NCJ Number
52645
Date Published
1973
Length
4 pages
Annotation
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY'S STUDY OF A VOICE ANALYSIS METHOD FOR IMPROVED RAPID INTERROGATION IS CRITICIZED.
Abstract
CRITICISMS FALL INTO THREE CATEGORIES: (1) THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTRACT WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS; (2) CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS CONTRACT WERE NOT PERFORMED; AND (3) SUFFICIENT VARIABLES WERE UNCONTROLLED RENDERING THE STUDY SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTRACT WAS TO VALIDATE THE VOICE ANALYZER IN AS REALISTIC A SITUATION AS POSSIBLE. THE STUDY FAILED TO USE AVAILABLE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS OF ACTUAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND FAILED TO EXAMINE ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATION OF CRIMINALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND INNOCENTS. THE STUDY FAILED TO MODEL THE INTERROGATION AFTER STANDARD EXAMINING PROCEDURES. THIS REPORT ALSO FINDS THAT THE STUDY DID NOT PERFORM CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES THAT AN ANALYSIS SHOULD BE MADE FOR EACH SUBJECT SHOWING THE ACCURACY OF EACH INSTRUMENT. THIS WAS NOT DONE AND REASONS WERE NOT GIVEN FOR THE MISSING DATA. FURTHERMORE, REQUIRED CHARTS SHOWING STRESS LEVELS OF SUBJECTS FOR EACH RESPONSE DO NOT APPEAR IN THE STUDY REPORT. THE FORDHAM STUDY ALSO FAILED TO CONTROL CERTAIN VARIABLES. IT FAILED TO IDENTIFY STRESS STEMMING FROM OTHER CAUSES, AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT CONSISTENT. IT WAS CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT WAS UNWISE; (2) THE STUDY MET NEITHER THE SPECIFICATIONS NOR THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTRACT; (3) THE RESULTS OF THE REPORT APPEAR INVALID; (4) PUBLIC FUNDS SHOULD BE RETURNED; AND (5) A STATEMENT OF THE FALSE AUTHENTICITY OF THE STUDY REPORT SHOULD BE ISSUED. (MLC)