Ruby's Polygraph - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion Ruby's Polygraph
From: Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Ruby's Polygraph
Date: 16 Jan 2009 16:08:22 -0500
Organization: jfkhistory.com
Lines: 227
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <reharris1-88D0DC.09463616012009@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.1
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail

In 1978, the HSCA polygraph panel of 9 experts was asked to reexamine 
the polygraph test given to Jack Ruby in 1964, by FBI polygraph expert, 
Bell P. Herndon. To say that the panel was shocked and outraged by 
Herndon's procedures, is an enormous understatement. It is my belief, 
based on their report, that first, Ruby was indeed being deceitful when 
he denied any relationship to Oswald, or to the assassination, and 
second, that Herndon deliberately tried to hide evidence that Ruby lied.

It is important to understand, that Herndon was no amateur at this. He 
was in fact one of the very best and most experienced polygraph people 
the FBI had, describing himself as, "presently the polygraph supervisor 
and polygraph examiner assigned to the FBI laboratory, Washington, 
D.C.".When asked about his experience, he replied, " I have either 
given, supervised, or reviewed several thousand polygraph examinations.".

Keeping in mind then, that Herndon knew exactly what he was doing, 
consider this part of the HSCA report:

"A third factor the panel finds impaired the Ruby polygraph examination 
concerned the number of relevant test questions asked.The panel members 
believe it showed total disregard of basic polygraph principles.

(47) The crux of every polygraph examination is the number of test 
questions and how they are worded. When the Ruby examination was 
conducted, the primary textbook on the subject was "Lie Detection and 
Criminal Interrogation," by Fred E. Inbau and John E. Reid (3ded., 
1953). This book recommends three relevant questions, since the more a 
person is tested, the less he tends to react when lying. That is, sooner 
or later, liars become so "test-tired,"they no longer produce 
significant physiological reactions when lying. "

That last sentence is critical. As we will see, Herndon knew all too 
well, that by wearing Ruby down with control questions, he could reduce 
his measurable reactions when he lied. The report continued,

"One panel member, Archer, said that in his 27 years of experience he 
had never heard of polygraph examinations with more than 17 relevant 
questions. Yet, in the Ruby examination, Herndon ask some 55 relevant 
questions. As Herndon himself stated:

'In normal polygraph procedure it is usual to keep the relevant 
questions down to perhaps several specific critical relevant questions 
and work strictly on those.'"

So, as we might expect, Herndon knew very well that by asking far too 
many test questions, he might cause Ruby to suppress the symptoms of his 
deceptions. But that was only a start. Just in case Ruby had not been 
"worn down" enough to hide his lies, Herndon took other steps to 
minimize those peaks on the printout:

"The panel found the galvanic skin response (GSR) tracing to be of 
minimal help in analyzing Ruby's charts. The main problem with the GSR 
in the first session (before the break) is a lack of sensitivity due to 
Herndon's setting the sensitivity at one-fourth of maximum. He decreased 
it to one-fifth for the third series of questions. The panel noted that 
it should have been tried at a maximum sensitivity prior to the first 
test, where probably it should have remained for the entire examination."

So, for some reason, Herndon turned the sensitivity to 1/4th of what it 
should have been. He then turned it down even further, for the third set 
of questions. The panel continued,

"The panel could provide no explanation for why Herndon decreased the 
sensitivity for the third series. In fact, generally recognized 
principles in 1964 called for the sensitivity to be continually 
increased."

But if all else failed, and those nasty signs of deception still became 
visible, the FBI had a final fallback position. They could simply 
declare that the machinery was defective,

"The panel concluded that during this entire session, the GSR was 
completely defective. At best the polygraph appeared to be in extremely 
poor condition. In an examination of this importance, a backup polygraph 
should have been available and in the panel's view, should have been 
used. The examination should have been stopped until another polygraph 
could be obtained."

Of course, if this fact was known to the HSCA experts, it was certainly 
known to Herndon. What possible reason could he have had, for conducting 
the most important polygraph test of his career, and perhaps, of this 
century, on equipment he knew to be faulty? Certainly, the FBI would 
have had no problem at all, procuring a machine that was in perfect 
working order. What possible reason could there have been for this, 
other than to give Herndon an out, or a form of plausible denial?

These are not the only examples of Herndon's flagrant attempts to 
disguise the nature of Ruby's responses. Keeping in mind, that he was an 
expert, who had administered or studied, "thousands" of polygraph tests, 
look at the way he used his control questions to produce artificially 
high standards for where on his graphs, he would have to admit that Ruby 
lied,

"Further, Herndon violated a basic rule that surprise questions should 
never be used as controls. For example, while asking a series, he says, 
during the test, "have you ever been known by another name? Don't answer 
that question. Skip it. Just sit and relax." (112)

(74) Such talk by the expert should automatically prevent this question 
from being used in the chart analysis. Yet Herndon uses it as a control. 
He testified: 'The only significant change physiologically during series 
No. 2 was in Mr. Ruby's response to the question, "Have you ever been 
known by another name?,"portrayed by an increase in his blood pressure.' 
(113)

(75) Such a procedure can easily lead to a mistake, particularly in 
indicating a liar to be truthful. ".

