You are on page 1of 5

Confidential Report

Polygraph test of Aurora Perrineau

Polygraph examiner: Louis Rovner, Ph.D.

www.PolygraphWest.com
September 27, 2017

I am a polygraph examiner with a private practice in Los Angeles. I hold three degrees in
Psychology, a Bachelors degree (B. A., University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1974), a Masters
degree (M.A., University of British Columbia, 1976), and a Doctorate (Ph.D., University of
Utah, 1979). My Masters degree was awarded in the area of Biopsychology, and my Ph.D. in the
area of Psychophysiology. Psychophysiology is the only field of specialization in Psychology
and Psychiatry that relates directly to the use of the polygraph in a lie detection setting. I also
completed the course of instruction at the Los Angeles Institute of Polygraph in 1986.

I have been an instructor of Psychology, Physiology, and Psychophysiology at the Los Angeles
Institute of Polygraph and the Marston Polygraph Academy for more than twenty years. In
addition, I have taught and spoken at numerous seminars and workshops designed to serve the
needs and interests of professional polygraph examiners. I have also taught a variety of
Psychology and Statistics courses at the University of Utah, Westminster College, and California
Lutheran University.

I have conducted polygraph research which has been published in scientific and professional
journals, and have written numerous articles about polygraph-related issues for other
professional publications.

I am a member of the Panel of Experts of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Criminal Division. In
addition to being recognized by the L.A. Superior Court as an expert in polygraph testing, I have
testified as an expert about polygraph test results in criminal, civil and child custody courts in the
United States and Europe. I am a Full Member of the American Psychological Association
(APA), the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS), and the American Polygraph
Association (APA).

2
On September 26, 2017 I conducted a polygraph examination of Aurora Perrineau at my office in
Los Angeles. The examination was conducted using scientifically validated methods and
procedures which were developed at institutions including the University of Utah and the United
States Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. Ms. Perrineaus physiological responses
(cardiovascular, vasomotor, respiratory and electrodermal) were monitored and recorded by a
Lafayette LX4000 computerized polygraph. The testing methodology employed was a Utah
Zone of Comparison Test (UZCT). I have personally conducted and published scientific
research utilizing the UZCT. My accuracy rate in that research was 95.5%.

I was retained to conduct this test by the law firm of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Ms. Perrineau
has claimed that she was sexually assaulted by a man named Murray Miller when she was 17
years old. In order to verify that her accusation was true, she volunteered to take a polygraph test
about the issue.

The polygraph examination session commenced at 3:00 PM. The session began with a lengthy
and detailed pre-test interview, during which Ms. Perrineau informed me that she was in
reasonably good health, that she was not under the influence of any illegal drugs or alcohol, and
that she had sufficient sleep the night before. We then discussed the issues, and I made certain
that terminology and understanding between us was consistent.

Ms. Perrineau's account of the incident is contained in the following statement. Before
beginning the testing procedure, Ms. Perrineau read her statement aloud, and signed and dated it
in my presence. The polygraph test was conducted to determine whether Ms. Perrineau's
statement was completely true, or whether it contained one or more lies or half-truths. Her
statement follows:

My name is Aurora Perrineau. Before I was 18 years old, I went to the Standard Hotel on Sunset
Boulevard with two other people, Juliet and Jeremy. At the Standard Hotel, I met Murray
Miller. He was flirting with me. I told him repeatedly that I was 17 years old.

3
At some point, my father called me and asked me where I was. In order to avoid seeing my
father, I left the Standard Hotel and went to Juliets house. My understanding is that my father
went to the club and met Murray. Juliet and I later went back to the Standard Hotel. I consumed
some alcoholic beverages.

At the end of the night, Murray asked for a ride from us because he was drunk. Juliet, Jeremy,
Murray, and I left the Standard Hotel in Juliets car. Jeremy was driving. We drove to
Murrays place first. When we arrived at Murrays place, everyone got out of the car. I did not
want to get out of the car, but I felt like I had to go along with everyone else.

At some point, I woke up in Murrays bed naked. He was on top of me having sexual
intercourse with me. I freaked out and was extremely upset and traumatized. At no time did I
consent to any sexual contact with Murray.

(signed) Aurora Perrineau 9/26/17

Based on our discussion, I formulated Ms. Perrineaus test questions and reviewed each of them
with her, assuring her that those questions would be the same questions asked during the test.
The examination included the following relevant questions:

1) Is your written statement completely true?


(Ms. Perrineaus answer: Yes)

2) Did you deliberately lie in your written statement?


(Ms. Perrineaus answer: No)

2) Is there anything at all in your written statement that is untrue?


(Ms. Perrineau s answer: No)

I made it clear to Ms. Perrineau that if even one item in the statement was not absolutely true,
she would fail the entire test.

In addition to the above relevant questions, appropriate comparison and neutral questions were
included in the test question sequence.
4
After reviewing the questions with Ms. Perrineau, I explained the psychological and
physiological bases of the test. I described the function of each polygraph component as they
were attached to her. I then conducted a stim test on Ms. Perrineau in which I instructed her to
tell a lie about a number that was written on a piece of paper in plain view of both of us. Upon
verifying that her physiological recordings were adequate, I conducted the examination. Three
charts (three times through the question sequence) were run.

Results

Ms. Perrineau passed her polygraph test. My objective, numerical evaluation of the
polygraph charts indicates that she answered the relevant questions truthfully.

Numerical evaluation is a procedure in which a polygraph examiner measures the strength, size
and other characteristics of a subjects physiological responses at certain locations in the
polygraph tracings, and then assigns point values to reflect the magnitude and quality of those
responses. To be considered truthful when she answered the relevant questions, Ms. Perrineaus
total score would have to equal or exceed +6 points. To be considered deceptive to the relevant
questions, her score would have to equal or exceed -6 points. Scores in the range of -5 to +5 are
considered to be inconclusive. Ms. Perrineaus score was +18.

As such, it is my professional opinion that Ms. Perrineaus written statement is true and accurate.

Louis Rovner, Ph.D.