The Steve Wilkos Show Lie Detector is FAKE

The Steve Wilkos Show: Multiple Tragedies for the Sake of Ratings

I saw a tragedy on TV a few nights ago. It wasn’t in Darfur, Tibet or New Orleans. It took place in a Chicago television studio for The Steve Wilkos Show.

I don’t watch much TV. No time – with two young kids, a husband, an ailing mother, my therapy practice and this blog. I happened to be mending a hem and flipped on the TV to pass the time. What I watched really upset me.

Apparently about a week before this show was taped, a four-year old girl told her mother that the boyfriend of her aunt (the mother’s sister) had pulled down his pants and put his penis in the little girl’s mouth. This man was the father of several children with this aunt though they had apparently not gotten legally married. Then, the little girl told this same story to her aunt when questioned during a drive they went on in the car. The aunt, without questioning her common-law husband about this allegation, took her children and left their home for an unknown destination.

On the TV show, Wilkos (a former Marine, police officer, professional wrestler and director of security for The Jerry Springer Show) badgered each of his guests about their decisions and actions building to a crescendo involving the suspect results of a lie detector test administered by someone affiliated with the show. The “results” did not indicate conclusively that the accused had lied about the contact he’d had with the girl, but there was some question about whether he was telling the truth.

I had some major issues with the show.

During the lie detector interview, questions had apparently been asked about whether the accused had ever had sex with males. It turned out that he had. And, based on the few things he said about it, he was probably more attracted to males than females. But in his Latino culture this taboo was so large he had desperately tried to fit in as a heterosexual by fathering a few children to seal the deal.

The revelation that the accused had these sexual experiences with men somehow made it all the more plausible to Wilkos that he was lying in his denial about the four-year old girl. Wilkos may fancy himself some sort of expert on questioning suspects from his 11-year service in law enforcement, but he is not an expert in the area of sexual offenses. It’s a very rare occurrence for a bisexual or gay adult male to be interested in sexual contact with young female children. But, that didn’t really matter to Wilkos. In his mind, once you’re off the heterosexual path anything’s possible.

At one point, Wilkos wondered out loud, “How could a four-year old make this up?!” And rather than have his staff do a little research, he ran full tilt at his target, a man in his twenties at least a foot shorter and probably a hundred pounds lighter – jamming his finger inches from the face of the diminutive accused and yelling into his face with one inch between the tips of their noses.

“How could a kid make this stuff up?” That is exactly what a Los Angeles community wondered when it tried the teachers of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA in 1983. Yet, when it all came out in the wash, there was no corroboration of the statements made by 46 preschool children that included murders, underground tunnels, ritual abuse, dogs, trap doors, drinking blood, Santa Claus, clown suits and burials right on the preschool property.

It turned out that these children were led by unlicensed social workers (one Kee MacFarlane, in particular) in their interviews. It lasted six years – the longest US criminal trial in history. At a cost to the state of million, it was also the most expensive. No convictions were obtained. Here are two good links about this topic:
Learning From the McMartin Hoax
“McMartin” Ritual Abuse Cases in Manhattan Beach, CA

This story filled national newspapers for six years. OK, Wilkos was in the Marines and perhaps wasn’t in this country, but wasn’t anyone on his staff reading the newspaper then? (Silly me, for wondering that. Most TV talk shows have scruples-free producers half my age. They were still running around in diapers then.)

But for one instance, which I’ll explore in a moment, the accused man insisted throughout the show that he never did this or anything like it. Of course, many times when an accused perpetrator denies the action of sexual contact, she or he is lying. It isn’t something that is always easily admitted.

The one instance was this: After a particularly prolonged session of badgering, the accused said to Wilkos, “Whatever you say, man. Whatever you say.” Wilkos leapt upon this and berated him for joking about such a serious matter.

What dawned on me at this point was that this accused man was going through this show and enduring it in the same way that some men sit in the chair of a dunking booth at a carnival. He just stayed on stage and endured one verbal “dunking” after another. Why? There had to be money involved somehow. And, while I don’t have the answer to this right now, my intuition still leads me in that direction.

So, how much money will allow a man to be branded (probably for life) as a child molester? How much will compensate him for the likely loss of contact with his own children?

Was it part of “the deal” that he had to stay on stage the entire time in order to receive his fee for participating? He knew why he was coming onto the show. He knew that his sister-in-law would be making these allegations. He knew that her very brawny husband would be right there ready to throttle him.

Did he hope that criminal investigators would see this show for its folly? (Up to the point of taping the show, charges apparently had not been filed.) I don’t know. How much could be enough for the loss of his reputation, self-respect, and possibly his children?

I felt for this man. I don’t know if he did it or not. Only two people really know what happened – him and the little girl. But even children who are interrogated in particular leading styles by adults who think they already know the answer can get to the point of believing that something that never happened really did.

Wilkos kept circling back to the lie detector test whenever the drama on his stage dropped even slightly. He never minded that lie detectors are not admissible to prove culpability in criminal proceedings (Cal.Evid. Code 351.1). The lie detector test proved everything to Wilkos.

