Polygraph Article 5

Polygraph Articles Page 5

Death row
By PAUL MURRAY

On March 13, 2001, FBI-trained polygraph expert Bill Glare conducted a lie-detector test on convicted murderer Andrew Mallard in Perth's Casuarina prison. The results of the test – which Mallard passed – were to be used in the second appeal against his conviction for the brutal 1994 murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence. Even though Australian courts don't accept polygraph evidence, Glare, a former NSW policeman, was slated to be called as an expert witness on Mallard's truthfulness. However, he fell ill and was not able to appear.

So another polygraph expert, Steven Van Aperen, conducted a new test on Mallard in July last year. Van Aperen, a former Victorian and South Australian police officer, is a member of both the American Polygraph Association and the American Association of Police Polygraphists. He told the second appeal late last year that Mallard had been telling the truth when he denied killing Lawrence.

That directly challenged two purported police "confessions" on which the Crown case was built. Mallard – who was mentally ill at the time of the police interviews – says he was merely recounting suggestions put to him by detectives.

The WA Court of Criminal Appeal took extensive evidence from international experts both for and against polygraph evidence. But its judgment on December 3 firmly dismissed the controversial procedure. "There is insufficient basis to regard Mr Van Aperen's opinions as any more than expressions of subjective belief or speculation about the credibility of the petitioner ..." the appeal judges said.

"The evidence would go beyond bearing merely on an issue relevant to the petitioner's credibility – it purports to present an opinion directly on whether the petitioner is truthful in his denial of the offence. That is for the jury to determine and, given the lack of scientific support for the polygraph technique, they would not properly be assisted by the evidence of opinion based on that."

An appeal has now been lodged with the High Court to decide the issue. Mallard's counsel, Malcolm McCusker, QC, has a close eye on a judgment given by Justice Michael Kirby in the High Court in 1999. Continue Reading This Article-->

Bulletin EdDesk Article

On March 13, 2001, FBI-trained polygraph expert Bill Glare conducted a lie-detector test on convicted murderer Andrew Mallard in Perth's Casuarina prison. The results of the test – which Mallard passed – were to be used in the second appeal against his conviction for the brutal 1994 murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence. Even though Australian courts don't accept polygraph evidence, Glare, a former NSW policeman, was slated to be called as an expert witness on Mallard's truthfulness. However, he fell ill and was not able to appear.

So another polygraph expert, Steven Van Aperen, conducted a new test on Mallard in July last year. Van Aperen, a former Victorian and South Australian police officer, is a member of both the American Polygraph Association and the American Association of Police Polygraphists. He told the second appeal late last year that Mallard had been telling the truth when he denied killing Lawrence.

That directly challenged two purported police "confessions" on which the Crown case was built. Mallard – who was mentally ill at the time of the police interviews – says he was merely recounting suggestions put to him by detectives.

The WA Court of Criminal Appeal took extensive evidence from international experts both for and against polygraph evidence. But its judgment on December 3 firmly dismissed the controversial procedure. "There is insufficient basis to regard Mr Van Aperen's opinions as any more than expressions of subjective belief or speculation about the credibility of the petitioner ..." the appeal judges said.

"The evidence would go beyond bearing merely on an issue relevant to the petitioner's credibility – it purports to present an opinion directly on whether the petitioner is truthful in his denial of the offence. That is for the jury to determine and, given the lack of scientific support for the polygraph technique, they would not properly be assisted by the evidence of opinion based on that."

An appeal has now been lodged with the High Court to decide the issue. Mallard's counsel, Malcolm McCusker, QC, has a close eye on a judgment given by Justice Michael Kirby in the High Court in 1999.

Continue Reading This Article-->

Polygraph| Lie Detector Test| Polygraph| Cheating Wife / Husband|Police Jobs