From soc.men Wed Aug 26 18:21:19 1992 Path: utcsri!rutgers!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsk!noraa From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) Newsgroups: soc.men Subject: Re: Woody and Mia Message-ID: <1992Aug26.045105.24582@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> Date: 26 Aug 92 04:51:05 GMT References: <1992Aug24.101433.1@mdcbbs.com> <1992Aug24.224152.18628@ads.com> <1992Aug25.151120.1@mdcbbs.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 205 In article <1992Aug25.151120.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes: > > Woody Allen passed his lie detector test. When will Mia submit to one? > Her attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who usually represents folks on the other side in such cases and who has written articles for Playboy and Penthouse and many law journals, knows better than to have her take one. This is why: "Lie detector tests do not indicate whether or not a person is telling the truth." - Aaron Hoffmeyer You see, a lie detector machine is a fairly simple electromechanical device that monitors pulse, respiration, blood pressure and electro-chemical changes at the surface of the skin. None of these things is a measure of truth. The way the test has been sold to the populace and especially all these technical wizards in the legal profession is by telling them that people with a conscience react physically when they tell lies. It's like this: they assume that I will not react physically when I tell the truth. Why should I? If you ask me my name and I say, "Aaron Hoffmeyer," there is nothing for me to be upset about. That IS my name. But, they also assume that when they ask me a question they want to know the answer to, if I am lying, I will react physically if I tell a lie. But that is a very wrong assumption. Here's why. If I have been accused of something morally repugnant, or even worse, something illegal and disgusting, I will probably be pretty upset about that allegation - whether I am guilty of it or not. But let's assume for a second that I am not guilty of the allegation. When they give me a lie detector test, I answer all the control questions (the questions for which they already know the answers) and they are no big thing - and I don't react to them. But all of a sudden - BLAM - DOOSSHHZ!! - they ask me something like, "Did you ever put your son's penis in your mouth?" What a morally repugnant question! My heartbeat rate increases - temporarily, my blood pressure goes up - temporarily, my respiration rate goes up - temporarily, electrochemical changes take place at an increased rate at the surface of my skin - temporarily, and the person reading the output of such a machine looks at all the squiggly lines and tells me I'm lying. (There are many variations on this: examiner harassing the examinee, examiner misreading the results, claustrophobia, anxiety attacks, nicotine fits - many possible reasons for false positives for lying.) Let's assume that I'm guilty. Let's assume there are allegations that I coached my children to make false allegations of child sexual abuse against my spouse. Let's also assume that I knew I would be given the third degree over the allegations and that I have prepared for the lie detector test. I know how the questioning works, I know how the machine works. When they ask the control questions, I think about killing baby ducks, aborted fetuses lying in a bucket, children getting hit by cars - whatever. To these control questions, the output of the machine shows that my breathing, pulse and blood pressure are all moderately high. My skin is slightly perspiring and is a cornucopia of electrochemical changes. Now, when they ask me if I coached my children, I say, "No," and they get pretty much the same response as they did to the control questions. The examiner finishes the test and tells me it looks as though I was telling the truth. (There are many variations on this: tack in shoe to press down on for control questions, biting the tongue for control questions, no conscience for examinee, effects of hang-over from previous night's drinking binge - many possible reasons for false positives for telling the truth.) So, both of those scenarios, more common than you might think, amount to one major ruse of the lie detector "test" - it doesn't accurately indicate whether or not a person is telling the truth or lying. In fact, I've heard that as many as 50% of the positive results were false and as many as 50% of the negative results were false. In other words, the test may be wrong 50% of the time - in either direction. That's why they are not admissable in court. But that is only half of the tale of woe of lie detector tests. The other half of the story is this: you can select and pay an examiner to produce the desired results. Again, I'll give a couple of examples. The first involves a local examiner, most of the local attorneys know this person (John Carroll). He is known for getting people to confess during the examinations. Defense attorneys, who have a moral obligation to society to make sure that their clients are convicted of something if they are guilty, will send their clients to this person to get a confession out of them. This man harasses the examinees, tells them the results of the questions indicate they are lying, why don't they just confess, all during the test. Many times they are guilty and often he gets confessions out of them. That gives the attorneys a good understanding of who they have for clients and how they can best represent them. Then they can recommend that the client plead to a lesser charge, try to rehabilitate themselves during their incarceration, and make sure they get all the breaks possible, but also make sure they do some jail time - if the offense warrants it. The second example is a generic one. Suppose someone has been accused of something, and they really did it. But what they did is not all that heinous. And this person has money - major, big-time money, and a very crafty