As the show was coming to its close, Wilkos went up to the mother of the little girl and said with pseudo-endearing pathos, “Take care of that baby growing inside you.” Yep, she was visibly pregnant. I thought to myself, “How could you? You’ve just put this woman through the ringer on this stage. No, that wasn’t stressful to her or to the baby. How does an hour of non-stop adrenaline affect a fetus?” It was the height of smarminess – and it was tragic for everyone on that set, except Wilkos, his ratings were probably through the roof.

My Results Were Inconclusive

My results were not conclusive as she tells everyone. I did a television show that was completely edited in a way to make myself out to look like the bad guy. Did I make a mistake? Yes. I should have never done the show. We signed papers that clarified the show is used for entertainment purposes only, and may be edited in any way the producers seem fit.

An inconclusive results means the following:
"Not leading to a firm conclusion; not ending doubt or dispute. Proving nothing; indefinite, indeterminate, unresolved, unproved, unsettled, unconfirmed."-

Her boyfriend/ now husband passed it... or did he? We will never know, because we never saw the results. The host of the show, Steve Wilkos said "you failed your test"....
but as you see below- I did not.

A Flawed Polygraph Test

There is endless research on the internet that demonstrates ways one can trick the test and pass it (see below a mention of this).

I was on medication for anxiety, but left it at home prior to the trip. The examiner did not question or take this into account. The American Polygraph Association states the following in the Standards Of Practice:

3.4.1 The examiner is required to make reasonable efforts to determine that the examinee is a fit
subject for testing. Basic inquiries into the medical and psychological condition of the examinee as well as any recent drug use must be made where allowed by law. Mental, physical or medical conditions of the examinee that should be observable to, or that should be reasonably known by the examiner, are required to be considered in conducting and evaluating the examination.
3.4.2 During the pretest interview, where allowed by law, the examiner is required to specifically inquire of the person to be examined whether or not he or she is currently receiving or has in the past received medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment or consultation.
3.4.3 If an examiner has a reasonable doubt concerning the ability of an examinee to safely undergo an examination, a release from the examinee and his or her physician is required.

I am on anxiety medication in which I suddenly stopped taking 3 days prior to the test because I had left it at home. The medication lists' the following side effects that occur when one suddenly stops taking the medication:

Sensory Disturbances
and more....

Here are some amazing facts regarding the Polygraph Test:

Did you know:
The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?
The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?
The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?
The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?
A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem?
The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
The Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?
The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage"thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?"
The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?"
Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph?
One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again?
Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus?
You don't have to be a psychopath, go to spy school, or somehow believe your own lies to fool the polygraph? (We'll reveal how it's done.)The dirty little secret behind the polygraph is that the "test" depends on trickery, not science. The person being "tested" is not supposed to know that while the polygraph operator declares that all questions must be answered truthfully, warning that the slightest hint of deception will be detected, he secretly assumes that denials in response to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial by warning, for example, that anyone who would do so is the same kind of person who would commit the kind of behavior that is under investigation and then lie about it. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to get out of trouble.

The polygraph pens don't do a special dance when a person lies. The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological responses (breathing, blood pressure, heart, and perspiration rates) to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions such as, "Did you ever commit an act of espionage against the United States?" (commonly asked in security screening). If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. If responses to both "control" and relevant questions are about the same, the result is deemed inconclusive.

The test also includes irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," because the true answer is obvious. But in reality, they are not scored at all! They merely serve as buffers between pairs of relevant and "control" questions.

The simplistic methodology used in polygraph testing has no grounding in the scientific method: it is no more scientific than astrology or tarot cards. Government agencies value it because people who don't realize it's a fraud sometimes make damaging admissions. But as a result of reliance on this voodoo science, the truthful are often falsely branded as liars while the deceptive pass through.

Perversely, the "test" is inherently biased against the truthful, because the more honestly one answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.Conversely, liars can beat the test by covertly augmenting their physiological reactions to the "control" questions. This can be done, for example, by doing mental arithmetic, thinking exciting thoughts, altering one's breathing pattern, or simply biting the side of the tongue. Truthful persons can also use these techniques to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.

My Inconclusive Results

Steve Wilkos is a Fake

When I first heard about the Steve Wilkos show, I thought it would be like Jerry Springer. Then I watched and thought "Hey this guy really wants to help." Well, I was very wrong. Caught the show one day and he was all over some guy about not seeing his child. The guy kept trying to tell him that the mother wouldn't let him see the child and Steve pretty much told him that he was full of it.
I emailed the show and told them about how hard, if not impossible it is to get to see a child if the custodial parent didn't want you too. Have lived through it with my husband, thousands spent on attorneys and counselers and whenever he'd show up to get her, it just wasn't "convenient". This is not a small child, she's a teenager. He has called the police and was told that it wasn't a police matter.
Needless to say, the show contacted me and as soon as I told them we weren't interested in being on the show, the producer "Elizabeth" didn't care anymore. I told her I thought Steve needed to be informed that there are thousands of parents out there going through this and she told me "I'm not going to tell my boss how to do his job". So I guess Steve doesn't care what the facts are, it's just a glorified Jerry Springer show. He couldn't care less about how things really are, just how he wants to present the.
Big disappointment to me, I'll never watch again.

