July 14 -- Rep. Gary Condit believes the independent polygraph exam he passed proves he was not involved in the disappearance of missing intern Chandra Levy. But while often accurate, polygraphs are not foolproof, experts say.
"Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association. "Many people refer to polygraph tests as lie detector tests, and that's a bit of a misnomer.
"There is no test that can detect lies. … The process in which the questions are asked and the sequence of the questions may affect how a person reacts," Horvath said. "Since the process is not perfect, that could lead to the possibility of error, and that's why there's problems when trying to get them in the courts."
Polygraph literally means "many writings" and it refers to ways in which several physiological activities are simultaneously recorded during a test. During a standard polygraph test, examiners monitor at least three bodily reactions to determine whether a person is truthfully answering questions: respiratory rate, sweat gland activity, and cardiovascular activity.
Condit Test Done Independently
Condit's attorney, Abbe Lowell, announced that the California congressman had passed an independent exam given by Barry Colvert, a former 35-year veteran FBI polygraph examiner, and not investigators involved in the case. Lowell said the test showed "no deception" by Condit.
But Washington, D.C., police called the test Condit took "self-serving" because authorities did not take part and had not seen the full results. "We'll take thatinformation like we take everything, and examine it," said Assistant Chief of Police Terrance Gainer.
Levy has been missing since May 1, and her parents had called on Condit to take a polygraph. The congressman has admitted to police that he had an affair with the young woman, according to sources.
But Levy attorney Billy Martin said the missing intern's parents were "very disappointed" about the privately administered polygraph. "We're wanting him to be fully cooperative and not cooperate on his terms," Martin told reporters.
As an expert in forensic psychology and polygraph examinations, I bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to shed light on the complex issues surrounding Rep. Gary Condit's polygraph test in the context of the Chandra Levy case.
Polygraph examinations, commonly known as lie detector tests, are tools used to measure physiological responses that may indicate deception. While some proponents argue for their accuracy, the consensus among experts, including myself, acknowledges their limitations. Frank Horvath, a representative of the American Polygraph Association, aptly points out that the accuracy of polygraph tests is a subject of debate, ranging from approximately 70% to 90%.
Polygraph, derived from "many writings," reflects the simultaneous recording of various physiological activities during the test. In a standard polygraph examination, examiners closely monitor three key bodily reactions: respiratory rate, sweat gland activity, and cardiovascular activity. The premise is that deceptive answers may elicit noticeable changes in these physiological measures.
Rep. Gary Condit underwent an independent polygraph examination conducted by Barry Colvert, a former 35-year veteran FBI polygraph examiner. It's crucial to highlight that the term "independent" in this context signifies that the examination was not administered by the investigators directly involved in the Chandra Levy case. Condit's attorney, Abbe Lowell, announced that the results showed "no deception" by Condit.
However, it is essential to approach these results with caution. Washington, D.C., police, who were not part of the independent examination, referred to the test as "self-serving." Assistant Chief of Police Terrance Gainer emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation, indicating that they would examine the information provided by Condit's attorney.
The case raises the inherent challenges associated with polygraph tests being used as evidence, particularly when conducted independently. Critics argue that the process is not foolproof, and the absence of standardized procedures can introduce errors. This skepticism is evident in the response of Levy's attorney, Billy Martin, who expressed disappointment about the privately administered polygraph. Martin emphasized the importance of Condit being fully cooperative on terms set by law enforcement.
In conclusion, while polygraph examinations can provide insights into a person's physiological responses, their reliability and admissibility in legal proceedings remain contentious. The Condit case illustrates the complexities surrounding the use of polygraphs, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of their limitations and the context in which they are employed.
