While we're waiting on word from a pair of the Larry Sinclair Press Conferences, we'd thought we'd take some time to catch you up on Sinclair's shocking allegations and resulting chaos that surrounds them.
On January 18, 2008 Larry Sinclair posted a YouTube video in which he stated he met Barrack Obama in a gay bar in Illinois. He claims the two shared crack cocaine in his limo and had "high-risk" gay sex.
Whitehouse.com challenged Sinclair to take a polygraph and offered to pay him $10,000 for showing up and $100,000 if he passed. Sinclair accepted the challenge and asked the $10,000 payment be sent to two charities.
The polygraph test was administered by Dr. Gelb on behalf of Whitehouse.com. On February 12, 2008 Whitehouse.com announced preliminary findings from Dr. Gelb that indicated Sinclair was being deceitful on the questions of drug use and gay sex.
But the story doesn't end there. It turns out that the polygraph examiner, Dr. Gelb, is anything but. Dr. Gelb is not a doctor and received his doctorate from a mail-order diploma mill. So, Whitehouse.com brought in Gordon Barland to perform a "blind" review of Dr. Gelb's data.
In Mr. Barland's review he also determined that Sinclair was being deceitful on the two questions related to the allegations being levied against Sen. Obama. However, his computer modeling of the data indicated Sinclair had demonstrated no deception, scoring a .01 out of a .00 to 1.00 deception scale.
Since guidelines state that polygraphers should take their human results over computer results in blind studies Mr. Barland seconded Dr. Gelb's opinions. But again, problems arose. It turns out the "blind" study wasn't blind at all.
To be qualified as a blind study the American Polygraph Association states the reviewer must be unaware of the name of the original examiner, the name of the exmaminee, the nature of the examinee's allegations, the specific polygraph questions asked, and the original examiner's opinions.
In this case, Mr. Barland knew all of these things before hand. Clearly leaving room for bias to enter his findings.
That is where we are today. Awaiting supposedly cooberating evidence from Larry Sinclair and similar evidence of deceitfulness from Whitehouse.com. In either case, this will not likely be the end of this story.