Wednesday 1 August 2018
Arron Banks today sailed through a polygraph test:
The test was carried out by British Polygraph Testing. Banks had requested the examination and that the entirety of it would be recorded electronically.
The test report [inserted below and available here in PDF format] puts to bed vacuous claims made by the pro-EU media.
The questions asked were:
- “Have you received any funding from Russia for the Brexit campaign?”
- “Have you ever received any funding from Russia for the Brexit campaign?”
- “On behalf of the Brexit campaign have you received any funding from Russia?”
Banks answered “no” to all three questions. His responses registered a +9 score, far exceeding the minimum +2 threshold assuring 100% truth.
“These results support the conclusion that there is NO DECEPTION INDICATED as evidenced by the physiological responses to the test stimulus questions during this examination,” the report states emphatically.
Needless to say, we don’t expect the anti-democracy opposition to submit themselves to similar scrutiny on their links with George Soros and the like.
The truth can really sting. They better get used to it.
Polygraph report in full:
Wednesday 1st of August 2018, Examination Number: BramleyBanksUTAH0108181
Examinee: Aaron Fraser Andrew Banks (DOB: 22nd of March 1966)
Examination Type: Diagnostic
Examiner: Paul Bramley
At your request, a polygraph examination was administered to Aaron Fraser Andrew Banks, on the 1st of August 2018 at Lysander House, Catbrain lane, Patchway, Bristol, BS10 7TQ. Before beginning the examination, the examinee reviewed and signed a voluntary consent form allowing the completion of this examination, and releasing Paul Bramley of British Polygraph Testing – including any agents, employees, employers, or affiliates of any liability resulting from this polygraph examination. This signed statement assures that the examinee was fully advised that the entire examination would be electronically recorded, that the findings would be subsequently disseminated to the above named addressees or lawful authority, and that the examinee could terminate the examination at any time and/or speak with an solicitor if desired.
Before commencing the active testing of each phase of this examination, a verbal pretest interview was conducted to summarize the examinee’s personal and case history, determine the examinee’s suitability for the polygraph technique, explain the polygraph components and related physiological processes, debrief the examinee of any information regarding the issues and circumstances under investigation, and thoroughly review the test questions and the examinee’s intended answers for that particular phase.
Examinee denied taking any unprescribed medication or illegal drugs in the past 24 hours and denied having any general or acute health problems at the time of this examination. He did admit to having a glass of wine with dinner last night.
When interviewed during the pretest phase of this examination regarding the specific incident under investigation pertaining to whether he has received any funding either directly or indirectly (personally or via any company or subsidiary holdings) or offered any sweetheart deals from any Russian source on behalf of the Brexit campaign. The examinee denied these allegations and called them absurd. He stated that no funding was ever offered or even asked for.
Upon completion of the pretest interview, this examiner determined the examinee to be suitable for the polygraph technique. Upon review of the polygraph test questions, the examinee indicated understanding of the scope and meaning of each question.
A Single-issue Zone Comparison Question Technique was administered using a fully computerized multichannel polygraph instrument that is capable of simultaneously recording both thoracic and abdominal respiratory, along with changes in cardiovascular and electrodermal activity, and includes dedicated components to monitor test subject behavior and assist in the accurate differentiation of test data that represents authentic sympathetic/autonomic response activity to test stimulus questions from data that includes adulterated autonomic and peripheral/behavioral nervous system activities intended to alter or defeat one’s polygraph test results.
Event-specific examinations consisting of three relevant questions that describe a known or alleged incident when scored with the Empirical Scoring System (ESS), an evidence-based, normed, and standardized protocol for test data analysis, have been shown to provide a mean sensitivity rate of .817 (.706 – .927) and mean test specificity of .846 (.747 – .946).
- The mean false-negative error rate has been reported as .077 (.004 – .151), and the mean false-positive rate has been reported as .064 (.001 – .130).
- The unweighted decision accuracy for these exams has been reported as .921 (.866 – .977) with an estimated inconclusive rate of .098 (.039 – .157).
A series of three test charts was completed. Careful inspection of the examinee’s polygraphs revealed test data of sufficient interpretable quality to complete a standard numerical evaluation in attempt to render a qualified opinion regarding these test results.
Using the ESS to evaluate the test data, the grand total score was obtained of +9 which equals or exceeds the required cutscore of +2 for truthful classifications. The level of statistical significance was calculated at p = 0.012, which is equal to or less than the required alpha boundary (α = .10), and indicates that only small proportion of deceptive persons (1.2%) will produce an equal or greater test score. These results support the conclusion that there isNO DECEPTION INDICATED as evidenced by the physiological responses to the test stimulus questions during this examination.
The following questions were asked:
Question: Have you received any funding from Russia for the Brexit campaign?
Question: Have ever you received any funding from Russia for the Brexit campaign?
Question: On behalf of the Brexit campaign have you received any funding from Russia?
POST TEST STATEMENTS:
After the examination the examinee was pleased but not surprised that he had passed the exam and was looking forward to putting the allegations to rest.
The examinee’s apparent truthfulness regarding the target issues during this examination does not preclude the possibility of additional information pertaining to issues outside the scope of this examination and any specific allegations or concerns should be investigated further until satisfactorily resolved. These test results are limited to the above reported target issues of concern and cannot be taken as a direct indicator of general or overall honesty and trustworthiness. Instead, information in this report may be incorporated in a decision-support capacity in support of other assessment and investigative activities.