Dr. Phil Strikes Again - Lie Detector Lack of Logic

The following is a detailed (over)analysis of "A Father Accused: Did He Molest His Children" which aired today, uploaded for the time being here:



There's a lot of baloney in this episode, which is unfortunate because it involves a very serious issue: allegations by a mother, Wilma, that her husband, Adam, has sexually abused their children.

Now, I'm not arguing that Wilma is right; that she's telling the truth; that her child actually accused the father; or that Adam is a molester. However, (again) Dr. Phil poorly handles the matter and carelessly distorts the discussion. In a most disturbing display of exceeding his professional expertise, Dr. Phil actually sets himself up as the judge to determine whether child abuse did in fact occur and delivers a verdict. Isn't it highly irresponsible for a talk show host to exercise this kind of jurisdiction in a one hour television show? 

(at 39:01) Dr. Phil states that he isn't basing his conclusion on the results of the polygraph results alone.
However, immediately after announcing the results of the lie detector test, which supports Adam, Dr. Phil asks Wilma (at 33:16): "How do you feel about the fact that this test confirms that Adam has not touched your children in a sexual manner?"
(at 33:37): "You should be elated... you have just found out that these evidence indicate that your child has not been molested. Is that not the best news that you have ever  heard your whole life?" 

Since when is a polygraph proof positive? Have we gotten to that level of technology? In fact, doesn't the research indicate the opposite:
"Polygraphy has little evidence to support its use.^[9][10][11] Despite claims of 90% validity by polygraph advocates,^[12] the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.^[10] The utility among sex offenders is also poor^[13] with insufficient evidence to support accuracy or improved outcomes in this population.^[14]"

In rendering his verdict, Dr. Phil repeatedly states (his opinion) as a fact that child abuse has not taken occurred:
(at 41:20) He states to Wilma, "As much as you feel like reality is spinning right now, you should have joy that all signs point to the fact that no one has hurt your children."

(at 40:05) Before apologizing to Adam, Dr. Phil states "And I'm the guy who says you have to believe children until you find out otherwise. I think we have found out otherwise."

(at 40:30) Dr. Phil states to Adam, "...now you have a lot more evidence than you had before....Well, I will be happy when you have your children in your [lap?] and they have their daddy in their lives."

However, to the complete contradiction of everything he had just represented, Dr. Phil concluded his show with:
(at 41:38) "If a child comes to you and gives you an indication that they've been touched inappropriately in some way, then please take that very, very seriously. Don't go running at the accused person like your hair is on fire in a hysterical way." [what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway??]
"Do your homework too. But believe that child, accept that child, nurture that child and find out what the truth is."

HERE'S MY REBUTTAL:
Fuck the truth. 
What if you can't uncover the truth? Is finding the truth even possible in every case? Humans are not oracles that can channel events to review them for accuracy. If, as I suspect in many cases of child abuse, there may not exist evidence which affirms the existence of the abuse, what does a parent do when faced with an indication/accusation/allegation by a child or even a gut instinct that something is wrong even without a shred of evidence? 
Here's my non-expert point of view - the truth would be convenient but it's actually a non-issue at this point. Your child is in need of help, and your search for the "truth" may derail what needs to be your primary focus, which is protecting your child. Err in favor of believing your child. 
Yes, even when the accused is a parent:
1) because even if it's untrue, the accusation indicates your child still needs help; 
2) I'll take my chances that an innocent adult is more capable of dealing with the injustice of a false accusation versus a victimized child if the unthinkable is in fact true.

Extended reading:
In no particular order, here's more of Dr. Phil's nonsense and flawed reasoning, which permeated the entire episode:

• (at 39:10) Claiming that he didn't open the envelope containing the test results until he was on the show - what difference does that make? and that claim doesn't mean he didn't know the results of the test results before the show (which of course, he did).

• (at 39:50) Suggesting Wilma's own experience as an abuse victim may distort her reasoning ability (not the first time that Dr. Phil has employed dangerous slippery slope logic to discredit allegations of sexual abuse).

• Questioning the sufficiency of Wilma relying on her child's alleged account of abuse, asking:
  "Why do you believe that he is [molesting his daughter]?"
  "And you believe this?"
  "And why do you believe it. I mean, this is the man you married. I mean, you know him. Do you think he's capable of that?"
  Why is Wilma's knowledge of her husband independent of her daughter's accusation relevant? Why is Dr. Phil shifting responsibility over to Wilma based on her understanding of the man she married? Obviously, most sane people don't enter marriages with known pedophiles. If good people who would protect their children from danger had this kind of cognition, wouldn't that resolve the problem?

• After Dr. Phil himself raises Wilma's allegations that she's been raped repeatedly during the marriage, he counters with:
  "I was interested to see if you wanted to talk about that, because if someone was molesting my children, I wouldn't want to talk about another damn thing... I wouldn't want to talk about pills... I wouldn't want to talk about muscle relaxers... I would want to talk about that... that would be my focus here... I was just curious what you want to talk about."
  So rape allegations and completely opposing accounts of drug use/abuse are not relevant to the credibility of these individuals? Why would Dr. Phil raise the issue only to pass judgment and dismiss its relevance? Why would Wilma's apparent concern that Adam's alleged abuse of her is related to the alleged abuse of her children be twisted by Dr. Phil to be representative of her lack of regard or focus on the issue at hand?

