|
Rovner & Associates
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
(818) 340-6963
Confidential Report
Polygraph test of Larry Vanderberg
Polygraph examiner: Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
www.PolygraphWest.com
April 24, 2009
I am a polygraph examiner and President of Rovner & Associates. I hold
three degrees in Psychology, a Bachelors degree (B. A., University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, 1974), a Masters degree (M.A., University of British
Columbia, 1976), and a Doctorate (Ph.D., University of Utah, 1979). My
Masters degree was awarded in the area of Biopsychology, and my Ph.D. in
the area of Psychophysiology. Psychophysiology is the only field of
specialization in Psychology and Psychiatry that relates directly to the
use of the polygraph in a lie detection setting. I also completed the
course of instruction at the Los Angeles Institute of Polygraph in 1986.
I have been an instructor in the areas of Psychology, Physiology, and
Psychophysiology at the Los Angeles Institute of Polygraph and the Marston
Polygraph Academy for more than twenty years. In addition, I have taught
and spoken at numerous seminars and workshops designed to serve the needs
and interests of professional polygraph examiners. I have also taught a
variety of Psychology and Statistics courses at the University of Utah,
Westminster College, and California Lutheran University.
I have conducted polygraph research which has been published in scientific
and professional journals, and have written numerous articles about
polygraph-related issues for other professional publications.
I am on the Panel of Experts of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Criminal
Division. In addition to being recognized by the L.A. Superior Court as an
expert in polygraph testing, I have testified as an expert about polygraph
test results in criminal, civil and child custody cases. I am a Full
Member of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Society for
Psychophysiological Research (SPR), the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS),
the American Polygraph Association (APA), and the National Polygraph
Association (NPA). In addition, I serve on the Forensic Psychophysiology
Committee (E52) of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
On April 22, 2009 I conducted a polygraph examination of Larry Vanderberg
at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California. The
examination was conducted using scientifically validated methods and
procedures which were developed at institutions including the University
of Utah and the United States Department of Defense Polygraph Institute.
Mr. Vanderberg’s physiological responses (cardiovascular, respiratory
and electrodermal) were monitored and recorded by a Lafayette LX4000
computerized polygraph. The testing methodology employed was a Utah Zone
of Comparison Test (UZCT). According to a recent research report published
by the American Polygraph Association, the UZCT is the most accurate of
all scientifically validated polygraph testing techniques. I have
personally published scientific research utilizing the UZCT. My accuracy
rate in that research was 95.5%.
This test was requested by Mr. Doug Tjapkes, founder and President of
Humanity for Prisoners, a not-for-profit organization. I conducted the
test pro bono.
Mr. Vanderberg is serving a lengthy prison sentence following his
conviction for crimes that he claims he did not commit. Some years ago,
four girls had accused him of touching them inappropriately. Mr.
Vanderberg denied those accusations, but he was convicted nevertheless. He
volunteered to take a polygraph test about the issues.
The polygraph examination session commenced at 11:45 AM and lasted
approximately two hours. The session began with a pre-test interview,
during which Mr. Vanderberg informed me that he had sufficient sleep the
night before the test, that he was in reasonably good health, and that he
was not under the influence of any illegal drugs or alcohol. I then
discussed the issues with him and made certain that terminology and
understanding between us was consistent.
Throughout the pre-test interview, Mr. Vanderberg insisted that he had
never touched any of the four girls in an inappropriate manner.
Based on our discussion, I asked Mr. Vanderberg to write the following
statement:
Details of the statement
have been snipped for confidentiality. It names the specific acts.
Following are the last lines of the
statement:
I never touched any of the
four, for any sexual purpose whatsoever.
This statement is completely true.
(signed) Larry Vanderberg]
I then formulated Mr.
Vanderberg’s test questions and reviewed each of them with him, assuring
him that those questions would be the same questions asked during the
test. The polygraph examination included the following relevant
questions:
Is your written statement completely true?
(Mr. Vanderberg's answer: Yes)
Did you deliberately lie in your written statement?
(Mr. Vanderberg's answer: No)
Is there anything at all in your written statement that is untrue?
(Mr. Vanderberg's answer: No)
I made it clear to Mr.
Vanderberg that if there was even one sentence in the statement that was
untrue, he would fail the entire test. In addition to the above relevant
questions, appropriate comparison and neutral questions were included in
the test question sequence.
After reviewing the questions with Mr. Vanderberg, I explained the
psychological and physiological bases of the test. I described the
function of each polygraph component as they were attached to him. I then
conducted a “stim” test on Mr. Vanderberg in which I instructed him to
tell a lie about a number that was written on a piece of paper in plain
view of both of us. Upon verifying that his physiological recordings were
adequate, I conducted the examination. Three charts (three times through
the question sequence) were run.
Results
Mr. Vanderberg passed his polygraph test. My objective, numerical evaluation of the polygraph charts indicates that he answered the relevant questions truthfully.
Numerical evaluation is a
procedure in which a polygraph examiner measures the strength, size and
other characteristics of a subject’s physiological responses at certain
locations in the polygraph tracings, and then assigns point values to
reflect the magnitude and quality of those responses.
To be considered truthful when he answered the relevant questions, Mr. Vanderberg’s
total score would have to equal or exceed +6 points. To be considered
deceptive to the relevant questions, his score would have to equal or
exceed -6 points. Scores in the range of -5 to +5 are considered to be
inconclusive. Mr. Vanderberg’s score was +11.
As such, it is my professional opinion that the statement that Mr.
Vanderberg wrote is truthful and accurate.
/s/
Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
|