As we will see, that was not the only time that Herndon used improper, 
and provocative "control" questions, for the purpose of raising the 
standard.

"(69) 4. Herndon's definition of a "control" question goes far beyond 
the generally recognized definition, as discussed in the leading book of 
the day by Inbau and Reid. The "control" question,developed by Reid in 
1943, is one similar but unrelated to the crime being investigated to 
which the expert knows the correct answer and to which the person will 
probably lie. If the person's reaction to a properly worded control is 
more pronounced than to the relevant questions, he is considered to be 
truthful. On the other hand, if his reaction to the relevant questions 
is more pronounced, he is considered to be lying to the relevant 
questions."

To understand what Herndon was up to, the following paragraph is 
critical:

"(70) If the control questions are properly worded, it is very possible 
that a person lying to the relevant questions will appear to be 
truthful. (71) Herndon's control questions were not correctly worded. He 
defined a "control" question as one to which the person will have some 
emotional response. (105) Thus, he used such controls as:

1. Have you ever been arrested? (106)2. Are you married? (107)3. While 
in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?(108)4. Have you 
served time in jail? (109)5. Did you attend the synagogue regularly? 
(110)

(72) It is obvious that not one of the above questions is a control, as 
defined by Inbau and Reid. For example, to the question, "have you ever 
been arrested?", Ruby answered "yes."Therefore, it is not a lie, yet 
Herndon considered it to be a control question. (111)"

As the panel pointed out, the correct use of control questions had been 
defined decades prior to this test. Herndon, as a well trained, 
experienced expert, who had studied polygraph techniques under Phd's, 
must certainly, have been aware that he was violating the most 
fundamental principles of polygraph administration.

Worse, Herndon was filling his chart with artificially high test points, 
which he would later use to for the avowed purpose of determining 
whether Ruby lied or not. In short, he was doing everything in his 
power, to make it virtually impossible for Ruby to appear to have been 
deceptive. His efforts would pay off, when he was faced with Ruby's 
blatantly deceptive reactions after answering the following two, 
bombshell questions,

1. Did you know Oswald before November 22, 1963?
Answer. No.

2. Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?
Answer. No.

Herndon concluded that Ruby's replies were honest, despite an immediate 
and normally, damning rise in Ruby's blood pressure. But, the FBI 
operator dismissed that reaction by pointing to a similar rise in blood 
pressure following one of his provocative control questions.

This is how the panel described it:

"Herndon concluded from his analysis of the charts that Ruby was 
truthful in answering these two relevant questions. He arrived at this 
conclusion by comparing Ruby's response to the control question, "Have 
you ever been arrested?" Answer: Yes.

(99) As previously noted, the panel believed this to be an extremely 
poor control question.

(100) Herndon testified that Ruby's physiological response to this 
control question was recorded on the charts in terms of a"noticeable 
rise in his blood pressure." (127) The panel took issue with this 
conclusion because the rise in blood pressure occurred at least 7 
seconds after Ruby answered. A response normally never occurs this long 
after the question. The typical reaction, would be in 1 or 2 seconds. 
Further, the panel noted that at the point of the rise in blood 
pressure, Herndon indicated on the chart (as "MF") that Ruby moved his 
feet. The panel believed that the rise in blood pressure most likely was 
caused by Ruby's movement and not his physiological reaction to 
the"control" question. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that 
Ruby's breathing remained relaxed at the time of the rise in blood 
pressure, and the Galvanic skin response showed no reaction."

IOW, Herndon was trying very lamely, to rationalize why he did not call 
Ruby's answers to these questions, out and out lies. The panel continued,

"In fact, the reactions to the preceding question--(Did you assist 
Oswald in the assassination?)--showed the largest valid GS reaction in 
test series No. 1. In addition, there is a constant suppression of 
breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time of this crucial 
relevant question. From this test, it appeared to the panel that Ruby 
was possibly lying when answering "no" to the question, 'Did you assist 
Oswald in the assassination ?' This is contrary to Herndon's opinion 
that Ruby was truthful when answering that question."

Although the panel stopped short of labeling Herndon the liar he 
obviously was, it is clear that Ruby's response to his critical denial, 
evoked:

1. A rapid increase in blood pressure.

2. A subconscious effort by Ruby to suppress his breathing.

3. The highest GSR (galvanic skin response) measured during that 
questioning session.

Needless to say, all three of those reactions were symptomatic of 
deliberate deception. Yet, Herndon testified to a clueless Warren 
Commission, that he had no problem at all, interpreting Ruby's chart to 
mean that there was "..no area of deception present with regard to his 
response to the relevant questions during the polygraph examination.".

Of course, like Ruby¹s denials, that was a flagrant lie.




Robert Harris
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
