In August 2012, attorney Peter Langrock attempted to pressure me into taking a polygraph examination.
I did not refuse to be tested.
Instead, I accepted an offer to undergo a functional MRI, or fMRI, deception assessment at no cost. Unlike a traditional polygraph, which measures physiological responses such as heart rate, blood pressure, and perspiration, fMRI examines changes in brain activity associated with cognitive processes.
Langrock rejected that option.
In his response, he dismissed the fMRI as a $4,000 plus evaluation on a process which I have no familiarity with.
Neither part of that explanation made sense.
First, the examination offered to me was free.
Second, unfamiliarity with a scientific procedure is not evidence that the procedure lacks value. If the objective had been determining the truth as accurately as possible, learning about the available technology would have been an obvious and reasonable step.
Instead, Langrock insisted on a polygraph.
Polygraphs Measure Stress, Not Lies
A polygraph does not directly detect deception. It records physiological responses such as changes in breathing, blood pressure, heart rate, and perspiration.
Those responses can be caused by stress, fear, anger, humiliation, or trauma, none of which proves that a person is lying.
That distinction mattered enormously in my case.
By August 2012, I was already under extreme stress from a flood of bizarre and pornographic accusations involving conduct that had never occurred. I was facing investigations, family court proceedings, and the forced separation from my son.
Under those circumstances, elevated stress responses would have been entirely predictable.
Stress is not deception.
An Anecdote Is Not Scientific Evidence
Langrock defended the polygraph by writing that, in fifty years, he had never run into what I believe to be inaccurate results.
That was not scientific evidence. It was an anecdote.
One attorney’s personal confidence in polygraphs does not resolve the documented problems with tests that infer deception from physical stress responses.
More importantly, I was not refusing examination. I had agreed to undergo a different form of testing that was available at no cost and that examined brain activity rather than attempting to interpret perspiration, pulse, and blood pressure.
The Knutsens’ attorney rejected it because he claimed he was unfamiliar with the process.
They Rejected the Test I Was Willing to Take
If the goal had truly been to determine whether the allegations were true, the reasonable response would have been to evaluate the offered fMRI examination before dismissing it.
Langrock worked in a large law office with attorneys, associates, and support staff capable of researching an unfamiliar procedure. His lack of personal familiarity could have been addressed quickly.
Instead, the free examination I was willing to undergo was rejected, while pressure continued for me to submit to a polygraph whose results could be distorted by the very stress their accusations had caused.
They demanded the weaker test and rejected the stronger alternative.
What Was the Actual Objective?
By that point, Raymond and Marilynn Knutsen had promoted extraordinary allegations against me that were never proven and that did not result in criminal charges.
I was willing to be tested.
Their attorney rejected the examination I was offered and insisted on the method most vulnerable to stress, interpretation, and manipulation.
That decision raises an obvious question:
Was the goal to determine what actually happened, or to create another piece of material that could be used against me?
Skip to PDF content