ASSOCIATE Magazine FBINAA Q1-2026

continued from "Dick Arthur Was Right" page 22

Arther also anticipated modern critiques regarding confir mation bias (Kassin et al., 2010). By cautioning examiners and investigators not to treat polygraph outcomes or admissions as endpoints, he implicitly warned against prematurely narrowing investigative focus. His insistence on corroboration functioned as a structural check against coercion, tunnel vision, and evidentiary shortcuts. Professional standards governing polygraph practice emphasize procedural consistency and examiner uniformity, though such standards do not alter courts’ evidentiary treatment of polygraph results or their admissibility (American Polygraph Association [APA], 2023). COUNTERARGUMENTS AND RESPONSES: CHART-CENTRIC MODELS Proponents of chart-centric polygraph methodologies argue that standardized scoring systems and examiner consistency enhance scientific credibility and professional legitimacy. While standardization improves intra-practitioner reliability, it does not resolve the fundamental evidentiary limitation: physiological responses do not constitute proof of criminal conduct. Arther’s critique was not that chart analysis lacks utility, but that its investigative value is limited. Even a perfectly scored chart does not establish actus reus, mens rea, or corroborating circumstance. Emphasizing chart outcomes risks reinforcing con firmation bias, particularly when examinations are administered after suspects have already been identified through traditional investigative means. Courts have consistently recognized this limitation (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993; United States v. Schef fer, 1998). Polygraph charts are generally excluded not because they are inconsistently administered, but because they do not meet evidentiary standards of relevance and reliability under Daubert-type analyses. Arther’s model avoids this problem by focusing on admissible outputs: statements, leads, timelines, and corroborated facts. SYSTEM RESPONSIBILITY AND DECISION-MAKING Polygraph-related wrongful convictions do not result from a single decision or actor. Responsibility is distributed across the investigative system. The polygraph examiner’s role is to facilitate information gathering, not to determine guilt. Investigators are responsible for corroborating information through independent evidence. Prosecutors, in turn, bear the responsibility of evaluat ing whether sufficient admissible evidence exists to justify charg ing decisions. When this system functions properly, polygraph examina tions may contribute investigatively without distorting outcomes. When it fails, the failure lies not in the existence of the polygraph, but in the abandonment of corroboration standards at the inves tigative or prosecutorial level. CONCLUSION: INVESTIGATIONS PROVE CASES, NOT POLYGRAPHS Arther’s framework more accurately reflects the legal and investigative role of the polygraph than models that emphasize chart interpretation or deception decisions. The polygraph does not determine truth; investigations do. Its proper function is to aid investigators in obtaining information that can be indepen dently corroborated. Confessions matter only insofar as they lead

to verifiable facts. Wrongful convictions arise not from the poly graph itself, but from institutional failures to require corrobora tion (Leo & Drizin, 2010; NRC, 2003). In this respect, Dick Arther’s philosophy remains both relevant and necessary.

FBINAA.ORG | Q1 2026

References American Polygraph Association. (2023). Standards of practice. https://www.polygraph.org

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6 Leo, R. A., & Drizin, S. A. (2010). The three errors: Pathways to false confession and wrongful conviction. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions (pp. 9–30). American Psychological Association. National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10420/the- polygraph-and-lie-detection

United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://openai.com

Author contribution note: This article was written with substantive assistance from an artificial intelligence language model (ChatGPT, OpenAI), used for drafting, organization, and language refinement. Conceptual arguments, interpretations, and conclusions reflect the author’s views and professional judgment.

About the Author: Dr. Michael White is a seasoned law enforcement and criminal justice professional with over 30 years of leadership experience in policing, education, and international advisory roles. He recently retired as Safety Service Director for the City of Norwalk, Ohio, following a distinguished career as Chief of Police in Monroeville and Chief of Detectives in Norwalk. Dr. White previously served as Chair of the Under graduate Online Criminal Justice Department at Tiffin University, where he developed nationally recognized

training programs and published research on crime, ethics, and the perception of justice. Internationally, he has served as a Senior Police Advisor and Program Man ager in Liberia and Iraq, working to strengthen the rule of law and enhance policing standards. A graduate of the FBI National Academy Session 206 and a Certified Polygraph Examiner, Dr. White is an active member of the FBI National Academy Associates, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police as well as the Ohio Association of Polygraph Examiners. He is also a frequent presenter at academic and professional conferences, with publications appearing in Ohio Police Chief Magazine and the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

23