Is This NJ Patch Reporter A Liar? We Put Them To The Test

ROSELAND, NJ — News media has a crisis: fewer Americans than ever trust us. Sure, there's greater trust in local news, and that's Patch's specialty. But with media confidence hitting record lows in polls, journalists like myself must go the extra mile to gain the public's assurance in our honesty.

That's why I took a polygraph test. Well, that's a lie: I originally took the test because my boss told me it would make an interesting article. But while I was there, I figured, why not show Patch's readership that they can trust my journalism?

Let me make one thing clear: none of us are infallibly truthful. I occasionally make accidental errors in articles. And when someone points one out to me, I fix it as quickly as possible and put an editor's note at the top of the story. Then there are others — some readers, officials and even politicians, both Democratic and Republican — who have called me a liar simply because I publish information that makes them look bad or doesn't conform to their ideology.

These people often won't say where I lied but will simply call me a liar. It's fine. It's a small price to pay for this awesome job. I'm not sure if taking a polygraph will win the trust of more of my readership or seem like an absurd stunt. But either way, sitting down with a certified forensic psychophysiologist taught me plenty about truth, lies, and what a polygraph test can really do.

I met Jessica Rose Freda, who runs Certified Polygraph Associations in Roseland. Freda has administered tests for 12 years. People most commonly use her services for relationship or family issues such as cheating, personal theft or — her least favorite — child-molestation cases. She's also performed tests for thefts in businesses, accusations of academic misconduct, sexual assault and more.

I told Freda that if a partner ever made me take a polygraph test, I'd leave them. But Freda informed me that basically everyone says this — until the situation arises and they want to clear their name of awful allegations. As someone in an industry constantly labeled "fake news," that felt worthwhile.

What Can The Polygraph Prove?

Freda told me that polygraphs — often incorrectly called lie-detector tests — were created to prove someone's innocence, not their guilt.

"When someone fails a test, we only know that they're lying," Freda said. "It doesn’t give us the truth unless you pass. And if you pass, then you’re more than likely to be eliminated from the suspect pool. And that's their real purpose: to eliminate the innocent people so investigators aren't wasting time investigating them."

Additionally, the test cannot determine someone's emotions or intentions. If someone has been accused of cheating, then the question, asking "do you love your partner" won't yield results. Testing requires questions that stick to facts, such as "have you kissed anyone other than your partner in the past year?"

"Emotions are hard to define to be universal," Freda said. "How can you define love or hate to be a universal definition? I have had clients say that their spouse only hits them because they love them. That’s not love to me. Not at all."

This also applies to matters such as religion, sexual orientation and gender identity. Let's use my religion as an example. If you asked me whether I'm Jewish, I'd tell you I am. That's the truth. But people have unique relationships with religion, so a test couldn't tell you whether I'm telling the truth about that. However, let's say you wanted to know whether I'm an observant Jew (I'm not). The polygrapher could ask me about my participation in rituals linked to practicing Judaism, such as "have you been to a synagogue since Jan. 1, 2019?" (I have not.)

Similarly, some seek Freda's services to see whether they're gay or whether they're a man or a woman. But only the individual can examine their own sexual orientation or gender identity. The answers come from within.

In my case, I'm nonbinary and genderfluid. So I thought it would be funny to "prove" this through a polygraph, since some doubt the existence of trans identity despite what major medical organizations say. Sure, given the sick outfit I wore that day, most could probably tell I don't conform to gender norms. Unfortunately, there aren't really questions a polygrapher can ask that would show whether I'm telling the truth about my identity. So we went in a different direction.

Developing My Test

We settled on a different topic: my honesty at work. I discovered that when you take a polygraph test, it plays out differently from the ones you see in movies or on TV. You no longer get to view a moving line on paper — results get measured via a computer program. And it's not an interrogation.

Polygraph tests can be used in certain New Jersey legal proceedings. For instance, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that sex offenders can be subjected to polygraph tests as a condition of their parole. But the court ordered the state Parole Board to allow offenders to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights without repercussions if their answer could spark another criminal investigation.

"Unfortunately, it’s vague," Freda said of when test results are admissible. "You won't really know if your polygraph test results will be accepted until they’re submitted."

Before the test, you settle on certain questions about the issue in question — also known as "issue questions." My manager Russ Crespolini, who attended the session, helped me develop a few questions about my truthfulness when it comes to my job. Freda also developed "baseline" questions and "control" (comparison) questions.

Baselines include factual questions with obvious answers, such as "is today Friday?" (it was) and "right now are you in Switzerland?" (I wasn't). Control questions pertain to similar topics as my baseline questions — the important questions which determine whether I've been truthful.

I answered all three of my control questions with a "no." Between the ages of 28 and 29 (I'm 30), have you ever lied to your boss to avoid being fired? In the past six months, do you remember ever lying to authorities to avoid the consequences of your actions? Between the ages of 29 and 30, did you ever intentionally falsify information for any of your articles? No, no and no.

Sounds simple, right? You know the answers to your questions. The polygraph examiner knows the answers. But once Freda wrapped up my arm, fingertips and torso to hook me up to the machine, I got nervous. And those nerves led to thoughts that my stress could lead to false results, and that made me more nervous. Journalism is all I know. If this test doesn't find me honest, I'll have to skip town, change my name and find another reporting job. And if that job makes me take another polygraph test, I'll have to repeat the process.

The Results Are In

My test consisted of three rounds, each with 13 questions — primarily the same questions every round, with a bit of variation for a few questions each time. During each round, I kept my eyes closed, as instructed.

In the first round, I was told not to answer questions. Freda paused after each question, and I just monitored my breathing. Each round had a similar pattern of questioning: first the baselines to establish that I took the test on a Friday in the United States and not a Sunday in Switzerland. Then we went through the comparison questions.

Then came the three issue questions — Freda would examine all my answers to determine whether I truthfully answered the following:

• Since Jan. 7, 2019 (my first day at Patch), have you attended any job interviews outside of Patch? No.
• Since Jan. 7, 2019, other than what you've told me, do you remember having worked less than 40 hours in one week without permission? No. (Before the test, I informed Freda and Crespolini that I left work a few hours early in April 2019, without telling my supervisor, to purchase a Nintendo Switch and play "Super Smash Bros. Ultimate" — hence the "other than what you've told me.")
• Have you ever made any complaints about Russ to any of his superiors? No.

There were lengthy pauses between my answers and each ensuing question — probably only 10-20 seconds each. But hooked up to the machine, the process felt eternal.

Then Freda pressed a few buttons on her computer, and my results were ready: no deception indicated, according to the algorithm designed by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The chances of me being deceptive during the test were 1 percent or lower.

Let me rephrase that: during a polygraph test about my honesty as a journalist, Freda determined that I'm "a truthful person in regard to the 'issue' questions." What does that mean exactly?

"You’re annoyingly honest, which makes you deserve a raise," Freda said.

Freda is a certified forensic psychophysiologist and court-qualified polygraph examiner. She's a member of the American Polygraph Association, International Society of Polygraph Examiners and other credentialed organizations. Even as a journalist, I'm not immune to confirmation bias. But I'm inclined to believe she's telling me the truth.