02-20-2017, 12:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-20-2017, 12:38 AM by jameson245.)
2000-05-30: Geraldo Rivera Live - Tuesday, May 30, 2000
Guests: Edward Gelb (polygrapher), Daniel Petrocelli (trial atty), Dori Ann Hanswirth (media atty), Gerald Shargel (criminal defense atty)
GERALDO: John and Patsy Ramseys' lawyer. Of course, they say that the privately administered polygraph proves that they're innocent. But even before they triumphantly released the favorable results of their lie detector test last week, results which of course have little legal consequence in a murder case - or any other case, for that matter, in criminal law - they have already begun to file lawsuits.
That was the Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood. He's the guy who filed five lawsuits on behalf of JonBenet's brother, Burke. In March, the Ramseys settled a $25 million lawsuit against the Star magazine tabloid. Now they're suing the New York Post and Time-Warner for $4 million a pop. In addition, they're also seeking $35 million from the company that owns the Globe supermarket weekly.
But that's not all. Attorney Wood now says that he plans another lawsuit or two on Burke's behalf, after which he will start suing people who have allegedly libeled John and Patsy. Now, the defamation suits would target the couple's fiercest critics. The Governor has been mentioned, Governor William Owens, and of course the Denver radio talk show host, Peter Boyles.
In the attorney's words: "I have a list. The only person I can say for certain will be sued is Steve Thomas." Thomas is of course the cop who wrote the book. Wood continues, "The Ramseys are entitled to certain rights and protections . . . In my mind, Governor Owens has trampled on these people's rights."
What role, if any, will the lie detector test play in the libel suit? We don't know, but our first guest is the man who administered the test to the Ramseys. He is Dr. Edward Gelb. He has conducted more than 30,000 polygraphs - is that right, Ed? 30,000?
GELB: That's right, Geraldo, 30,000.
GERALDO: He is the former president of the American Polygraph Association, and Ed joins us from Los Angeles. Welcome aboard, Doctor. Nice to see you in this context.
GELB: Thank you.
GERALDO: First off, I must ask: You are indeed the examiner who examined Orenthal J. Simpson in the days following the brutal double-homicide in Brentwood, are you not?
GELB: OJ who? If that exam was conducted, it would have been conducted under attorney-client privilege. And you only seem to hear about the ones people pass, not the ones they fail.
GERALDO: That was my question exactly. Is it that you only hear about the polygraphs people pass and not the ones they fail?
GELB: Certainly. And if I was an attorney, which I'm not, I wouldn't want to be gone after for malpractice for having clients take polygraph tests willy-nilly without knowing how they were going to do.
GERALDO: So you neither confirm nor deny that you administered a polygraph to OJ Simpson that he failed miserably?
GELB: You're correct.
GERALDO: Okay [laughing]. Dan, I've got to talk to Ed one-on-one, but I want you to stow this information away in your mind. Is it not a fact, though, Dr. Gelb, that you administered tests to the Ramseys that they did not pass?
GELB: No, that's not correct. The only tests I administered, they passed. In fact, there were five separate polygraph examinations and they passed all of them, and those examinations were blind-scored by the person, Cleve Backster, who created the numerical scoring system.
GERALDO: But is it not a fact that you administered a series of tests, the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: No, that's not correct.
GERALDO: Then where does that report come from? To the best of your knowledge, have the Ramseys ever taken a lie detector test the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: Yes they did, with Gerry Toriello in New Jersey.
GERALDO: And when, timewise, were those tests.
GELB: Well prior to the examinations that I conducted.
GERALDO: So, prior to the examinations that you conducted, they took and did not pass a lie detector test?
GELB: They did not fail; they ran inconclusive or what the government calls, "no opinion." And based on that result, their attorney offered that they take a polygraph test with me without even notifying me that that offer had been made.
GERALDO: So, you admit as you sit there, Dr. Gelb, that another polygraph examiner - and his reputation is what? Will you fill us in? Is he a reputable polygrapher?
GELB: Yes he is.
GERALDO: And you admit that his results were different, significantly, than yours?
GELB: Of course. They were inconclusive, no opinion.
GERALDO: So, what happened between their taking that test and their taking your test?
GELB: Well, there's an adage in the business, Geraldo, and it says that, "The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier." People can take polygraph tests and run inconclusive. They can subsequently be re-tested by another examiner and prove to be conclusively truthful, and those are the results I stand by: A well-conducted examination by a recognized expert. That's me.
