International Action Center San Fran: Mumia und der Lügendetektortest von Arnold Beverly …

* Auf die Frage, ob Mumia den Polizisten Faulkner erschossen hätte antwortete Arnold Beverly im Lügendetektortest nach Meinung der Fachleute ehrlich:

Trügerische Antwort aber auf die Frage, ob er bezahlt wurde, um Faulkner zu erschießen:

>No<

 

Folgend, publizieren wir a) den Bericht von Charles Robert Honts, Ph. D. Detection of Deception Examiner, Professor of Psychology, über die Lügendetektoruntersuchung von Arnold Beverly. Über Mr. Beverly wurde vor kurzem in der jW als „Berufskiller“ berichtet, der unter einem Lügendetektortest als der Mörder des Polizisten Faulkner entlarvt worden wäre. Dieser Test fand 1999 statt und wurde später auf der Universität von Utah ausgewertet. Dort ergaben die Untersuchungen von Mr. Honts, dass die verneinende Antwort Beverlys auf die Frage, ob Mumia den Polizisten erschossen hätte, ehrlich gewesen wären. Das Nein Berverlys auf die Frage, ob er für den Mord an Faulkner bezahlt worden ist, wäre jedoch „trügerisch“ gewesen ….

 

b) In einer zweiten Email auf unsere gestrigen Anfragen über Mumias Situation antwortete uns das IACENTER, dass diese neuen Informationen nichts an der Lage Mumia Abu-Jamals geändert hätten, er weiterhin in der Todeszelle sitzt und kein Gericht bereit sei, den Fall neu aufzugreifen.

 

die Redaktion

 

International Action Center- San Francisco

            Freitag, 08. Juni 2001

Von:        iacenter@actionsf.org

An:         Karl p.a.w. Fischbacher

Anlagen:         

—– Original Message —–

From: <mailto: nattyreb1@home.com

FREE MUMIA NOW

=================

From: <mailto: Litestar01@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

21 May, 1999

CONFIDENTIAL

Rachel Wolkenstein, Esq.

67 WaIl Street, Suite 2411

New York, NY 11217

.

RE: Polygraph Examination of Arnold R. Beverly Ms. Wolkenstein:

At your request, I conducted a psychophysiological detection of deception

examination on Arnold R. Beverly. The purpose of this examination was to

assess Mr. Beverly’s credibility concerning his knowledge of and

participation in the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner. The examination was

conducted in Oakland, California, on 24 April 1999.

.

At the beginning of the pretest interview, Mr. Beverly signed a consent form

giving his permission for the examination. At that time, Mr. Beverly also

gave his permission to have the examination audio tape-recorded. He refused

to allow video recording. During the pretest interview I discussed the murder

of Officer Daniel Faulkner with Mr. Beverly. Mr. Beverly stated that he was

present at the time that Officer Faulkner was shot and killed. Mr. Beverly

stated that Mumia Abu-Jamal was not present at the time that Officer Faulkner

was shot the first time, but that he was present when Officer Faulkner was

shot the second time. Mr. Beverly stated that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot

Officer Faulkner. When asked if he, Arnold Beverly, shot Officer Faulkner,

Mr. Beverly, said „No“ but subsequently he asked that the tape be turned off.

The tape was turned off and Mr. Beverly stated that he did in fact shoot

Officer Faulkner, but that he would not say so on the tape and that he wanted

the polygraph to show that he did the shooting. I interrupted the examination

so that I could discuss this turn of events with Ms. Wolkenstein, and it was

agreed that the examination would continue as Mr. Beverly wanted. Later in

the interview Mr. Beverly stated that he had been paid to shoot Officer

Faulkner.

.

At the conclusion of the pretest interview, an acquaintance test was

conducted. That procedure was designed to demonstrate to the subject and to

me that he was a suitable subject for a psychophysiological detection of

deception examination. Adequate recordings of Mr. Beverly’s physiology were

obtained during this procedure, and the examination was continued. A

comparison question test was then conducted using the methods developed and

validated at the University of Utah. The test induded the following relevant

questions that were reviewed with Mr. Beverly prior to the test:

.

Ri. Did you shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner? Answered „No“

o Page 2 May 21, 1999

.

R2. Were you present when Officer Daniel Faulkner was shot? Answered „Yes“

.

R3. Was Mumia Abu-Jamal present when Officer Faulkner was shot the first

time? Answered „No“

.

R4. Were you paid to shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner?

.

Mr. Beverly’s physiological responses were monitored during the presentation

of the questions by means of a Stoelting digital polygraph instrument running

the Scientific Assessment Technologies Computerized Polygraph System

software, Version 2.20. The following physiological measures were recorded in

digital form on the computer’s hard disk:

.

cardiovascular activity (Erlanger Method), skin conductance, vasomotor

activity, abdominal and thoracic respiration. In addition, data were obtained

from a movement sensor placed under the subject’s chair. Data from three

presentations of the questions were obtained. The digitized physiological

data were displayed on the computer’s monitor as analog waveforms and were

then subjected to a numerical scoring analysis using the criteria developed

and validated at the University of Utah. The digitized physiological data

were also subjected to computer-based analyses using the algorithms developed

at the University of Utah.

.

The numerical scores after three charts on the above relevant questions were

-3, +1, -1, and +1, respectively, for a total examination score of -2. In the

Utah Scoring System, when evaluating a single relevant question, a score of

+3 or greater is considered to be indicative of truthfulness, and a score of

-3 or less is considered to be indicative of deception. Single question

scores between +3 and -3 are considered inconclusive. A total numerical score

of -6 or less is considered as indicative of deception. A total numerical

score of +6 or greater is considered as indicative of truthfulness. Total

numerical scores between -6 and +6 are considered inconclusive. In the

present case, interpreting the total numerical score does not make sense

since the relevant questions cover different issues. Mr. Beverly’s score of

-3 to Relevant question RI. is indicative of deception to that question. The

numerical scores to the other three questions are inconclusive.