lawyer with a myriad of connections. This attorney sends this person to a "good" examiner. This examiner instructs this person how the test works - in great detail (after the attorney has referred the accused to many books on the subject and has given the accused ample preparation). The examiner takes his time with the test, gives the accused plenty of time to respond, let's the accused mentally prepare for every question. Even though the accused is really guilty, the test says they are not. The lie detector test is a game. It has no more to do with the truth than determining whether or not a person can look you in the eye when they tell you something. It is voodoo. It is like using a divining rod to find water, or sticking pins in a doll to hurt someone. So, Woody passed one. I'm sure Jan Martin Obten sent him to a "good" examiner. Alan Dershowitz, Mia's attorney, realizes that Mia would be under the gun if she took such a test now, and she could very well fail, whether she is lying or not (See COIN TOSS). So, he has protected his client's interests to date, and kept her from taking such a test. You see, centuries ago, women used to get accused of being witches all the time. Probably for no more reason than some monks put the word "witch" in the Bible around 600 years ago - in statements like, "No man shall suffer under the power of a witch." Well, to figurativists, that could mean that all witches could be and should be killed. But how do you tell if a woman is a witch? Create some tests, of course. Everyone knows that witches are evil, supernatural beings, supernatural beings are not of this earth, they are not made of matter etc. So, using deductive reasoning, one can conclude that, if we threw a woman out of a boat in the middle of a lake, if she was a witch, and not made of matter, the water will reject her, and she will float on or above the surface, or maybe even melt. If that happens, then she should be burned at the stake. However, if she is not a witch, but is made of matter and is not a supernatural being, the water will accept her body and she will be absorded into its depths. Pretty good test. Oh, there were other ways of telling if someone was a witch or a warlock. They might pour molten metal or scalding water over the accused's body. If the accused didn't burn, he or she was a witch or warlock. Several hundred years ago, the belief was that a witch could use her supernatural powers to make someone go into convulsions. Well, a few girls got together and starting acting especially weird (for Puritans) and when confronted, rather than admit they were acting weird and get in trouble for it, they claimed to be possessed by witches. Immediately, the hunt was out for the witches. I forget how many witches ended up being crushed by rocks or hanged or drawn and quartered, the numbers 19, 32 and 100 come to mind. I think 32 were killed and over 100 women were imprisoned as witches (19 was how old I was the first time I rode a horse bareback sitting behind a girl). You see, the burden of proof back then was for these witches to prove, clearly and convincingly, that they weren't witches, and they didn't have a receptive audience. Today, in 25% of custody disputed divorce cases, according to USA Today, August 25, 1992, women make allegations against the father of sexually molesting the children. According to Wakefield and Underwager (1991), 80% of these allegations are blatantly false and 75% of the mothers making such allegations are borderline psychotic personalities. There is an epidemic of false allegations. Kind of a "hysteria." Kind of the same word that we now use to describe what happened in Salem, Massachusetts some 300 years ago. The lie detector test is just the scalding hot water, or sink-or-swim test of the late 20th century. Suppose Woody had failed that test. 1) His attorney would not have disclosed it. 2) His attorney would have taught him how to pass it. 3) His attorney would have sent him to someone else to take another one. (Go back to beginning of paragraph and repeat until he passes). What if word got out that Woody failed his test. Now, would everyone just automatically assume that he was guilty? Even after I've told you how the test works and that it is no more accurate than flipping a coin, you would believe that he was guilty? Or how about this? Suppose he failed the first one, but passed a second one? Which one is the ONE? Or how about this? If he cannot prove that he DIDN'T do it, to protect the children, we should assume that he did do it. He should not get custody and he should not be allowed near the children without a professional or quasi-professional of the mental health industry present as a supervisor. Woody can easily afford Jane social worker for a few hours a week. Mia, because no one has accused her of doing anything any more heinous than talking to her children about what Woody might or might not have done to them (even if she might have asked a lot of leading and accusing questions and even if she was videotaping the whole thing), should be absolved of all guilt, unless Woody can prove, via clear and convincing evidence, that she coached the children to maliciously make such allegations. Unless that happens, she should get sole custody. After all, she is the little dears' mother. What? That doesn't sound kosher to you? Well, that's pretty much how these cases are handled and how they have been concluded for the last 15 years. Surely you don't think the legal profession has dropped the ball on such an important issue and, by making such biased assumptions, have actually encouraged such allegations? Nahhhh. That's not possible. Not our legal system. We have the best legal system money can buy. Personally, I believe that if we cut off Woody's skin and he still lives, then he is supernatural, evil, and probably abused his children. However, if he dies, he was probably a simple human, was not evil, and was not guilty of anything. Aaron L. Hoffmeyer TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM