POLYGRAPH RE­PORTS: Prison em­ploy­ees ac­cused of sex­ual as­saults passed lie de­tec­tor tests.

Re­port on test re­sults says men ‘cat­e­gor­i­cally de­nied’ hav­ing sex­ual con­tact with in­mates

The Times-Tribune - - Front Page - Con­tact the writer: [email protected]­rock.com @tmbeseck­erTT on Twit­ter BY TER­RIE MOR­GAN-BESECKER

Two Lack­awanna County Prison em­ploy­ees ac­cused of sex­u­ally as­sault­ing a fe­male in­mate passed a lie de­tec­tor test given to them by an ex­am­iner they hired, ac­cord­ing to copies of the re­ports supplied to The Times-Tri­bune.

Robert Maguire and Wil­liam Shan­ley vol­un­tar­ily took the polygraph test to pro­tect their rep­u­ta­tion against al­le­ga­tions a woman made against them in a fed­eral law­suit, their at­tor­ney, Ger­ard Karam, says in a let­ter to Amil Mi­nora, who was ap­pointed last week to in­ves­ti­gate some of the claims in the suit.

Mr. Karam’s let­ter and copies of the re­sults of the polygraph tests were dropped off anony­mously at The TimesTri­bune on Fri­day evening. Mr. Karam con­firmed the polygraph re­ports are au­then­tic, but said he does not know who pro­vided them to the news­pa­per.

Mr. Karam wrote the let­ter to Mr. Mi­nora, ap­par­ently be­liev­ing he is in­ves­ti­gat­ing all al­le­ga­tions made in the law­suit. It has since been learned that Mr. Mi­nora is only in­ves­ti­gat­ing claims that War­den Tim Betti knew in­mates were be­ing sex­u­ally abused, but cov­ered it up.

The polygraph tests were con­ducted by Wil­liam Hol­lo­man, a re­tired 26-year vet­eran of the FBI who worked as a polygraph ex­am­iner for the U.S. De­part­ment of State for eight years. The tests were done on Dec. 10 — one day af­ter The Times-Tri­bune pub­lished a story about a fed­eral law­suit filed by four fe­male in­mates who al­lege eight prison em­ploy­ees, in­clud­ing Mr. Shan­ley and Mr. Maguire, sex­u­ally abused or harassed them and that other prison staff knew about the abuse, but failed to re­port it.

The Times-Tri­bune does not iden­tify vic­tims of sex­ual as­sault.

In­mate ac­cu­sa­tions

Mr. Shan­ley and Mr. Maguire are ac­cused of sex­u­ally as­sault­ing one of the four women.

The woman claims Mr. Maguire re­peat­edly sex­u­ally as­saulted her when she was jailed be­tween 2010 and 2013 and con­tin­ued to co­erce her into hav­ing sex with him while she was out on pro­ba­tion up un­til this year. The suit also ac­cuses him of cov­er­ing up abuse of other in­mates.

Mr. Shan­ley is ac­cused of sex­u­ally as­sault­ing the woman while she was in the re­stricted hous­ing unit at the prison. He also is ac­cused of ar­rang­ing to have her re­leased from the prison, then sex­u­ally as­sault­ing her in a car on three oc­ca­sions. The suit does not iden­tify when the al­leged as­saults oc­curred.

‘Rel­e­vant’ ques­tions

In his re­port, Mr. Hol­lo­man says Mr. Maguire and Mr. Shan­ley “cat­e­gor­i­cally de­nied” hav­ing sex­ual con­tact of any kind with any in­mates, in­clud­ing the woman who has ac­cused them. Sex­ual con­tact in­cludes in­ter­course, oral sex, grop­ing or any phys­i­cal con­tact with an in­mate out­side the prison on work re­lease, pro­ba­tion or pa­role, he said.

The re­port in­di­cates Mr. Maguire was ques­tioned for two hours and 40 min­utes, while Mr. Shan­ley was ques­tioned for just more than two hours. The men “showed no de­cep­tion” when they an­swered “no” to the two “rel­e­vant” ques­tions:

Did you have sex­ual in­ter­course with a fe­male in­mate? Have you had sex­ual con­tact with a fe­male in­mate?

The re­port does not iden­tify what, if any, other ques­tions were posed to the men. It also does not pro­vide any fur­ther ex­pla­na­tion of how Mr. Hol­lo­man de­cided which ques­tions were rel­e­vant and which ones were not.

At­tempts to reach Mr. Hol­lo­man for com­ment Mon­day were un­suc­cess­ful.

The re­sults of polygraph tests gen­er­ally are not ad­mis­si­ble in court, though some fed­eral courts have al­lowed them un­der cer­tain con­di­tions, said Dar­ryl Starks of North Carolina, a polygraph ex­am­iner and board mem­ber of the Amer­i­can Polygraph As­so­ci­a­tion.

Mr. Starks, who is not in­volved in this case, said courts have al­lowed the re­sults in cases where both par­ties agree in ad­vance to cer­tain con­di­tions, in­clud­ing who does the test, what ques­tions will be asked and the for­mat to be used.

Mr. Starks said based on in­for­ma­tion pro­vided by a re­porter, it ap­pears Mr. Hol­lo­man con­ducted a stan­dard test. If Mr. Karam were to seek to ad­mit it as ev­i­dence it would un­dergo a sec­ond re­view by an in­de­pen­dent ex­am­iner to as­sess the re­li­a­bil­ity of the re­sults, he said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.