the polygraph with a brain scanner, it is unlikely that the courts will ever stand firmly behind the device and as we are now, the error rate will never reach zero. (Chicago Tribune)