Trying an Accused Serial Sexual Harasser for Libel in a US Civil Court

The goal of this article is to provide a class of MeToo# victims of a high-profile serial sexual harasser with a non-invasive method for civil action, when the accused publicly dismisses the victims’ claims as lies. When these libelous claims do occur, the victims can be assembled into a class-action libel/defamation case, which in most US states must be mounted within two years of the claim. Because under current civil methods, the plaintiffs would be subject to intense cross-examination in a civil jury trial, class-action lawsuits with small numbers of plaintiffs (e.g. 5–8) have proven impossible to conduct. This article provides a blueprint to create a collaboration amongst the victims, credibility-assessment (lie-detector) experts, statisticians, and MeToo# attorneys to litigate libel suits, which will likely produce out-of-court settlements. Once the first case is successfully completed, precedent will be set to bring other perpetrators to justice, and act as a deterrent to future exploitation. The evidentiary basis would be based on testing the null hypothesis that all plaintiffs are lying, to compare the inferred lying rates of the plaintiffs to similar population controls, who would be known liars, to a “Yes” answer to “Did X sexually harass you?”

Important Aspects of Polygraph Examinations of Islamic Faith People

In this article the author gives recommendations for running polygraph examinations of Islamic faith representatives during the Muslim fasting period of Ramadan based on his own practical experience and interactions with Muslim psychologists, and also analyzes examples of incorrect formulations of relevant questions on the subject of Islamic terrorism / extremism in the course of screening examinations.

Electrodermal Response Ratios: Scoring Against the Stronger of Two Comparison Questions in Search of an Optimal Minimum Threshold

Previously, Krapohl (2020) evaluated the Bigger-Is-Better Rule (BIBR) on the polygraph electrodermal channel to assess whether there was a best minimum ratio between response sizes for assigning a score. Performance peaked at a minimum ratio between 10% and 20%. The ratios had been calculated by comparing the electrodermal responses for each relevant question against those of the immediately preceding comparison question. The analysis did not consider whether the same optimal ratio would be found if the relevant question electrodermal responses are compared to those of the stronger of two adjacent comparison questions. To investigate we analyzed responses from an independent sample of 255 laboratory cases. The data from those cases found the highest correlation between scores and ground truth occurred when the minimum difference between two electrodermal responses was 30%.