Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Read online

changes and detect deception. Lombrosso postulated:

  It is well known that any emotion that makes the heartbeat to quicken or become slower causes humans

  to blush or pale. These vasomotor phenomena are entirely beyond our comparative. If we plunge our hands

  into the volumetric tank invented by Francis Frank, the level of the liquid registered on the tube above will rise and fall at every pulsation. Besides these regular fluctuations, variations may be observed which corre spond to every stimulation of the senses, every thought, and above all, every emotion [2].

  The “volumetric glove,” developed by Patrizi, was considered an improvement over the

  volumetric tank. The suspect put his hand in a sealed rubber glove filled with air. Changes

  in air pressure due to heart pulsations were then recorded on a Marey tympanum and on a

  revolving cylinder covered with smoked paper.

  Lombrosso’s daughter writes in The Criminal Man:

  My father sometimes made successful use of the plethysmograph to discover whether an accused person

  was guilty of the crime imputed to him, by mentioning it suddenly while his hands were in the plethysmo

  graph or placing the photograph of the victim before his eyes.

  Lombrosso became the first person to use scientific instrumentation successfully in the

  detection of deception. He is considered the father of modern criminology. He is also

  known for his less than scientific theory of physiognomy, which was a system he developed

  to identify persons prone to criminal behavior based on their physiology and bone

  structure.

  Luigi Galvani, in his 1791 paper “Animal Electricity,” had developed a theory that elec-

  tricity flowed through living organisms and that differences in this electricity could be

  measured. Galvani erroneously reached this conclusion when he mistakenly noticed a

  6

  1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

  dissected frog’s leg muscle contract, but didn’t note that the muscle accidentally came into

  contact with a piece of metal containing an electrical charge. His theory was wrong; there is

  no animal electricity of the sort that Galvani had postulated. However, the principle of elec-

  trical conductivity aroused the interest of other scientists in his field.

  One of the scientists who had followed Galvani’s experiments, Hans Christian Oersted,

  discovered a connection between electricity and magnetism. His work intrigued AndreÁmpère, who published a paper on September 18, 1820, concerning an instrument he constructed to measure the strength of electrical currents. In honor of Galvani, Ampère named

  his instrument a “galvanometer” [7].

  In 1897, Harold Sticker became the first person to suggest the application of the galva-

  nometer for detecting deception [2]. Sticker, a psychologist, experimented on sweat gland secretion as a measure of psychological stress. In pursuit of his data, he was the first experimenter to apply Ampère’s principle to measure physiological change. Sticker’s research

  was not original: it was an extension of research completed by Adamkiewicz, who had

  already demonstrated that sweat gland activity was linked to the mental processes [2].

  Sticker simply applied the principle, theorizing that stress would lead to increases in the

  secretion of the sweat glands. He believed that changes in skin conductivity caused by

  sweating could be measured; that a galvanometer attached to a person would allow the

  observation of galvanic skin response (GSR), changes in the body’s resistance to small

  charges of electricity; and that the GSR reflected changes in the subject’s mental excitation.

  Sticker further suggested that the use of the GSR, together with showing the person pictures

  or asking questions, would stimulate emotional responses that could then be reliably

  measured physiologically.

  In 1902, a German professor of psychology, William Stern, wrote an article, “Die Aussa-

  gepsychologie” (“The Witness Psychology”), hypothesizing that a person’s statement

  depends on the cognitive ability of the person, as well as on the interviewing process used

  to obtain the statement. Considered the “Father of Statement Analysis,” Stern began the

  research which has led to the development of criteria based statement analysis [8].

  In 1907, S. Veraguth suggested the use of the GSR in conjunction with psychological

  word association tests [2]. He proposed that the GSR be used as a diagnostic tool in assessing psychological disorders. He also coined the term “psycho-galvanic reflex.” Following

  Veraguth’s suggestion, such prominent psychologists as Jung and Peterson began using

  the GSR to detect emotional issues with their patients.

  The concept of applying scientific instrumentation to measure physiological changes

  indicative of deception was first advanced by Hugo Mustenberg in 1909. Mustenberg, a

  professor of psychology at Harvard University, was concerned that perjury was destroying

  the integrity of the judicial system. In “On the Witness Stand,” Mustenberg devoted an

  entire chapter to recommending that physiological activity of a witness be monitored as tes-

  timony was given to ensure that the witness was telling the truth [3]. He also asserted that the simultaneous measurement of a broad range of physiological responses would be

  more reliable. Among the physiological parameters that he suggested be monitored were

  muscle contractions, eye movement, breathing, cardiovascular activity, and changes in elec-

  trodermal activity (GSR). Following the publication of his book, a great deal of research

  began to appear concerning deception and physiological functions.

