Skip to main content

Review: Tremors in the Blood ****

There is something beguiling about the concept of the polygraph - the proper name for what is usually known as a lie detector. Surely it makes sense, if technology exists that can tell if a statement is true or false, that lie detectors should provide an important adjunct to the legal system? Unfortunately, though, despite a public assumption that they are scientific, there is absolutely no evidence that lie detectors work - and plenty of evidence that they don't.

What Amit Katwala does in this very readable account is give us an insight into the early development and deployment of the polygraph. In part this is the story of three key individuals - two behind the technology and one a police chief who instigated the polygraph's development, though the larger part of the book comprises a series of true crime stories, introducing in some depth a handful of early legal cases where the polygraph played a role.

The two developers, John Larsen and Leonarde Keeler, both seem to have had serious character flaws, and were single-minded in their assumption that monitoring blood pressure and breathing variations were sufficient to tell the difference between a true and a false statement. While there is no doubt that some people do experience shifts in these metrics when lying, some don't... and everyone, particularly in the scary circumstances of a police interview, is likely to have fluctuations that have nothing to do with the veracity of their answers - not helped by the way that many early attempts seemed to turn the whole thing into a media circus with crowds of reporters and onlookers present.

The crimes are described in immersive narrative fashion, some taking place in the febrile setting of Capone's Chicago, though things start in the rather more refined precincts of Berkeley, California. I don't usually read true crime books - I find reading about other people's suffering for entertainment rather ghoulish - but the context of the lie detector's development and public attitudes to it make it a rather different phenomenon here.

Katwala is clearly more than up to the challenge of presenting these stories in a gripping fashion, and it is genuinely fascinating to see how the polygraph gained its reputation. It would have been good to have had a bit more of the science as to why the device is unreliable and never can be trusted, especially in the context that it is still widely used around the world and is even creeping into use in the UK, where historically it has been treated with well-deserved suspicion. Developments since the 1930s, including using various other equally non-definitive measures such as brain wave patterns, is briefly summarised in an epilogue, which is understandable given the focus is the birth of the lie detector, but perhaps could have had more detail.

Katwala always makes it clear that this was (and is) a dangerous and untrustworthy device. Arguably it is on a par with astrology - both are based on scientific observations (astronomy and physiological measurements respectively), but both draw totally unjustified conclusions from those observations. This is a timely exploration of this dubious technology.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Tremors in the Blood is available from Bookshop.org and Amazon.co.uk


Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope