According to Philly.com: “Ex-agent sues Kane over sting case”
“PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Claude Thomas, who posed as the driver for the lobbyist turned operative in the sting, said Kane falsely told the public that he had said the operation had a racial agenda, targeting blacks and exempting whites…
“In criticizing the sting, Kane said she had a sworn statement by Kevin Wevodau, a top commander of agents in the Attorney General’s Office, attesting that Thomas had told him that he had been instructed to target blacks…
“In his complaint Thomas also sues Wevodau personally. Thomas denied saying the remarks that Wevodau put in his statement. And, Thomas says in the lawsuit, a polygraph test has shown he was telling the truth.”
Out of twelve paragraphs in the Inquirer story, only one – the tenth – sets forth Kane’s defense while all the rest attack her.
Just about any experience police officer can fake a polygraph test and so can anyone else who takes instructions and does a little practice. That is why polygraph tests are not permitted as evidence in court.
According to the American Pyschological Association article “The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)”: The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, “it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study.” In real-world situations, it’s very difficult to know what the truth is.”
Under normal circumstances, LNP editors would not be faulted for reproducing an article from the Inquirer. But by now LNP should be aware of the war launched by the Inquirer against Kane and should be more cautious about what it publishes.