  1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

  7

  In 1913, early results of this research were reported by Vittorio Benussi, an Italian scien-

  tist. Benussi conducted experiments in deception and was able to formulate a method of

  interpreting the respiration cycles of subjects for determining whether or not they were

  being truthful [3]. Benussi measured the length of time it took the individual to complete the two different parts of a single breath: the inhalation (breathing in), and the exhalation

  (breathing out). His highly accurate research demonstrated that following a conscious lie

  a subject’s inhalation period shortened, and the exhalation period became longer. He called

  this the subject’s I:E ratio.

  Meanwhile, other physiological research was proceeding. In 1917, a student of Musten-

  berg, William Marston, published a research paper on the discontinuous method of measur-

  ing changes in systolic blood pressure readings to detect deception [3]. Periodically during an interview, he would take the interviewee’s standard blood pressure measurements via

  an arm cuff and then chart any significant changes in systolic blood pressure. Marston

  reported 96 percent accuracy in detecting deception using this method.

  Exhalation

  Inhalation

  Normal Breathing

  A

  3:5 Ratio

  Exhalation

  Inhalation

  Deceptive Breathing

  B

  2:6 Ratio

  FIGURE 1.1 (A) Normal breathing cycle (I:E ratio 3:5). (B) Change in breathing following deception

  (I:E ratio 2:6).

  8

  1. THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

  In 1921, the Mackenzie polygraph instrument, which could continuously record complex

  physiological changes, was developed for European physicians [3]. There was speculation

  that the device, if applied to the detection of truthfuln
ess, could measure and record

  changes as specific questions were being asked, so that a record would be available for later

  review. With the encouragement of August Vollmer, Chief of Police, Berkeley, California,

  Detective John A. Larson combined the Mackenzie ink polygraph to record and monitor

  changes based on the research of Benussi and Marston [3].

  Larson constructed a two-pen lie detector that measured breathing and continuous

  changes in cardiovascular activity. He named his instrument the “Cardio-Pneumo Psycho-

  gram,” but it was quickly nicknamed the “Breadboard Polygraph,” because in its construc-

  tion he used a breadboard for the base. Larson became the first person in law enforcement

  to administer polygraph tests to criminal suspects to assess their truthfulness.

  To date, there have been many improvements made to the basic polygraph instrument.

  The questioning techniques used with them have also been refined. Indeed, the pioneers

  of modern lie detection did their work well. In creating this highly reliable instrument, they

  based their art on the sound principles found in the sciences of psychology and physiology.

  Many other attempts at monitoring physiological changes have been made in the past

  century. These include attempts to detect changes in the voice, infrared monitoring of the

  facial area, computerized analysis of nonverbal microexpressions, measurement of brain

  waves, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the brain to detect dif-

  ferences in activity between truth telling and lying.

  Polygraph testing, although it has obvious strengths, has some inherent limitations: it

  requires written consent, a lengthy interview, and instrumentation and chart analysis to

  determine the truth. It can be perceived as an invasive inquiry because of the necessary

  attachments from the instrumentation to the subject. The instrument itself can create a

  heightened emotional state, which may explain the more significant number of false

  A

  B

  FIGURE 1.2 (A) Computerized polygraph. Source: Lafayette Instrument, Indiana, USA. (B) Analog polygraph.

  Source: Stoelting Instrument Co., Illinois, USA.

  SUMMARY

  9

  positives (truthful suspects determined deceptive) than false negatives (deceptive suspects

  determined truthful) [3]. And finally, it cannot be applied ad hoc.

  The psychophysiological processes that cause changes to take place in a suspect’s body

  during a polygraph can also be observed less formally and intrusively by an interviewer

  trained in the techniques of the Forensic Assessment Interview. Deception is detected

  through analysis of the suspect’s conscious and unconscious nonverbal behavior and projec-

  tive analysis of unwitting verbal cues independent of the polygraph instrumentation. The

  Forensic Assessment Interview, a noninstrumental analysis, may seem limited in that there

  is no technological reference, no paper trail; however, it offers a considerable advantage:

  the absence of technology leaves the suspect less aware of what is being monitored and less

  guarded and intimidated. Most importantly, the interviewer can evaluate a broader range of

  suspect responses to arrive at a reliable assessment of witness/suspect credibility.

  SUMMARY

  • The search for truth is not a modern concept. It dates back to the very beginnings of

  civilization.

  • The earliest test for truth was trial by combat, where the truth teller was determined by

  fighting ability.

  • Societies then began using psychological and physiological tests to determine truth,

  known as trial by ordeal.

  • Trial by torture is still the predominant method of ascertaining truth in the world today

  and is being given much thought since the September 11, 2001, attack on the United

  States.

  • Trial by peers, our judicial system, is an attempt to ascertain the truth.

