Stella M. Nickell Case:
DECLARATION OF DR. RASKIN

DAVID C. RASKIN, Ph.D., being first on his oath duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. I received my Ph.D. degree in psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1963. I have serverd on the faculties of UCLA, Michigan State University, the University of British Columbia, and the university of Utah, where I presently hold the rank of Professor Emeritus of Psychology. For more than 40 years, I have conducted and published scientific research in human psychophysiology. For more than 30 years, I have conducted laboratory and field research on polygraph techniques for the detection of deception, taught university and applied courses about polygraph techniques, trained government and law enforcement polygraph examiners, and published extensively on plygraph techniques. I am a license polygraph examiner in the State of Utah and have served as an expert witness in approximately 225 criminal and civil cases in federal and state courts in the United States, Canada, and Sweden. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached.

2. Sometime in approximately January, 1987, I was contacted by Attorney William Donais. He informed me that he represented Stella Nickell. He asked if I would be able to review a polygraph examination of Ms. Nickell that had been conducted by the FBI on 15 December, 1986. I informed him that I would be traveling from my home in Salt Lake City, Utah to Seattle, Washington on 8 January 1987 and would be able to meet with him in Seattle on the afternoon of 9 January 1987. He retained me to do so.

3. On 9 January 1987, I met Mr. Donais at approximately 1:00 p.m. at the office of the U. S. Attorney in the Federal Bui9lding in Seattle. He informed me that he had made arrangements to meet with the FBI polygraph examiner who had conducted the examination of Ms. Nickell and that the examiner would provide the polygraph charts and supporting materials for me to review and to ask him any questions that I might have.

4. After entering the offices of the U.S. Attorney, we checked in with the receptionist and were told that they would be with us soon. I informed her that I had to depart at 5:15 p.m. on Western flight 40 to Salt Lake City and that we had limited time.

5. We were left sitting in the outer office. As time passed, we inquired of the receptionist several times and kept telling her that I would have to leave by 4:00 p.m. Finally, around 4:00 p.m. we were told that the polygraph examiner we had arranged to meet had left the building for the day. I had to leave to catch my plane without being shown the polygraphs we had arranged to review with the FBI polygraph examiner.

6. Without an opportunity to inspect the polygraph charts and score sheet of the examiner, it is not possible to evaluate the actual outcome of the polygraph test.

7. I have recently been provided with a brief summary of the description given by Ms. Nickell of the circumstances and manner in which the FBI polygraph examination was conducted. Present during the examination were Ms. Nickell, the suspect, the case agent FBI Special Agent John E. Cusack, and polygraph examiner FBI Special AGent Ronald N. Nichols.

8. In violation of all accepted practice, the questioning during the examination was conducted by the case agent S/A Cusack, not the examiner S/A Nichols. This was highly inappropriate since Cusack was not a trained polygraph examiner and had previously interrogated Nickell and had informed her that she was a prime suspect. This greatly increases the risk of a false positive error (incorrectly labeling a person deceptive when they are in fact being truthful).

9. In violation of all accepted practice, S/A Cusack stood in front of Ms. Nickell and asked her the polygraph questions while she was seated in a chair below him and S/A Nichols merely operated the polygraph instrument. This standing position of the accuser, who was a male federal law enforcement officer, is extremely intimidating to a seated female suspect. Such a situation greatly increases the risk of a false positive error.

10. Immediately after the last question on the test was finished, S/A Cusack leaned down toward Ms. Nickell and informed her that he knew she was guilty and should confess. This was highly improper since the polygraph charts had not been scored by S/A Nichols, and an opinion could not be rendered until the polygraph charts had been evaluated by S/A Nichols.

11. As of thsi date, no polygraph charts or numerical score sheet have ever been provided to Ms. Nickell or her attorneys. Without access to such materials, it is not possible to determine if the opinion rendered by S/A Nichols was correct and based on proper polygraph recordings and numerical evaluation of the results.

12. FBI regulations in 1987 and the present require that all polygraph examinations be independently evaluated in the quality control section of the polygraph office at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC. No information has been provided to Ms. Nickell or her attorneys as to whether that required procedure was performed and, if so, what the results were.

13. The foregoing violations of acceptable polygraph procedure and the failure of the Government to provide Ms. Nickell or her attorneys with access to the polygraph materials make it extremely risky to rely on the purported results of the FBI polygraph examination of Ms. Nickell. The likelihood of erris unusually high and unnaceptable.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on 29 May 2001.

S/David C. RAskin, Ph.D