GERALDO: But you said that the other fellow was a well-recognized expert. Can we not presume that his tests were as well administered?
GELB: Oh yes, and I've run inconclusive examinations too in my life.
GERALDO: Is this a classic reason why polygraphs are deemed, legally speaking, unreliable?
GELB: Well, they're not deemed unreliable. The accuracy runs around 94-95%. What is the fact is that we don't have trial by polygraph in this country. We have trials by judges and juries. Those are the people who decide guilt and innocence, not polygraph examiners.
GERALDO: But Ed, are you not troubled by the fact that this other fellow, of equal renown, came to a different conclusion?
GELB: Absolutely not. He came to no conclusion, or as the United States Government calls it, "no opinion."
GERALDO: And that doesn't affect your confidence in your own results?
GELB: Absolutely not. I'm very confident in my results, to a certainty of 94-95%.
GERALDO: Did you administer a blood or urine test to determine whether or not they had taken any drugs? Sodium pentothal, or something like that?
GELB: Well, if they had taken sodium pentothal, which is commonly known as truth serum, I don't think that I would have had anything to do with that. They were fit subjects for polygraphs.
GERALDO: Is the answer no, Ed?
GELB: They were not given urinalysis tests or blood tests by me, no.
GERALDO: Can those drugs, of whatever stripe, affect a person's physiological response measured by your polygraph machine?
GELB: No. To pass a test, there must be presence of reaction. If you're going to mediate the reactions or eliminate the reactions with drugs, you wouldn't pass a polygraph test. There's no drug that we know of that selectively affects the zone of influence. In other words . . .
GERALDO: How about lithium?
GELB: I'm sorry?
GERALDO: Lithium.
GELB: Lithium does not select one zone of influence and not the other. The entire test would be affected, not one zone or the other, and that's what we do. We compare zones of influence.
GERALDO: Do you expect to be subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff's witness?
GELB: I have no idea whether I'm going to be subpoenaed or not.
GERALDO: Well, you didn't come here in response to a subpoena. Thanks for being a voluntary witness. I have no further questions, Dr. Ed Gelb. We'll be right back, ladies and gentlemen, and we'll discuss what you just heard. Stay tuned.
Guests: Edward Gelb (polygrapher), Daniel Petrocelli (trial atty), Dori Ann Hanswirth (media atty), Gerald Shargel (criminal defense atty)
GERALDO: John and Patsy Ramseys' lawyer. Of course, they say that the privately administered polygraph proves that they're innocent. But even before they triumphantly released the favorable results of their lie detector test last week, results which of course have little legal consequence in a murder case - or any other case, for that matter, in criminal law - they have already begun to file lawsuits.
That was the Ramsey attorney, Lin Wood. He's the guy who filed five lawsuits on behalf of JonBenet's brother, Burke. In March, the Ramseys settled a $25 million lawsuit against the Star magazine tabloid. Now they're suing the New York Post and Time-Warner for $4 million a pop. In addition, they're also seeking $35 million from the company that owns the Globe supermarket weekly.
But that's not all. Attorney Wood now says that he plans another lawsuit or two on Burke's behalf, after which he will start suing people who have allegedly libeled John and Patsy. Now, the defamation suits would target the couple's fiercest critics. The Governor has been mentioned, Governor William Owens, and of course the Denver radio talk show host, Peter Boyles.
In the attorney's words: "I have a list. The only person I can say for certain will be sued is Steve Thomas." Thomas is of course the cop who wrote the book. Wood continues, "The Ramseys are entitled to certain rights and protections . . . In my mind, Governor Owens has trampled on these people's rights."
What role, if any, will the lie detector test play in the libel suit? We don't know, but our first guest is the man who administered the test to the Ramseys. He is Dr. Edward Gelb. He has conducted more than 30,000 polygraphs - is that right, Ed? 30,000?
GELB: That's right, Geraldo, 30,000.
GERALDO: He is the former president of the American Polygraph Association, and Ed joins us from Los Angeles. Welcome aboard, Doctor. Nice to see you in this context.
GELB: Thank you.
GERALDO: First off, I must ask: You are indeed the examiner who examined Orenthal J. Simpson in the days following the brutal double-homicide in Brentwood, are you not?
GELB: OJ who? If that exam was conducted, it would have been conducted under attorney-client privilege. And you only seem to hear about the ones people pass, not the ones they fail.