  • Modern attempts at determining truth include polygraph, nonverbal behavior, unwitting

  verbal cues, voice stress, pupilometrics, various forms of brain activity, and voice stress.

  Accuracy ranges from above 95% with the polygraph, to below a coin toss with voice

  stress.

  • The Forensic Assessment Interview Technique allows the interviewer to assess nonverbal

  and verbal behavior without the need of attachments to make accurate determinations of

  truth or deception.

  References

  [1] The Bible Old Testament, Book of Genesis.

  [2] P.Y. Trovillo, A History of Lie Detection, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 29 (1939) 148 181; 30, 104 199.

  [3] J.A. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology; Using the Polygraph, JAM Publications, Williamsville, NY, 1996.

  [4] E. Cohen, Interview, June 27, Philadelphia, P, 1997.

  [5] T.S. Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, Harper and Row, New York, 1970.

  [6] H. Thomas, U.S. torture tactics shame us all, Hearst Newspapers, October 11, 2007.

  [7] B. Travers, J. Muhr, S. Evans, World of Invention Textbook, Gale Group, 1994.

  [8] D. Tavor, Lecture conducted on Criteria Based Statement Analysis, Centurion, South Africa, April 10, 2003.

  C H A P T E R

  2

  Truth and Lies

  What is a lie? What is truth? The definitions can be blurred. In the statement of a witness,

  truth does not necessarily represent what actually occurred. It is a recollection of a percep-

  tion – with all its biases, filters, and predispositions – without any intention to distort or

  deceive. Lies do not necessarily represent complete distortions of reality. Therefore it is nec-

  essary to define and describe what the “truth” is and, for that matter, what is a “lie.” For

  example, let us say that two friends are walking down the street when suddenly a mail

  truck runs into the rear of a police car. The police officer gets out of the vehicle and asks

  them what they observed. Both of them give statements that, on further review, represent

  two substantially different versions of what happened because of differences in position

  and when each of them had their attention drawn to the accident.

  Could both be telling the truth? The answer, of course, is “Yes,” because both reported what

  they perceived and therefore believed to have happened. This latter issue is crucial. How we

  perceive things affects our recollection of the event. Perception is influenced by internal factors

  such as age, weight, health, cultural background, acuity of the senses, and preoccupations.

  External factors that affect perception include where we are standing, what we are doing at

  the time, how much light there is, and so on. What we perceive is what we believe to be true.

  Therefore, if both friends reported what they believed to have happened, though their percep-

  tions were somewhat different, they were both telling the “truth.” Interestingly, if you could

  establish the ground truth, which is what in fact did happen, we might find considerable inac-

  curacies in both representations; however, without that, both would be telling the truth!

  It is important to remember this when dealing with investigations of “he said, she said”

  matters. There was a polygraph case involving a married couple. The wife alleged physical

  abuse, and the husband denied it. Both were scheduled for an examination, which

  appeared to be a pretty easy case. One obviousl
y was telling the truth, and one obviously

  was lying. They both came out truthful. How can that be? In any cases of this type, there

  are four possible outcomes:

  1. He is telling the truth and she is lying.

  2. She is telling the truth and he is lying.

  3. They are both lying.

  4. They are both telling the truth.

  Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

  11

  # 2011, Elsevier Ltd.

  12

  2. TRUTH AND LIES

  In this polygraph case that ended in outcome 4, the husband’s perception was that the

  wife was assaulting him and he pushed her away trying not to hurt her. The wife’s percep-

  tion was that he pushed her head into a wall in an attempt to hurt her. For both of them,

  their perceptions were their respective reality!

  For the purposes of this text, the operating definition of the truth is the deliberate, com-

  plete, and objective communication (whether verbal, written, or by gesture) of the recollec-

  tion of a person, place, thing, and/or event, which the communicator (speaker) believes to

  exist, have existed, or occurred. Conversely, untruth – a lie – is:

  1. The deliberate communication to another, verbally, written (i.e., a bad check), or by

  gesture (i.e., a fake smile), of something that the communicator knows or suspects is not

  the case; or

  2. The presentation or omission of information, with the deliberate intent to deceive and

  mislead someone who is requesting the truth.

  As we were growing up, our parents, religious leaders, and teachers taught us that it is

  morally and ethically wrong to tell a lie. Despite the positive effects these people have had

  in our lives, these same individuals have modeled for us that it is acceptable to lie regularly.

  Your mother tells you never to lie, but as you answer the phone, she whispers, “If it’s for

  me, tell them I’m not home.” You were 14 years old, but airline tickets were half price for

  those under 13, so your parents tell you to look younger so that the tickets for your vacation

  flight to Disney World will cost less. We tell our children about tooth fairies, Santa Claus,

  the Easter Bunny, and many other beings that do not exist.

  Picture yourself visiting a dying friend in the hospital. “How do I look?” your friend