The promised unveiling of the polygraph results was used as a suspense-building device

Dr. Phil McGraw gets to the polygraph in the 4th quarter of the show

Dr. Phil: Well, Drew Peterson has been living under an umbrella of suspicion in the death of his third wife and the disappearance of his fourth wife. Now, he says that he's been portrayed as sinister in the media, but says that he is innocent of any wrongdoing in either one of those circumstances. Now he recently submitted to a polygraph examination to help try and clear his name. Well, let's take a look at Drew's polygraph results. Three out of the six answers that Drew gave regarding Stacy's disappearance were found to be deceptive.

First two questions

Dr. Phil: The first question, "On Sunday, October 28th 2007, did you last see your wife Stacy in your home before going to bed after coming home from work?" And the answer was, "Yes." And it was scored as a deceptive answer. That that was not truthful. It was deceptive that that's when you last saw your wife. Any thought or comment on why that would come up deceptive if you're telling the truth?

Drew Peterson stays cool as a cucumber

Drew Peterson: I answered truthfully and I have no idea why it came up deceptive.

Third question

Dr. Phil: The next question, "Do you know the whereabouts of your wife Stacy?" Answer: "No." Results: "deceptive." Next question, "Did you receive a phone call from your wife, Stacy, on the evening of October 28th, 2007, telling you that she was leaving you?" You answered "Yes" and the result was "deceptive." Now, any thought, theory or idea as to why that would come up deceptive if you were telling the truth?



Drew Peterson: I have no idea. I can't even answer for it.

Retired FBI polygrapher Jack Trimarco

Dr. Phil: Now, I want to introduce Jack Trimarco. Jack Trimarco is one of the most recognized and respected polygraph examiners in the United States. I want to get his opinion on what Drew's polygraph results suggest or reveal, and I want to say, there were three more questions that were answered that showed no deception. I'm going to read those questions and the results in just a minute, but let's talk about these three. Jack, what's the reliability of this kind of test, and what's the variability of this kind of test.



Jack Trimarco: Well, Dr. Phil... Everything depends on the examiner. When a qualified, experienced, honest polygraph examiner conducts an exam, you expect, based on studies, a 93 percent validity rate.

First two questions Peterson passed

Dr. Phil: Well, let's talk about the rest of these questions that came up. Question: "Did you have any involvement in the physical removal of your wife, Stacy, from your home on Sunday, October 28th 2007?" Answer: "No." Results: "No deception." Question: "Did you in any way physically harm your wife, Stacy, during the time that she disappeared?" Answer: "No." Results: "No deception." Question: "Did your wife, Stacy, call you on Sunday, October 28th 2007 and tell you that if you wanted the car, it was parked at the Clow Airport?" Answer: "Yes." Results: "No deception."

Third question Peterson passed

Dr. Phil: Now, one of the things I'm concerned about is this call, uh, about the car being left at the airport, which occurred on, again, according to the same night [sic], says "no deception," but the other question, uh, about the call coming in, says that it was deceptive. (Facing Jack Trimarco) How would that occur within the same protocol, because this is talking about the same phone call, the same time, the same night. How would one be deceptive and the other not unless the test is just...not valid?



Jack Trimarco: I would like to know who hired the polygraph examiner.

Drew Peterson's Lawyer, Joel Brodsky

Dr. Phil: (Facing Peterson's attorney, Joel Brodsky) Joel, comment?



Joel Brodsky: Lee McCord is the polygraph examiner that I hired. We paid him a standard fee of five hundred dollars per examination. He did them on two successive Sundays. He took, you know, two hours of pre-examination before he's gotten to the questions. He's been an examiner in Chicago for 34 years, was the chairman of the board that administers discipline to polygraph examiners. He's a man of impeccable reputation and impeccable qualifications.

Trimarco grimaces as Brodsky cites polygrapher Lee McCord's qualifications

Dr. Phil: Okay. We're going to take a break and we're going to talk about the results of the polygraph questions about Drew's third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Dr. Phil discusses the polygraph questions about Kathleen Savio

Dr. Phil (returning from commercial break): Well, Drew Peterson has been living in the media spotlight ever since his fourth wife, Stacy, vanished last October. Now, Drew denies any wrongdoing in connection with her disappearance, and he says that he had nothing to do with the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Well, let's talk about the polygraph that was given on Kathleen Savio -- to Drew about Kathleen Savio, um, and I'll tell you right up front, none of his answers were found to be deceptive. (To Drew Peterson) You told the truth there?

Drew Peterson calmly maintains his truthfulness

Drew Peterson: I told the truth everywhere.



Dr. Phil: And it was confirmed by the polygraph protocol, that circumstance.



Drew Peterson: That's what it says, yeah.



Dr. Phil: Do you have confidence in that?



Drew Peterson: I don't know... I have confidence I was telling the truth. But confidence in the polygraph itself, I'm not sure. I'm not that familiar with it to make that sort of conclusion.

On 10 November 2008, theshow featured an interview with Drew Peterson , the former Illinois police officer who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, and the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Also appearing on the show were 1) Derek Armstrong, whose newly released book,has been previously discussed on AntiPolygraph.org, 2) Peterson's lawyer, Joel A. Brodsky, and 3) Los Angeles polygraph examiner Jack Trimarco , who was in the studio to comment about Peterson's polygraph results. An unofficial transcript of the portion of the show concerning the lie detector results, along with frame grabs, is now available. Once again, as in the many Dr. Phil episodes where the lie detector has been consulted, it offered no real answers and if anything served to muddy the waters:Here, Trimarco repeats his stock answer when asked about the validity of polygraphy.The fact of the matter is that polygraphy has not been proven to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. The best available field studies suggest (255kb PDF) that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data." The consensus view among scientists is that polygraphy has no scientific basis at all.Dr. Phil then notes with concern the contradiction inherent in Peterson's having both passed and failed a polygraph question about a phone call he allegedly received from his wife, Stacy. Jack Trimarco seems unwilling to accept that the polygraph could be at fault.So there you have it. Drew Peterson's polygraph results leave us none the wiser regarding the disappearance of his fourth wife and the death of his third. For earlier discussion of Peterson's polgyraph results, see, Drew Peterson Took Polygraph for New Book . For commentary on otherpolygraph episodes, see: