Kaban ni D_BystandeR: POLYGRAPH

Though polygraph results are rarely allowed in state court partly because of concerns about reliability, many experts believe the tests can be useful, providing investigators with information, for instance, that can then be corroborated. In Chicago, the unit's written policy states that although polygraphs should be used as an investigative aid, they are not substitute for thorough investigation.  But in the cases in which Chicago murder suspects went on to be cleared - some after spending years locked up - police polygraph examiners were accused of making up a confession, using "trickery" to get an admission and telling a suspect he failed  a polygraph that an outside expert would later deem too poorly administered to determine its results. Mark Handler, the American Association of Police Polygraphysts' research and information chairman , has not studied Chicago's polygraph unit but expressed concern that any department would disregard standards. "By not following standards, you place yourself at a risk for errors, you can lead to an increased risk for a false confession," he said. "It's a very precipitous slope and a dangerous game to play because the ultimate harm is convicting an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit."  Court records, department documents and interviews show that Chicago police polygraph examiners have not followed key standards as published by national industry groups when administering the exams, which have long been controversial. The Chicago examiner's results don't have to be reviewed by a second examiner or supervisor. The unit has no continuing education requirements in place. And it records only a fraction of its polygraphs. For decades, the department did not use numerical scoring. "What makes the polygraph particularly powerful is that it's couched in science. When they say you failed the polygraph, and you think it's infallible, it has a very strong effect," says Saul Kassin, psychology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.  In five of the six cases, suspects were taken to Bartik, suspects said they were drawn in by the promise of the polygraph - which they believed was a scientific test that would prove their protestations of innocence were true. Instead, they allege in court documents and interviews, Bartik obtained confessions from them by berating them, threatening them and lying to them. Bartik said in court

testimony that he get more than 100 confessions in a five-year period in pretest interviews - a number that strikes some experts as extraordinary. They said the pretest period is not a time to try to get confessions; it's when the examiner explains how the polygraph works, gets consent and reviews the questions. Craig Futterman, who represented one of the suspects who later sued the city, said he believes Chicago's polygraph unit has systemic problem. "They're using the polygraph as an interrogation prop to try to overcome somebody's will and extract confessions, false or otherwise," said Futterman, a University of Chicago law professor. In trials as well as in sworn depositions, Bartik has denied allegations of wrongdoing. Since he joined the police force in 1988, he has received numerous commendations, including more than 40 honorable mentions. Cmdr. Joseph Murphy, who overseas forensic services, the division under which the polygraph unit falls, said polygraphs have long been an important tool, particularly when detectives hit a dead end or need to check the veracity of a witness or a suspect. He stressed that examiners tell their subjects the exam is voluntary, advises them of their rights and get consent before proceeding. "Our guidelines to the examiners are to provide the best service they can, be professional, be fair and impartial," said Murphy, who is not himself a polygraph examiner. Murphy declined to comment on cases Bartik handled, but he called Bartik an excellent examiner - "probably one of the most knowledgeable polygraph examiners I've ever met in my over 40 years on the job." The debate over whether polygraph exams are science or quackery  has raged since one of the earliest devices was developed in California in the early 20th century and later honed in Chicago. Polygraphs remain a common part of criminal investigations in Chicago, and in departments throughout the country, as well as federal law enforcement agencies. Testifying as part of a lawsuit in 2010, Bartik said the 111 people who confessed to him during the five-year period ending in 2003 did so not after a polygraph , but before, in a pretest interview. Dan Sosnowski. who testified in the same lawsuit for the plaintiff, estimated in court that in his 30-year career that started in Chicago and took him across the globe on behalf of the U.S. government, no more than five suspects confessed to him during a criminal pretest interview. A past president of the American Polygraph Association, Sosnowski testified that Bartik's record of pretest confessions was "unprecedented" and "highly improbable." He concluded that either Bartik used  a "very accusatory, heavy handed coercion method or (the confessions were) fabricated." Illinois law prohibits a polygraph examiner from initiating an interrogation "for the purpose of eliciting a confession" during a pretest interview. 

A polygraph examiner is supposed to remain objective and non-accusatory. Only after the exam can an examiner interrogate a suspect. Bartik has said in court records that he never interrogated a suspect during pretest interviews, and his attorneys have argued that there is no evidence he fabricated any confessions.