.

The conference room where the initial test was conducted had become very warm

by the time the first series had been numerically evaluated. It was decided

that a second series should be run and that it would be better if we moved

the testing to a suite at the Airport Hilton Hotel. The equipment was

relocated to the Hilton and testing was continued. Mr. Beverly was confronted

with his deceptive result to Relevant question Ri. His comment was „Good,

maybe now they will believe me.“ A second series was then conducted with the

following relevant questions.

Ria. Did Mumia Abu-Jamal shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner? Answered „No“

R2. Were you present when Officer Daniel Faulkner was shot? Answered „Yes“

R3. Was Mumia Abu-Jamal present when Officer Faulkner was shot the first

time? Answered „No“

.

R4. Were you paid to shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner?

Data from three presentations of the questions were obtained. The data were

then subjected to numerical scoring and computer-based analyses. The

numerical scores after three charts on the above relevant questions were +1,

o, -i, and o, respectively, for a total examination score of o. All of these

numerical scores are inconclusive.

.

The entire data set of six question repetitions was then subjected to

computer based statistical analysis. The first analysis was the discriminant

classification analysis developed at the University of Utah. That analysis

gives an a posteriori probability of truthfulness based on a statistical

analysis of the physiological data. The discriminant classification analysis

of Mr. Beverly’s physiological data resulted in the following aposteriori

probabilities of truthfulness:

.

RI. = 0.001; R2 = 0.381; R3 = 0.340; R4 = 0.604; and Ria = 0.811. Scientific

research has shown that probabilities of truthfulness that exceed 0.70 can be

used to validly infer truthfulness while probabilities of truthfulness of

less than 0.30 can be used to validly infer deception. This analysis

procedure has been cross-validated in a number of scientific studies using

data from a variety of sources, including actual case data obtained from the

United States Secret Service. In that scientific research, the discriminant

classification analysis has consistently been found to be a highly valid

method for classifying persons as truthful or deceptive. This statistical

analysis has also consistently been found to perform as well as, or better

than, the best human evaluators. The results of the discriminant analysis

suggest that Mr. Beverly was being deceptive when he said that he did not

shoot Officer Faulkner (Ri), and was being truthful when he stated that Mumia

Abu-Jamal did not shoot Officer Faulkner.

.

The computer was then used to perform a rank order analysis of the strength

of the combined physiological response across all of the repetitions. This

analysis produced the following rank ordering of relevant and comparison

questions (shown from strongest response to weakest response, comparison

questions begin with the letter „C“): R1CQ1CQ3R3R2R4CQ2 CalCa3R1a.

The theory of the comparison question test predicts that deceptive subjects

will produce larger responses to relevant than to comparison questions, while

truthful subjects will produce larger responses to control than to relevant

questions. The pattern resulting from the rank order analysis is ambiguous

for all but two questions. Relevant question Ri produced a larger response

and any of the comparison questions; the pattern expected for deception.

Relevant question, Ria, produced a response that was smaller than all of the

comparison questions; the pattern expected for truth telling.

.

On the basis of the results of the numerical scoring and the computer-based

analyses, it is my opinion that Mr. Beverly was not being truthful when he

said „No“ to the question: Did you shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner? it is also

my opinion that Mr. Beverly was being truthful when he answered „No“ to the

question: Did Mumia Abu-Jamal shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner? The results of

the analyses of the other relevant questions are inconclusive.

Charles Robert Honts, Ph. D.

Detection of Deception Examiner

Professor of Psychology

.

Sincerely,

MUMIA ABU JAMAL,                      )  Case No. 99 Civ 5089 (YOHN)

                     Petitioner                    )

-vs-                                                    )

MARTIN HORN, Commissioner,  )

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,           )

And CONNOR BLAINE, Superintendant of          )

The State Correctional Institution at Greene,     )

                    Defendants.                                         )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on May 29, 2001, pursuant to

28 Usc 2241 and 2254 et seq., a true copy of the foregoing Declaration of Charles R.

Honts, May 18, 1999 and Appendices was served on all parties by placing the same in a sealed envelope with first-class postage fully prepaid affixed thereto and addressed

as follows:

Lynne Abraham, District Attorney of Philadelphia County

Ronald Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney, Law Division

Donna Zucker, Chief, Federal Litigation

Hugh J. Burns, Jr., Assistant District Attorney

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

1421 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19102

         MARLENE KAMISH, ESQ.

               Attorney-at-Law

               2927 West Liberty Avenue, #193

               Pittsburgh, PA 15216-2525

 

 

___________________________________________________________________

2489 Mission St. #28, San Francisco 94110 • (415) 821-6545

e-mail: actionsf@actionsf.org • web: www.actionsf.org

Freitag, 08. Juni 2001

Von:        iacenter@actionsf.org

Fwd: Fw: !*Lie Detector Test Corroborates Arnold Beverly’s Confession, Mumia Is I

An:         Karl p.a.w. Fischbacher

 

Karl,

 

This is the second of two messages I’m forwarding to you in reply to your inquiry. Despite these revelations, nothing has changed in regard to Mumia’s legal status. He remains confined on Death Row in Pennsylvania, and no court has yet accepted this new information. We are all awaiting the federal court’s reaction.

 

Comradely,

 

Richard Becker