Attorney Calls for Formal Investigation of DoD Contract for Study of Portable Lie Detectors

Bob McCarty Writes ^ | 11-03-09 | Bob McCarty

[BobMcCartyWrites]

In a post almost seven months ago, I reported on a claim that the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System, a hand-held portable lie detector system made by Lafayette Instrument Company, was never tested for countermeasures before it was deployed to troops in combat zones and that it was the success of National Institute for Truth Verification’s more-accurate and versatile Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® technology in Iraq and Afghanistan that led the Department of Defense to create the PCASS system in the first place.

Today, a source who has read my previous posts on this subject matter provided me a copy of a two-page letter in which a Washington, D.C.-based attorney cites possible ethical issues, conflicts of interest and questionable activities as grounds for requesting a formal investigation into the award of a DoD contract to the University of Florida.

[BobMcCartyWrites]

In a post almost seven months ago, I reported on a claim that the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System, a hand-held portable lie detector system made by Lafayette Instrument Company, was never tested for countermeasures before it was deployed to troops in combat zones and that it was the success of National Institute for Truth Verification’s more-accurate and versatile Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® technology in Iraq and Afghanistan that led the Department of Defense to create the PCASS system in the first place.

Today, a source who has read my previous posts on this subject matter provided me a copy of a two-page letter in which a Washington, D.C.-based attorney cites possible ethical issues, conflicts of interest and questionable activities as grounds for requesting a formal investigation into the award of a DoD contract to the University of Florida.

In the letter, dated today and addressed to officials at the offices of the DoD Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service and Government Accountability Office, the attorney details several factors which led him to request a formal inquiry:

In 2005, members of Congress wanted to know why the U.S. Special Operations Command survey of the NITV’s Computer Voice Stress Analyzer truth verification tool found it to be highly-accurate and reliable while, in contrast, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute found its accuracy to be “less than chance” in studies they funded, sponsored and/or conducted.

In an effort to get to the facts, Congress directed then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone to order an independent study of the CVSA as a tool for the military. Subsequently, a contract for the study was awarded by the USDI and DoDPI to the University of Florida via contract FA 4814-04-0011. The study was conducted by Drs. Harry Hollien and James D. Harnsberger and published in a 66-page report, Voice Stress Analysis Instrument Evaluation, dated March 17, 2006.

But was the study truly independent? The content of his letter suggests the attorney suspects it wasn’t.

Deeper into his letter, the attorney points out several facts that cause him to question the study’s “independence”:

Those in charge of this study failed to inform Congress that Dr. Hollien had conducted a questionable study of voice stress analysis (VSA) technology in 1986 and found its accuracy to be “less than chance.”

The Office of the USDI also failed to inform Congress that Dr. John Capps, brother of Michael Capps, a former director of DoDPI and at the time a high-ranking USDI employee, would supervise and oversee the study on behalf of the USDI.

Although the guidelines for the study required it to be conducted utilizing mandatory protocols provided by the manufacturer, Dr. Hollien, with the consent of the USDI and Dr. John Capps, simply ignored this prerequisite and used the protocols he employed in the 1985 study to discredit VSA technology. With the knowledge and consent of the USDI, Dr. Hollien replicated his earlier study – the outcome of which was predetermined. In the process, taxpayer’s dollars were wasted, fraud was perpetrated, academic and government ethics were violated, and all concerned DoD-parties perpetrated highly questionable intelligence activities to protect the status quo. Further, Dr. Hollien also ignored the manufacturer’s protests, and even applied high-voltage electric shocks to human test subjects during the course of his DoD-funded CVSA research. Predictably, the results of the study replicated those of Dr. Hollien’s previous study, and concluded the CVSA’s accuracy was “less than chance,” despite existing classified evidence held by the DoD to the contrary. The USDI simply suppressed the classified evidence of the CVSA’s accuracy and released the flawed results of Dr. Hollien’s study.

The attorney concludes his letter as follows:

An investigation into this matter is clearly warranted. The information provided above indicates these events were intentionally fraudulent and an abuse of taxpayer dollars. The above is in addition to the millions of taxpayer dollars that DoDPI (now referred to as the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment — DACA) has spent on similar fraudulent “studies” of VSA. Investigations of such matters are critical to expose fraud and bring those responsible to justice.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The person who provided the copy of the letter did so only after I promised I would not use the attorney’s name in my reporting at this point of the investigation. Be advised, however, that I plan to continue following this matter and will report new developments as they surface. My source tells me that several members of Congress share a great deal of interest in this matter and, as a result, this attorney’s letter should yield some real “fireworks” in the not-too-distant future.