ASSOCIATE Magazine FBINAA Q1-2026

continued from "Dick Arthur Was Right" page 20

THE POLYGRAPH AS AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL Arther consistently taught that telling investigators what they already suspect—namely, that a prime suspect is lying—adds little to an investigation. In most criminal cases, the polygraph is administered after investigators have already identified a likely suspect based on case facts. In such contexts, deception deci sions provide confirmation rather than discovery. Arther instead emphasized that the true value of the polygraph lies in its ability to facilitate information flow during a structured interview. GET THE CONFESSION (GTC) Arther’s well‑known directive to “Get That Confession” (GTC) has sometimes been misunderstood as a call for coercion. In practice, GTC refers to obtaining admissions that advance the investigation by revealing facts, timelines, locations, accomplices, or mechanisms of the crime. Importantly, Arther paired GTC with an equally strong admonition: make them prove they did it. A confession without corroboration was, in Arther’s view, investiga tively meaningless. CORROBORATION AS THE SAFEGUARD A review of wrongful conviction cases involving confessions reveals a common failure: the absence of independent corrobo rating evidence. False confessions that led to wrongful convic tions were not caused by polygraph charts alone, nor by inter rogation in isolation, but by investigative systems that treated uncorroborated admissions as sufficient. Arther’s insistence on corroboration directly addresses this failure mode. Under his framework, neither a failed polygraph nor a confession ends the investigation; both merely generate hypotheses to be tested against external facts. THE ROLE OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER Arther’s approach also clarifies the examiner’s role. The polygraph examiner does not create evidence. Rather, the exam iner facilitates the collection of information that may become evidence once independently verified. This distinction is critical. Charts are typically inadmissible; statements, admissions, and corroborated facts obtained during the examination process often are admissible. Arther therefore placed limited emphasis on post‑test chart analysis and greater emphasis on pre‑test and post‑test interviews as investigative opportunities. PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSIBILITY Polygraph‑related wrongful convictions do not occur in a vacuum. Even when a suspect fails a polygraph or confesses, charging decisions rest with prosecutors. Arther’s philoso

phy implicitly assigns responsibility to prosecutors to require corroboration before filing charges. When prosecutors rely on polygraph‑driven confessions without independent evidence, the failure is institutional, not technological. DISCUSSION Arther’s method anticipated many modern critiques of poly graph practice: overreliance on physiological inference, confirma tion bias, and the danger of substituting probability for proof. By treating the polygraph as a tool for information gathering rather than truth verification, Arther offered a model that is both ethically sound and legally realistic. His approach harmonizes investigative practice with the courts’ longstanding skepticism toward polygraph evidence. DISCUSSION: DISTINGUISHING ARTHER FROM COERCIVE INTERROGATION Arther’s emphasis on obtaining confessions has at times been mischaracterized as endorsing coercive interrogation practices. This conflation is inaccurate. Arther’s framework differs fundamentally from confession-driven models that treat admis sions as proof (Leo & Drizin, 2010; Kassin et al., 2010). His method requires that any admission be followed by rigorous factual verification. Arther’s approach aligns with contemporary safeguards against false confessions by demanding independent corrobora tion and continued hypothesis testing. Unlike coercive models that prioritize psychological pressure, Arther’s method empha sizes factual development. Admissions function as investigative leads, not conclusions. By insisting that investigators “make them prove they did it,” Arther rejected confession sufficiency as a basis for guilt.

continued on page 23

22