Howard Miller: Rep. Condit and polygraph tests

Rep. Gary Condit leaves his Washington apartment Wednesday

CNN: Good afternoon Detective Howard Miller. Thank you for joining us today.

HOWARD MILLER: Hello, friends of CNN!

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Is Rep. Gary Condit required to submit to a polygraph test so long as the Chandra Levy case is still classified as missing person?

MILLER: Mr. Condit will never be required to take a polygraph test in any case. It's his choice, and if it's articulated through his attorney, then he can offer to participate in a test.

VIDEO Talk radio calls show waning support for Condit in his home district. CNN's Rusty Dornin reports (June 9) Play video (QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)   MORE STORIES Police search Condit's home for 'signs of foul play'   Senator says she urged Condit to go public   Police search Condit's apartment     EXTRA INFORMATION Polygraph facts     RESOURCES Message Board: The case of the missing intern

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you think Condit will bother to take a polygraph that he hasn't already practiced for? What would it prove, really?

MILLER: The point is that unfortunately for Mr. Condit, who is a public person, he's in a position where he has to prove his innocence. Normally, the presumption of innocence exists, but with his public persona and status, he has to prove his innocence. We're not too concerned with people who practice or figure out ways to take the test.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: If the police had indeed named him as a suspect, and a polygraph was administered, given the accuracy rate of a polygraph, would that be enough to incarcerate him?

MILLER: If the police had multiple suspects in this case, if they offer the polygraph test and he passes it, they'd probably direct their suspicions toward other suspects. A high percentage of guilty people will admit or confess to the crime in the polygraph setting, and that's what's always kept the polygraph in the law enforcement picture, in spite of criticism. It's the tool of last resort, when you have no credible evidence.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Why do the police want Condit's DNA? Do the police have anything to compare it to?

MILLER: My understanding is that this is their opportunity in the case, and if they find Miss Levy's body, they'll have the DNA on file, and can make comparisons. The presence of DNA on a person doesn't necessarily incriminate a person, but it does suggest contact with that person. The best example I can give you is a situation where we had a suspect who left fingerprints in a business place after a burglary. The person only had to say that they were in the store that day making a purchase, but if they say they'd never been in the store before, and then their fingerprints are found there, it's very incriminating. We'd follow the same procedure with the DNA.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Polygraph tests are not admissible in court, correct?

MILLER: Yes, they are admitted into military courts martial under certain conditions. In a court environment, all the parties have to stipulate, meaning that all the parties have to agree to allow it, and the judge allows it. We have parts of evidence that are admitted in the same way, expert opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists, for example. The polygraph, because of the technical nature, is hard to challenge, whereas you'd have the opportunity to challenge the legal experts. We also have eye-witness identifications that are flawed, and the courts rely heavily on eye-witness identifications and testimony.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: You obviously have much faith in polygraphs. What would you ask Condit?

MILLER: In a missing person case, the first issue to be resolved is establishing a date which is the actual last time that he had contact with her. There have been several versions of dates. The next issue is whether he knows where Miss Levy is now. If you get a reaction to that, it might move to the question, "Did you cause her any harm?" or "Do you know for sure who has had contact with her since the last time you saw her?" Then we'd have a second phase if we got reactions to that. We might do a map exercise, divide the map into sections, and ask him to answer no to each question, "Is she in this section of the map?" The strongest reaction we got, we'd enlarge that section of the map until we got it down to a grid square. A neighborhood, vacant lot, whatever, and then we'd have forensic people check those areas.

CNN: Does it seem that the Levy family's public statements have pressured the Washington D.C. police to take certain actions such as asking Mr. Condit to take a lie detector test?

MILLER: Yes, they have. This is a problem, and as a former member of the D.C. department, it would be safe to assume that even a strong and independent chief would be under a lot of pressure to be careful how he deals with the Supreme Court, the executive branch, and the Congress. This is a peculiar problem, because it's the government town. Most just have to deal with local officials, but in Washington, there are a lot of very important people, and the department has to temper and use prudence with these people. But the public relations with the Levy family is enough to give the police department comfort, because there's such an outcry in the country that the Congressman shouldn't have special treatment. Also, the Congressman is being forced to make special concessions, like the search of his apartment, interviews with his family members, and some discussion of a polygraph. All things that normally an attorney would advise his client not to participate in. This is all an outcome of the public relations pressure.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Dr. Miller, if polygraphs are not acceptable in court because of the chance they will be wrong, why put someone in the predicament of being falsely accused?

MILLER: The point is that the polygraph not being admissible in court doesn't mean that the process is flawed. There's a philosophical line in the sand, and the courts will take testimony from many fields, but there's a technical aspect of the polygraph that can make it overly powerful in the minds of people. It can be very convincing. We like to have simple answers. Seeking truth is a difficult effort or goal.

CNN: What evidence might the police gain by searching Rep. Condit's apartment at this point?

MILLER: The use of high technology equipment, ultraviolet and infrared equipment, to recover blood that may have been covered over or cleaned off. The forensics systems are very sophisticated. The police are probably saying that this is their one opportunity, and they want to be able to say that they've searched his apartment and want to proceed elsewhere. They've never had probable cause for a warrant, which suggests that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Condit has caused harm to Miss Levy.

CNN: Do you have any final thoughts for us today?

MILLER: My concern is that Chandra Levy is out here somewhere. Someone knows something, and I hope we can find her, and that the people who have been affected by this tragedy will have their reputations restored if they are so entitled, and the family will have closure on the loss of their daughter.

CNN: Thank you for joining us today, Detective Miller.

MILLER: Good day, and I'm going back to work!

Howard Miller joined the CNN.com chat room from Washington, D.C. by telephone and CNN provided a typist. This is an edited transcript of the chat which took place on Wednesday, July 11, 2001.

Check out the CNN Chat calendar
Post your opinion on our message boards