GERALDO: That was my question exactly. Is it that you only hear about the polygraphs people pass and not the ones they fail?
GELB: Certainly. And if I was an attorney, which I'm not, I wouldn't want to be gone after for malpractice for having clients take polygraph tests willy-nilly without knowing how they were going to do.
GERALDO: So you neither confirm nor deny that you administered a polygraph to OJ Simpson that he failed miserably?
GELB: You're correct.
GERALDO: Okay [laughing]. Dan, I've got to talk to Ed one-on-one, but I want you to stow this information away in your mind. Is it not a fact, though, Dr. Gelb, that you administered tests to the Ramseys that they did not pass?
GELB: No, that's not correct. The only tests I administered, they passed. In fact, there were five separate polygraph examinations and they passed all of them, and those examinations were blind-scored by the person, Cleve Backster, who created the numerical scoring system.
GERALDO: But is it not a fact that you administered a series of tests, the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: No, that's not correct.
GERALDO: Then where does that report come from? To the best of your knowledge, have the Ramseys ever taken a lie detector test the results of which were inconclusive?
GELB: Yes they did, with Gerry Toriello in New Jersey.
GERALDO: And when, timewise, were those tests.
GELB: Well prior to the examinations that I conducted.
GERALDO: So, prior to the examinations that you conducted, they took and did not pass a lie detector test?
GELB: They did not fail; they ran inconclusive or what the government calls, "no opinion." And based on that result, their attorney offered that they take a polygraph test with me without even notifying me that that offer had been made.
GERALDO: So, you admit as you sit there, Dr. Gelb, that another polygraph examiner - and his reputation is what? Will you fill us in? Is he a reputable polygrapher?
GELB: Yes he is.
GERALDO: And you admit that his results were different, significantly, than yours?
GELB: Of course. They were inconclusive, no opinion.
GERALDO: So, what happened between their taking that test and their taking your test?
GELB: Well, there's an adage in the business, Geraldo, and it says that, "The clean get cleaner and the dirty get dirtier." People can take polygraph tests and run inconclusive. They can subsequently be re-tested by another examiner and prove to be conclusively truthful, and those are the results I stand by: A well-conducted examination by a recognized expert. That's me.
GERALDO: But you said that the other fellow was a well-recognized expert. Can we not presume that his tests were as well administered?
GELB: Oh yes, and I've run inconclusive examinations too in my life.
GERALDO: Is this a classic reason why polygraphs are deemed, legally speaking, unreliable?
GELB: Well, they're not deemed unreliable. The accuracy runs around 94-95%. What is the fact is that we don't have trial by polygraph in this country. We have trials by judges and juries. Those are the people who decide guilt and innocence, not polygraph examiners.
GERALDO: But Ed, are you not troubled by the fact that this other fellow, of equal renown, came to a different conclusion?
GELB: Absolutely not. He came to no conclusion, or as the United States Government calls it, "no opinion."
GERALDO: And that doesn't affect your confidence in your own results?
GELB: Absolutely not. I'm very confident in my results, to a certainty of 94-95%.
GERALDO: Did you administer a blood or urine test to determine whether or not they had taken any drugs? Sodium pentothal, or something like that?
GELB: Well, if they had taken sodium pentothal, which is commonly known as truth serum, I don't think that I would have had anything to do with that. They were fit subjects for polygraphs.
GERALDO: Is the answer no, Ed?
GELB: They were not given urinalysis tests or blood tests by me, no.
GERALDO: Can those drugs, of whatever stripe, affect a person's physiological response measured by your polygraph machine?
GELB: No. To pass a test, there must be presence of reaction. If you're going to mediate the reactions or eliminate the reactions with drugs, you wouldn't pass a polygraph test. There's no drug that we know of that selectively affects the zone of influence. In other words . . .
GERALDO: How about lithium?
GELB: I'm sorry?
GERALDO: Lithium.
GELB: Lithium does not select one zone of influence and not the other. The entire test would be affected, not one zone or the other, and that's what we do. We compare zones of influence.
GERALDO: Do you expect to be subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff's witness?
GELB: I have no idea whether I'm going to be subpoenaed or not.
GERALDO: Well, you didn't come here in response to a subpoena. Thanks for being a voluntary witness. I have no further questions, Dr. Ed Gelb. We'll be right back, ladies and gentlemen, and we'll discuss what you just heard. Stay tuned.