• (at 13:44) Dr. Phil implores Adam to make a confession on national television if the allegations are true - following with an offer to help Adam any way that he can, stating "people can get over and recover from that."
  Was Dr. Phil just baiting Adam to reveal the truth or does Dr. Phil actually believe his sweeping generalization that a man who would molest his own children "can get over and recover from that?"

• Contrary to Dr. Phil's suggestions, a Child Protective Services "No Finding" of evidence does not mean that no abuse happened. It simply means CPS didn't find conclusive evidence.

• Dr. Phil used variations between Wilma's statements in police reports and what she told the show's producers to discredit her, determining the existence of inconsistencies. Are these variations actually inconsistencies? We don't know what kinds of questions producers ask their guests or how in depth these conversations are? We don't know to what extent Wilma received more information from her children since the time of her initial report to the police, which she then conveyed to the producers. Moreover, if the allegations are true, the information comes from a 4 year old and is being recounted by her emotionally distraught mother - is it that unbelievable that the information could be imprecise?

• Dr. Phil threw out weighty terms such as "forensic interview" and touted his forensic investigation background as supporting his ability to determine what likely happened. However, all he seemed to reach were faulty conclusions. For example, I'm not sure that Wilma talking about herself in her forensic interview necessarily undermines her credibility. There are other possibilities, like maybe she's self-centered and not necessarily a liar?

• Even if the guests had a pleasant testing experience and fully understood the test questions, these conditions do not establish the veracity of the lie detector test results. At one point Dr. Phil (at 29:35) even uses Wilma's words against her, "and, like you said, there are no false positives, so you don't have any problems with the test?" So now if Wilma says it, that makes it so, Dr. Phil?

• Even if Wilma instructed her daughter on how to recount her experience, which was not proven, does this mean the abuse didn't happen?

And on a non-determinative point, I can't help but note that Adam's laugh at 11:52 is downright creepy. How are these accusations "laughable?" I don't know if this man is a molester, but it's weird that he finds allegations that he molested his own children comedic.

Eff Dr. Phil

*Picture courtesy of shrink4men.com

Here's a recap from the Dr. Phil website of his show which aired on Monday, February 17, "Sex Abuse and Murder: A Daughter's Repressed Memories or Lies?":

"Tracy says that about three years ago, disturbing memories from her childhood began to surface about sex abuse and murder — involving her mother, Donna, and now-deceased father, Alan. Tracy claims that she and her sister, Kelly, were molested by their father and grandfather, and alleges that Donna killed Kelly’s best friend and buried the girl in their backyard. Donna and Kelly vehemently deny the claims, calling Tracy “delusional.” Emotions run high when Tracy faces her family on Dr. Phil’s stage, including Donna, whom she hasn’t seen or spoken to in more than a year. Is Tracy remembering actual events, or are these fictionalized memories? Plus, don’t miss part two tomorrow, when Donna agrees to take a polygraph test to clear her name. Will Tracy get the answers she’s looking for?"
This show was continued on Tuesday, February 18, entitled "Is this Daughter Having False Memories: The Polygraph Results."

What I proceeded to view shocked and appalled me - not just because of Tracy's disturbing claims, but because of how poorly Dr. Phil handled the situation despite his purported expertise.

Dr. Phil committed several rank amateur mistakes when confronting Tracy about her past and her allegations:

1) Dr. Phil did not enter the "discussion" unbiased. Undoubtedly, he had already been advised by his team regarding their take on Tracy's credibility, which is fine, except he did a terrible job of hiding his contempt for her beliefs. Dr. Phil repeatedly mischaracterized Tracy's statements, exaggerating her claims by stating that she alleged multiple people were murdered and buried in her backyard, when she was actually saying that she was unsure of the victim's identity and therefore ran through multiple possibilities. Further sensationalizing the statements of a woman who admittedly is not wholly confident in her recollections serves to only frustrate the "fact-finding" mission Dr. Phil was supposedly undertaking. Also, he showed no recognition that lack of clarity on Tracy's part did not automatically negate all of her allegations. This leads me to my second point.

2) Dr. Phil seemed to espouse the idea that discrediting Tracy's claim that a body had been buried in her backyard would automatically negate all of her other claims. That's illogical. Proving any one of Tracy's memories to be unreliable does not in itself disprove all of her allegations. Even if Tracy is experiencing delusions, these delusions can themselves be byproducts of sexual abuse that in fact occurred, and not solely because of therapist hypnotic inducement and/or drug use, which was implied by a show expert.
While not all of Tracy's allegations may be credible or reliable, one false memory does not equal all false memories. Also, Dr. Phil and his expert repeatedly alluded to Tracy's drug use as a factor in discrediting her memories. While drug use may indeed have physiological consequences, it seems highly irresponsible and a dangerous, slippery slope to suggest that individuals who have used drugs can no longer reliably defend claims of childhood sexual abuse.

