Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 8
After an appropriate delay for scoring, the polygrapher entered the interrogation room and
announced to Mr. Sawyer that his was the worst flunk he had seen in his long career. There
was no doubt about it. The test proved he was lying.
(Not only should the test not have been administered under these conditions since they
invalidated the results, but subsequent re-scoring of the test by a polygraph expert revealed
that the results obtained that night were uninterpretible. A second polygraph conducted
months later under more reasonable conditions resulted in a passing grade.)
Once told that the polygraph showed him to be lying, Mr. Sawyer‟s confidence in himself as
well as his ability to resist the detectives‟ demands that he confess began to erode. He was
no longer able to issue strong, flat denials of his guilt. He could only bring himself to assert
that he still didn‟t believe he had done it. It was not possible for him to have done such a
thing. It was not in his character.
Mr. Sawyer was never able to challenge directly either the validity or reliability of the test.
He was unable to reject its result in favor of his memory. He began to accommodate to the
new information he had received. Unable to assert a direct rejection of the police-proffered
information and unaware that they might be lying to him, Mr. Sawyer began to adjust to the
polygraph result. He acted as if it were his burden to convince the police of his innocence.
For their part, the police emphasized the scientific nature of the test and certainty of the
result. They also pointed out to Mr. Sawyer that when the fingerprint and hair sample
results came back he would have no basis whatsoever for denying his guilt. They were sure
that he was guilty. He knew too much. The polygraph proved he was lying. They were
certain that the other lab tests would also confirm his guilt.
Pending return of the lab tests, Mr. Sawyer‟s main defense against their demands that he
confess rested on his lack of memory of having committed the crime. At this point an
explanation began to be developed about why Mr. Sawyer didn‟t remember the killing.
Following the report of the polygraph result, the police response to Mr. Sawyer‟s denial of
any memory of the crime was the assertion that he was blocking out his memory of the
crime. Trading on Mr. Sawyer‟s obvious shame about his alcoholism, the police told him that
this was just like his having denied being an alcoholic for years. They told him that if he
didn‟t admit to the killing he would be driven back to alcohol. The police told him that his
unconscious was trying to reveal his guilt through the polygraph result. None of this caused
Mr. Sawyer to remember the killing.
The detectives asserted that Mr. Sawyer‟s inability to recall the time at which he fell asleep
in front of his television on the night of the murder meant that he had had a black-out --
just as he often had when he had been drinking. Mr. Sawyer was vulnerable to this line of
argument. He could agree that he had frequently blacked-out periods of his memory during
the years of very heavy drinking. Although he reported that he had never heard of anyone
blacking-out when sober, he wasn‟t sure that it could not have happened.
Mr. Sawyer was genuinely puzzled as to how, if he had committed the crime, he could have
done so with no memory. In an attempt to help solve the puzzle he introduced the
possibility that perhaps because he had used an alcohol-based after-shave lotion he might
have started to drink and subsequently blacked-out. Farfetched as this sounds, the idea is
not as wild as it might seem.
Mr. Sawyer had in fact heard this excuse used to account for why someone had fallen off
the wagon at his A.A. meetings. People who slip frequently offer improbable excuses for
what set them off.
Although lacking any basis in fact, the idea that Mr. Sawyer had blacked-out for some
unknown reason became the consensual explanation for his lack of memory. The detectives
After an appropriate delay for scoring, the polygrapher entered the interrogation room and
announced to Mr. Sawyer that his was the worst flunk he had seen in his long career. There
was no doubt about it. The test proved he was lying.
(Not only should the test not have been administered under these conditions since they
invalidated the results, but subsequent re-scoring of the test by a polygraph expert revealed
that the results obtained that night were uninterpretible. A second polygraph conducted
months later under more reasonable conditions resulted in a passing grade.)
Once told that the polygraph showed him to be lying, Mr. Sawyer‟s confidence in himself as
well as his ability to resist the detectives‟ demands that he confess began to erode. He was
no longer able to issue strong, flat denials of his guilt. He could only bring himself to assert
that he still didn‟t believe he had done it. It was not possible for him to have done such a
thing. It was not in his character.
Mr. Sawyer was never able to challenge directly either the validity or reliability of the test.
He was unable to reject its result in favor of his memory. He began to accommodate to the
new information he had received. Unable to assert a direct rejection of the police-proffered
information and unaware that they might be lying to him, Mr. Sawyer began to adjust to the
polygraph result. He acted as if it were his burden to convince the police of his innocence.
For their part, the police emphasized the scientific nature of the test and certainty of the
result. They also pointed out to Mr. Sawyer that when the fingerprint and hair sample
results came back he would have no basis whatsoever for denying his guilt. They were sure
that he was guilty. He knew too much. The polygraph proved he was lying. They were
certain that the other lab tests would also confirm his guilt.
Pending return of the lab tests, Mr. Sawyer‟s main defense against their demands that he
confess rested on his lack of memory of having committed the crime. At this point an
explanation began to be developed about why Mr. Sawyer didn‟t remember the killing.
Following the report of the polygraph result, the police response to Mr. Sawyer‟s denial of
any memory of the crime was the assertion that he was blocking out his memory of the
crime. Trading on Mr. Sawyer‟s obvious shame about his alcoholism, the police told him that
this was just like his having denied being an alcoholic for years. They told him that if he
didn‟t admit to the killing he would be driven back to alcohol. The police told him that his
unconscious was trying to reveal his guilt through the polygraph result. None of this caused
Mr. Sawyer to remember the killing.
The detectives asserted that Mr. Sawyer‟s inability to recall the time at which he fell asleep
in front of his television on the night of the murder meant that he had had a black-out --
just as he often had when he had been drinking. Mr. Sawyer was vulnerable to this line of
argument. He could agree that he had frequently blacked-out periods of his memory during
the years of very heavy drinking. Although he reported that he had never heard of anyone
blacking-out when sober, he wasn‟t sure that it could not have happened.
Mr. Sawyer was genuinely puzzled as to how, if he had committed the crime, he could have
done so with no memory. In an attempt to help solve the puzzle he introduced the
possibility that perhaps because he had used an alcohol-based after-shave lotion he might
have started to drink and subsequently blacked-out. Farfetched as this sounds, the idea is
not as wild as it might seem.
Mr. Sawyer had in fact heard this excuse used to account for why someone had fallen off
the wagon at his A.A. meetings. People who slip frequently offer improbable excuses for
what set them off.
Although lacking any basis in fact, the idea that Mr. Sawyer had blacked-out for some
unknown reason became the consensual explanation for his lack of memory. The detectives
