Just when I was starting to not care so much that O.J. Simpson and John and Patsy Ramsey got away with murder, they are both on the lie detector warpath.

On May 24, the Ramseys announced that a private polygraph test proved their innocence. On Tuesday, Simpson denied having taken a polygraph test, but is batting around the idea with his lawyer, F. Lee Bailey.

John and Patsy Ramsey’s tests were administrated by Ed Gelb, a former president of the American Polygraph Association. Gelb has also been an instructor of the FBI and the Department of Defense. A spokesman of the American Polygraph Association called Gelb “one of the best” very well-qualified and very, very ethical.”

The Ramseys changed their tune on the idea of a polygraph test, having rejected an offer from the Boulder police in late April on the basis that the examiner was not “fair and independent.”

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said a polygraph examiner has “to have a clear understanding of the case and the evidence in that case” before conducting an exam. He also said, “I’ve been told the more often you take polygraphs, the less effective and the less reliable they become …”

According to The Associated Press, Simpson’s lawyer F. Lee Bailey, who is currently fighting to keep from being disbarred, is rumored to be an expert on polygraphs. This makes O.J.’s offer much less sincere.

I hate to try people in the media and I’m a big fan of due process, but O.J. and the Ramseys seem to be as guilty as sin. If I was wrongly accused of killing someone and a grand jury failed to indict me, I would interpret that as a lack of evidence due to the fact that I didn’t kill the person.

I’d have a psychic draw a picture of the “real” killer and put it on my Web page like the Ramseys did last Saturday. Due to my huge skepticism of the innocence of O.J. and the Ramseys and the pop culture lore of beating lie detector tests, I decided to investigate the validity of lie detector tests.

According to the FBI Web site, polygraphs are based on the assumption that people undergo physiological changes when they lie due to a fear of being found out. Polygraphs measure breathing, blood pressure, pulse and amount of finger sweating.

In April 1998, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its position that polygraph results should not be admissible in court. In U.S. vs. Edward Scheffer (96-1133), the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Military Rule 707, which prevents the use of polygraphs in court marshal hearings, is not unconstitutional.

In March 1992, Edward Scheffer, an airman at March Air Force Base in California, volunteered to work as an informant in drug operations.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations told him he would have to submit to regular polygraph and drug tests. In April, he was told by an OSI supervisor that he had to have a drug test.

Before the results were known, he took a polygraph test in which he said he hadn’t used drugs since being in the Air Force, and it registered as true.

He then disappeared from the base April 30 and was not found until May 13 when an Iowa State Trooper arrested him in a routine traffic stop.

The Air Force then found that the result of his drug test indicated the presence of methamphetamine. At his court marshal hearing he tried to use an “innocent ingestion” theory, and wanted to use the polygraph as evidence — which was not allowed.The court cited a lack of scientific consensus on the reliability of polygraphs.

A brief for amicus curiae was filed on Scheffer’s behalf in the case, written by Charles Honts, Ph.D., a leading scientist in the field of polygraphy. According to him, “the research results converge on an accuracy estimate that exceeds 90 percent.”

In the section on traditional criticisms he writes “studies have indicated that training in specific point countermeasures designed to increase responding to comparison questions is effective in producing a substantial number of false negative outcomes.”

The next sentence reads “subjects who spontaneously attempt countermeasures or are only given the information are unable to achieve effects,” and the required training is hopefully difficult to obtain. But in the very same paragraph it says “detailed reviews of the scientific literature on countermeasures are available in a number of locations.”

The greatest challenge facing polygraph testing is “the generally poor training of many polygraph examiners” according to Honts, which he claims can be remedied by taping the tests allowing for scrutiny by experts.

He also points out that without the polygraph, people are bad at detecting lies.

There has also been a great deal of controversy over the FBI’s use of mandatory polygraphs in the recruitment process since 1994.

In 1997, Iowa’s own Charles Grassley wrote the director of the FBI Crime Lab, Dr. Donald Kerr for an explanation of the policy. Kerr’s response largely avoided the questions.

Grassley then released a highly critical statement of Kerr that included “The FBI’s choice of a government/industry insider, whose instincts are to cooperate with management, is the antithesis of what is needed in the lab — someone who will encourage openness and who will rock the boat when needed.”

There are also a number of lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court regarding the use of polygraphs. In Zaid v. FBI, DEA & U.S. Secret Service, Zaid is filing suit on behalf of applicants whose applications were thrown out on the basis of a polygraph alone.

In Tenenbaum vs. United States (98-74473), David Tenenbaum, who worked on projects for the Army, alleges that a polygraph examiner wrongfully attributed admissions of security violations to him. Tenenbaum was eventually cleared by an extensive FBI investigation.

While polygraphs can be a useful tool for investigators, having reviewed this information it seems that polygraph testing still has a long way to go. It is disturbing that government agencies seem to be relying too heavily on an imperfect science, which can be beat with proper training. Simpson and the Ramseys have had plenty of time for the proper training.

In 1677, the philosopher Spinoza wrote “he who would distinguish the false from the true must have an adequate idea of what is false and true.” It seems as though Spinoza is still right.

---

Erik Hoversten is a senior in math from Eagan, Minn.