Dan Parisi by and through his counsel Richard Oparil of Patton Boggs LLP has made claims before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which are now contradicted by their own release of video (video made by Edward I. Gelb was done so without authorization by or knowledge of Larry Sinclair) of Larry Sinclair’s February 22, 2008 polygraph exam. Parisi and Gelb have both failed to mention that Larry was found to being “truthful” by one of the scorings of his “sex allegations” polygraph. Why would either of them HIDE that fact???
Larry forwarded the DVDs that Parisi filed in Parisi v Sinclair 10-CV-00897-RJL on August 8, 2011 to Dr. George Maschke, (left) co-founder of Anti-Polygraph.org for an independent review. Dr. Maschke who, unlike Edward I. Gelb, holds a real Ph. D. forwarded his typed report to Larry Yesterday. You can see the complete PDF Report HERE
Conduct of the Examination
The conduct of the first two iterations of the first question series is largely routine. However, Gelb, having asked the first question of the third iteration, interrupts the series and makes the following admonishment (at 1:56:04 of the first DVD):
You’re having a little difficulty in an area of the test, Larry. If you still have difficulty with the same area, I’ll discuss it with you at the end of the test. Remember, all of the questions must have been answered a hundred percent truthfully. No room for any error. Here we go.
Such interruption of a question series is unorthodox and could have made Sinclair’s failing of the series more likely, to the extent that it may have sensitized him to the relevant questions by leading him to believe that he was in danger of failing the test.
Following the conclusion of all three iterations of the first question series, Sinclair is instructed to leave the room, and Gelb scores the charts with a colleague (beginning at about 00:55 of the second DVD). Gelb’s partner states the score to be “-11 overall.” Gelb smiles and seems to concur. However, in his written report (Attachment 1), Gelb states that “Sinclair’s polygrams resulted in an evaluation of ‘deception indicated’ with a score of -15 when he answered the relevant questions. It is not clear what accounts for the discrepancy between the score documented on the video and the scored indicated in Gelb’s written report. Gordon Barland scored the same chart as “-17 (Deception Indicated).” (See Attachment 3).
At 05:25 of the second DVD, with Sinclair still out of the room, Gelb opines to the videographer who had asked whether Sinclair’s reactions may have stemmed from the consequences of his story being true (in essence, whether a false positive—a truthful person wrongly failing—may have occurred), “No, he’s just lying to the… He just made up that situation. Bullshit.”
At 05:58 of the second DVD, upon being informed by the videographer that Sinclair had filed a federal lawsuit, Gelb opines, “He’s nuts!”
At 06:58 of the second DVD, Gelb states, “Now here’s another scoring we didn’t look at. I’m just going to see what this one says. This one says he’s truthful” (emphasis added). Gelb included no mention of this scoring, which contradicts his (and Barland’s) manual scoring, in his report. However, in a report of his polygraph examination six months earlier of former prostitute Wendy Ellis regarding an alleged sexual relationship with United States Senator David Vitter of Louisiana (see Attachment 4), Gelb cites “an algorithm developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University. This algorithm has been validated by the National Security Agency and is presently being utilized by the United States Department of Defense.” It is perhaps to this algorithm (called “PolyScore”) that Gelb refers when stating regarding Sinclair’s charts, “Now here’s another scoring we didn’t look at… This one says he’s truthful.”
Mr. Gelb is best positioned to explain why he included PolyScore data in his report of Wendy Ellis’s polygraph examination but excluded it from his report of Larry Sinclair’s.
American Polygraph Association Code of Ethics
The American Polygraph Association’s code of ethics (Attachment 5) requires at Section 4.3 (“Post-Examination Notification of Results”) that:
4.3.1 A member shall afford each examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings. There are three exceptions:
188.8.131.52 When the examinee is represented by an attorney who requests that no post-examination interview be conducted, and that the results of the examination be released only to the attorney.
184.108.40.206 When the examination is being conducted by court order which stipulates that no post-examination interview is to be conducted.
220.127.116.11 Instances of operational necessity.
None of these exceptions apply in connection with Gelb’s examination of Sinclair, and Gelb—a past president of the American Polygraph Association—provided Sinclair no “post-examination notification of results” nor did he give him any “reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings.” Instead, with Sinclair still out of the room, Gelb turned to the videographer (at 07:59 of the second DVD) and asked, “Now when are you going to give this guy the results?”
Gelb’s conviction by the end of the first series that Sinclair’s allegations were “bullshit” can reasonably be expected to have introduced strong examiner bias into the conduct of the second question series:
Series Two (Drug Allegations)
1. Are you sitting down? (irrelevant)
2. Do you plan to tell the truth on this test about whether Obama smoked a rock of cocaine in your presence in that limo in 1999? (sacrifice relevant)
3. Are you convinced I won’t ask you an unreviewed question? (outside issue)
4. Unrelated to this matter, did you ever lie to make yourself important or for personal gain? (control)
5. Did Obama smoke a rock of cocaine in your presence in that limo in 1999? (relevant)
6. Have you ever been the kind of person that would try to manipulate someone else for personal gain? (control)
7. Did you lie when you said you saw Obama smoke a rock of cocaine in that limo in 1999? (relevant)
8. Is there something secret in your background that would damage your credibility if it were known? (control)
9. Is there something else you are afraid I’ll ask you a question about even though I told you I would not? (outside issue)
After three repetitions of the question series, Gelb (at roughly 46:30 to 51:10 of the second DVD) appears to silently score the charts without the participation of the colleague with whom he conferred when scoring the first series. Again, Gelb does not inform Sinclair of the results or afford him any “reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings.”
Gelb reported a score of -15 (Deception Indicated) for the second series in his report (Attachment 2). Gordon Barland arrived at a score of -7 (also Deception Indicated) for the same chart series (Attachment 3). As with the first series, Gelb did not mention PolyScore’s scoring of the charts in his report. However, Barland ran the PolyScore algorithm on the second series data, noting that “[i]t evaluated the charts as No Deception Indicated, and calculated the probability of deception as being less than .01 on a scale from 00 to 1.00.” That is, PolyScore found Sinclair to be truthful with regard to the drug questions, with a less than 1% probability of deception.
Barland does not account for this discrepancy in his report, merely stating:
This was inconsistent with my analysis. This is a relatively uncommon occurrence. The DACA [Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment, the federal government’s polygraph school, which has since been re-named the National Center for Credibility Assessment] guidelines, indicate that when there is a conflict between the examiner’s or reviewer’s score and PolyScore, the human score takes precedence.
However, there is no a priori reason why the examiner’s or reviewer’s score should take precedence over the score rendered by PolyScore, which is not susceptible to human biases (such as might result from a belief that the claims made by the examinee are “bullshit” or that the examinee “is nuts”.
While polygraphy is inherently unscientific and unreliable, irregularities associated with Edward I. Gelb’s polygraph examination of Larry Sinclair render the results even more untrustworthy.
We believe that Dr. Maschke’s review and report supports the information provided to Larry regarding the polygraph exam administered by Edward I. Gelb. In addition the video clearly shows Gelb and Parisi’s claims made in Court filings to be less than truthful to say the least. Larry pointed out in February 2008 that Gelb’s report was signed on February 22, 2008 despite the fact that NO BLIND SCORE of the exams had yet been performed, even though Gelb claimed otherwise. Had Larry known of Gelb’s statements calling him “nuts” and “Bullshit” he would not have continued with the exam.