Lie Detector Tests on Talk Shows—Are Guests “Getting Punked?”

Lie Detector Tests on Talk Shows—Are Guests “Getting Punked?”
by L. Arthalia Cravin

I am not one for using too much slang, but after viewing a few minutes of the Steve Wilkos Show today, “getting punked” best describes what I saw happened to a male guest.

A lot of what I call “conflict-based,” television talk shows, ask their guests to take a polygraph, a lie detector test, to prove that they are not telling a lie, or are telling the truth. The typical situation involves an accused cheating boyfriend or spouse. Why these folks go on national television to air their dirty laundry is beyond me, but whatever the inducement, shows like Maury Povich, Steve Wilkos, Jerry Springer, and even some judge shows, now have lie detector tests as part of their “shock and awe” format. And, as always, the accused vehemently denies the alleged wrongdoing. And, the reading of the contrary results of a lie detector test always brings on the usual audience boos and cheers. I wonder if these guests are “getting punked” for television drama.

I saw just such a “getting punked” show today– for no better reason than I was eating breakfast and was already tired of other networks talking about “what to do with leftover Thanksgiving turkey.” (Hey, we do what we do every year, we eat it!) And so I flipped to whatever station carries the Steve Wilkos Show. And, as usual, Wilkos was egging on couple animosity with allegations of infidelity. The wife accused the husband of bringing someone into the house for sex. He said he didn’t have sex only a few hits of a joint. They both took lie detector tests that asked the usual too-personal question of having sex with someone, followed by the usual denials. (You can almost guess the outcome of these lie detector tests based on who the audience favors.) The audience was in the wife’s corner for no better reason than the husband brought a stranger into the house. And so when the lie detector test results were read she passed, and, naturally, the already-in-the-doghouse-husband failed. Still he persisted “I did not have sex with that woman”–a refrain we’ve heard before. But still, he was adamant and asked to take the test again. Wilkos said no, you can’t take it again, you already failed it. And of course by then the wife had stormed off the show crying, yelling, and screaming for the husband to get out of the house. Another broken family, another couple headed for divorce court all behind dubious lie detector tests that I think should be banned on all talk shows.

A polygraph, or “lie-detector,” is a machine that measures various physical attributes (blood pressure, perspiration, heart rate, etc…) and attempts to correlate them with telling lies. The results of lie detector tests have been held by courts across the country to be so inherently unreliable that they cannot be used to prove guilt or innocence. Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts. Other states have severe limitations on how the results of a lie detector test can be use in court. Georgia allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.

But daytime television has run roughshod over law in the nation about using the results of polygraph tests. The reason is that talk shows are not courtrooms in which the accused may lose life or liberty. Never mind that the results of some of these tests destroy relationships and families. I personally believe that many of these “talk show” lie detector results are rigged for effect and the accused are simply getting punked on national television. Of course I already know that part of the “General Release” documents that these participants signed protects these shows from liability for everything. The result of the release of all liability for what happens on these shows is that the participants go on national television and are made to look like, sometimes fist-throwing, fools. I believe that many of these lie detector tests results are rigged for drama. After hearing these rigged results the guests are often laughed at, cursed, ridiculed, and called bold face liars before the world. I believe that many of these guests are indeed telling the truth. But instead of vindication, these guests leave these shows like whipped dogs, tails tucked, to return to homes, families, workplaces, and neighborhoods where they are permanently branded as liars all because of the use of lie detector tests.

Someone needs to stop these shows from using lie detectors tests. If these tests are too unreliable for courts they should be too unreliable for talk shows to use to ruin lives and families. I believe that some of the polygraph examiners who are being paid big bucks by the very television show they work for, have a built-in incentive to rig the results. I believe that some of these examiners are lying and they know it. And I am now accusing them of doing just such a thing for drama. It’s too bad that the victims of these talk show lie detector frauds have signed away their right to sue these lying bastards.

Man arrested after failing lie detector test on “Steve Wilkos” show

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A 22-year-old Kansas City man has been charged with child molestation and statutory sodomy after police say he failed a lie detector test on a nationally syndicated television talk show.
Dameion M. McBride was charged Wednesday for inappropriately touching two girls ages 4 and 8 and a 3-year-old boy between Jan. 1 and Feb. 22. in Grandview.

According to court documents, a witness informed police McBride had appeared on “The Steve Wilkos Show” on May 6 to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. He failed the test.
Authorities say they contacted McBride on July 9, who denied the allegation, and administrated another lie detector test. Court records say McBride failed that test as well.

McBride’s bond has been set at $150,000. It is not immediately clear if McBride has an attorney.
Bitcoin pops above $14,000 for the first timeThe digital currency has shot above the $14,000 mark for the first time -- the third big barrier it's broken in less than 24 hours.