This post was originally posted at our old blog, click here to view:

“The following letter was written by the father of a teenage boy that I recently tested. 

In late May of 2009, my 13-year-old son was accused of inappropriately touching a girl backstage during the intermission of their middle school play.  A 7th grade girl had walked into the Boys’ Dressing Room where several boys were, someone turned out the lights, and the girl later said she had been touched inappropriately in the dark by two boys.  My son vehemently denied touching the girl or being in any way involved.

Police from the LAPD Sex Crimes Unit mounted an investigation, interviewing the middle schoolers who were in the room at the time.  The investigation concluded with no determinations or charges brought.

In August, just before school was starting, our son learned he was being removed from the school’s coveted Drama program this year, because the victim had cried and told the principal she was not comfortable having our son in the class with her. 

We felt it was grossly unfair to my son to remove him when he had done nothing.  Because my son had asked repeatedly — including the first time he was interviewed by police — to take a polygraph test, my wife and I decided to accommodate him.  We selected Dr. Rovner to administer the test after reading about his extensive experience in civil and criminal cases. 

Our son passed the test showing he was completely truthful when he denied touching the girl at any time that night.

We immediately informed the school and provided them a copy of Dr. Rovner’s report.  The principal reversed his decision and allowed our son to be in Drama again this year. 

Our son also emailed several kids from the Drama program to let them know he had passed the polygraph.  In response, one girl contacted him to let him know that she, along with the alleged victim and another girl, had conspired together to get in trouble the boys they thought might have been involved.  To do this, the two girls coordinated a story with the victim, and claimed to have witnessed the suspects nearest to the victim when the lights came up — when in reality they had been nowhere in the vicinity at the time.

We notified the police and school of these facts, so that they could interview the girl who had recanted her statement, and take appropriate action against the girls who had lied and inflicted a great deal of distress on the boys and their families.”

Jeff Nelson
Chatsworth, California

Dr. Louis Rovner  is a polygraph examiner with a private  practice located in Los Angeles, California.

“In 1982, the Gallup polling organization conducted a survey of the m embers of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR).  Those members were nearly all PH.D.s or M.D.s who were involved in studying how our minds and bodies work together. The most striking and important outcome of the survey was that a substantial majority of SPR members who considered themselves to be informed about polygraph testing felt that it was a reliable method of determining whether someone was, or was not, telling the truth. `

In 1994, a group of research scientists conducted another survey of the members of SPR, very similar to the 1982 Gallup survey. And their results were much the same: 83% of the scientists who had read some of the research literature about polygraph accuracy believed that it was a valid and useful method of determining the truth.

The most recent demonstration of scientific support for polygraphy comes from a source that might surprise you.  In the early part of this decade, many government scientists were upset about the possibility that they might someday have to submit to a polygraph test. They asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to put together a panel of scientists who would review the polygraph research literature and issue a report about their findings. The panel was comprised of some very prestigious scientists, from a variety of different fields. They carefully reviewed some of the research regarding the validity and reliability of polygraph tests. After reading and evaluating the studies, they concluded that laboratory research demonstrated an average accuracy rate of 86% for single-issue polygraph tests, while the field research accuracy rate was 89%. Pretty high numbers, especially from a group of hard-nosed scientists who probably approached their search with more than a little skepticism.

Informed scientists, as well as anyone else who knows what he’s talking about, will tell you that polygraph testing, when done properly, is a valid and reliable method of determining whether someone is lying or telling the truth.”

Dr. Rovner is a polygraph examiner with a private practice in Los Angeles, California.