3) Dr. Phil proclaimed that he has not encountered even one instance of a legitimate repressed memory in all of his 30 years of practice. How is this a logically sound argument by itself? He did not offer to what degree his practice or expertise involved repressed memory patients - because that would be a critical component of the argument he is indirectly making. That's like me stating, I have not encountered one blue whale in all of my 30 years on this planet - what's the merit of that argument? Just because he hasn't encountered a specific event professionally or personally, does that necessarily impact its legitimacy or likelihood in this case? Wouldn't making that kind of overly broad proclamation already betray his position and bias at the outset of evaluating this situation?

4) Dr. Phil was combative and dismissive when Tracy attempted to distinguish her memories on the basis of those she was sure of and those she was less confident in, using air quotes to frame the latter. Why is this so preposterous given the trauma and psychological damage she would have endured were even a portion of her claims true?

5) Now, I'm well aware of Dr. Phil's "tough-tell it like it is" persona, but when he picks and chooses -poorly- whom to target with this heavy handed method, he comes off like a bully. At one point, he actually mimicked Tracy's emotional reaction, characterizing it as her "unplugging" and threatening to end the discussion. He similarly attacked Tracy's husband at the end of Part 2, which aired the next day, by saying "You want to get up on your hind legs and bark, find out what the hell you are talking about before you are enabling this woman." Was this really necessary or helpful?

6) Where was the tough doctor routine when Tracy's sister, Kelly, was caught in a blatant lie? At first, Kelly vehemently claimed that none of Tracy's recollections ever happened. However, when confronted by an inconsistency in this argument by Tracy's husband, Kelly admitted that she did witness their grandfather with his hands down Tracy's pants as a child, but "only that one time." Dr Phil seemed to have fallen asleep at the wheel here. Although he made a bare minimum acknowledgment that hands down the pants would "not be right," he totally failed to adequately handle Kelly's admission which exposed many issues. An adult's hands down a child's pants is not merely "not right," it's highly inappropriate, seems indicative of child abuse and supports at least one of Tracy's claims. How could this have been so readily dismissed!? Also, Kelly's credibility was immediately suspect. Never was it raised that Kelly may have had a motive to suppress the truth because corroborating Tracy's account would mean exposing Kelly's own victimization - something many victims will go out of their way to keep hidden, even by lying to cover it up.

7) Kelly's admission supported Tracy's account that she had been sexually molested by her grandfather. Dr. Phil should have immediately put Tracy's mother, Donna, on the spot about her take on the grandfather's behavior and relationship with her children. This line of questioning was never entered into! If Donna responded that she was not aware of any such misconduct, and Donna's supporter, Kelly, has already admittedly witnessed at least one incident, than how many other incidents could there have been? Dr. Phil never explored these signposts that could have possibly resulted in information supporting Tracy's allegations.

8) Tracy's brother's take on the situation was almost irrelevant. So what if he never witnessed anything? That doesn't mean abuse didn't take place.

9) The Polygraph Test -
"Dr. Phil explains that Donna previously took — and failed — a polygraph test that Tracy set up for her. He says that polygraph expert Jack Trimarco reviewed that test and found that it was flawed.... Dr. Phil says that Jack administered a second test to Donna, which had only one question, asked two different ways: "Did you ever bury a human body in the backyard?" and, "Did you bury a human body on your property?"
Why was the polygraph limited to only one question? What about anything else related to the actual sexual abuse Tracy claims she suffered at the hands of her grandfather and father, with her mother's knowledge, and even by her mother? Even if Tracy is delusional when it comes to whether a murder occurred in her house or whether a body was ever buried in the backyard, that doesn't automatically discount the possibility that she actually was the victim of sexual abuse in which her mother was complicit.

10) One of the most egregious events happened at the end of Part 2.
"I want to talk a little bit about this father, who has been accused, because of memories, of some really terrible things," Dr. Phil says. He reads from a letter sent to Tracy's late father, Alan, by the Department of the Navy in 1975, which says in part, "The caliber of your service, patriotism and deportment have been exemplary." It continues,"Your outstanding contributions to the military are a matter of record and reflect consistent recognition of loyal, efficient and exemplary service....There's someone who doesn't have any investment in this, speaking about this man, in terms of who he was and how he conducted himself," Dr. Phil says. "Since he's not here, I just wanted to throw that out on his behalf."
While Dr. Phil could have acknowledged that Alan was deceased and unable to defend himself against accusations by Tracy that were made only after his passing, reading accolades about Alan's miltary service has no bearing on whether he abused his children. Plenty of molesters have distinguished careers across all walks of life - teachers, priests, soldiers, cops, award-winning film directors, football coaches?! - this has zero connection to their likelihood of being pedophiles, and Dr. Phil completely confused the issues for his guests and his viewers when he ended on this note.

Dr. Phil clearly demonstrated his lack of training and expertise in handling sensitive issues such as child sexual abuse. While efforts to highlight the issue on a national platform could be admirable, I found this two-part series to be reckless, exploitative and victimizing of a woman who clearly needed help that Dr. Phil was not capable of providing.