Accused Sexual Harasser Touts Polygraph as Proof of Innocence

Dominic Caserta is going about his comeback tour in a random, roundabout way.

First, the disgraced ex-Santa Clara councilman opined about urban planning and traffic woes in an interview for a Czech newspaper. Then he had an attorney send takedown requests to a couple local bloggers (though Fly never got one, oddly enough). Not requests for corrections, mind you, but full takedowns, saying the sexual misconduct and harassment claims that torpedoed his public life were nothing but a political hit job.

Caserta’s latest gambit involves a polygraph test, which—in a press release prepared by temporarily disbarred attorney John Mlnarik and making the rounds on a national wire—he crows about passing with flying colors.

Per the statement, he took the test on Jan. 21 “in an attempt to dispel all duplicitous accusations” by his most vocal accuser, ex-campaign staffer Lydia Jungkind.

“Mr. Caserta was questioned on various incidents pertaining to the allegations after being accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with female students during his time as a teacher and candidate for Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors,” it reads.

The examiner, who boasts of proctoring 11,000 such tests, says Caserta passed with a damn-near perfect score of 99.9 percent. “The primary accuser of the 2018 allegations, Lydia Jungkind, has not participated in a polygraph,” the prepared statement adds. (For what it’s worth, she says she was never asked to.)

The news release goes on to say that Caserta maintains his innocence and that “an incident was made in an effort to derail his front-leading status” as a supervisorial candidate. It doesn’t specify the singular incident he’s referring to.

Was it the time then-19-year-old Jungkind says her married boss caressed her thigh in his car? Or the times she says he awkwardly hugged her, kissed her cheeks, made flirty comments or offered her drugs and booze?

Maybe by “an incident” Caserta means the claims coming out how and when they did, by former campaign coordinator Ian Crueldad blowing the whistle a month away from the primary election, as though the timing of the revelations undermines their veracity.

While the press release singles out Jungkind and a politically motivated incident Caserta implies she manufactured, the claims stemmed from dozens of other accusers as well. And they spanned the better part of two decades, from the early 2000s at the start of Caserta’s teaching career to just days before they came to light in spring of 2018.

Yet Caserta elides mention of which questions he fielded, or whether any addressed allegations from other accusers, such as the ones who filed police reports against him or had their claims documented in his personnel file at Santa Clara Unified.

When Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Terry Harman declined to prosecute Caserta citing “insufficient evidence,” she stressed that the decision in no way diminished the credibility of the accusers.

“They didn’t prosecute him because they didn’t have a smoking gun,” Jungkind says, “which is always the reason these guys get away with it.”

All we can infer from the polygraph, really, is that Caserta voluntarily answered questions he prepared for while maintaining a steady pulse and even breathing. Whether that proves his truthfulness and blamelessness, as he purports it to, is a matter of debate.

Send a tip to The Fly

The Fly is a weekly column written by San Jose Inside staff that provides a behind-the-scenes look at local politics.

22 Comments

  1. In my opinion he should’ve taken it alot earlier. It doesn’t excuse the rude comments that he made to his students and colleagues.

  2. In a recent NPR special on “Deep Fakes”, a group of forensic investigators explained the danger that deep fakes can impose in our local and national elections. Deep Fakes are a practice whereby allegations against a political candidate are made just before an election, leaving no time for the accused to react sufficiently before a major vote.

    With so many lawyers and politicians ripe for reporting in our local community, this reader wonders why SJI would continue to focus so much ink on Caserta. Perhaps it is time to look at Ellenberg, who easily sailed into her Supervisor seat after the Caserta allegations were made. Or perhaps Jeff Rosen, who was also campaigning in 2018 and where public records show he was using office staff and resources (taxpayer money) to tilt public opinion and thwart others who might want to run against him. And where Rosen was playing both sides in the Persky Recall, also 2018. Better yet, perhaps it is time to look at Ellenberg’s three month voting record where after she sailed into her elected seat, she immediately voted to give more money to the DAO as Jeff Rosen refused to prosecute a homeless rapist, and as Rosen is now saying he is going to follow the state law now that an undocumented immigrant with a criminal history and drug use background has murdered Bambi Larson in her Willow Glen home. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/26/chiefs-submit-ice-notification-plan-for-santa-clara-county/

    Isn’t Rosen always supposed to follow the law for the over $400K he is paid every year? ( Oh and Ellenberg just voted to give Rosen a raise along with Mike Wasserman and Cindy Chavez) .

    Then of course there is the endorsement trial. SJI was quick to report that Persky Recallers Jennie Richardson and Michele Dauber were withdrawing their support for Caserta, but nobody ever asked how these women got it so wrong if Caserta’s accusers were credible.

    Better yet, instead of reading online takedowns and Czech news, maybe SJI could look at Ellenberg’s endorsements and see if her voting for Rosen’s raise and more funding for his office in the first three months of her role as a Santa Clara County Supervisor constitutes a kickback known as an emolument. https://www.susanellenberg.com/endorsements

    If SJI is going to survive the new Fake News – Apple TV and Silicon Valley news era, it is going to have to start reporting on what readers see and experience everyday rather than worrying about a disbarred lawyer and what his client says to Czech News. Come On Fly, you can do better.

    • It is public knowledge ROSEN, supervisors, and the judges are a big close friends web of corruption. As I have stated before, look who is around Supervisors. They are going to fill lower level vacancies while existing insiders will move higher. Of course they are going to pay Rosen more. He is the center of the corruption web. Believe Victims! No woman wants to be on the public eye and share sexual or harrasment stories unless it is the last resource to obtain some justice. BELIEVE VICTIMS! Carseta supported the recall when others running for position or already in office were too afraid to do so. Carseta had lots to win by supporting this recall. At this point, the recall movement was in great need for sopport but not at the expense of supporting alleged sexual harasser. Once Carseta was out and the recall gained more momentum, then Córtese, Chavez, and Don ROCHA came along to support it. Jennie and Michelle in my opinion made a big mistake by relating to these supervisors. They and the other women had the support of the people; the people in the county knows these women. Relating to these politicians made them part of the same. This is why I no longer contribute to their projects. We need those who challenge corruption not people who become friends of corrupted people!

  3. Political hit job! Wow, I did not know he was a politician before this. Poligraph tests are not admitted by court AS EVIDENCE. Sociopaths are good at faking these tests due to the fact that they have no congruent emotions. How do you easily spot a sociopath? They are the authority figures and the crooks! Research shows public service has the most sociopaths…law enforcement too. Carseta you are a gone want to be politician. NO SEXUAL PIGS IN PUBLIC OFFICE! ROSEN’S and judiciary corruption is already enough to take!

  4. The very same blogger that went after Mlnarik and Casserta went after me, even went as far as to tell Madison Nguyen’s campaign staff that I’m homophobic (My daughter is Lesbian, and would be happy to tell anyone I’m the most supportive of her of anyone)

    That being said though, all of this reeked of what I watched in the Veritas report on James O’Keefe. About 7 minutes in they start talking about how “All we do is find some mentally unstable person on the edge, give them a little nudge and let them rabble rouse”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    Beyond that though I also heard from several people my harassment was coordinated by a very prominent local campaign consultant. One person I helped campaign for told me that this same consultant offered to “hire” this guy for her campaign and she refused. This mentally ill person was often times recruited by him (And Casserta,and Mlnarik) to do this type of “Work” if you can call it that.

    I #walkedaway from the party in 2016 when I realized that this is a common tactic by the Democrats. It’s shameful, unfair, and slanderous. It’s like releasing an uncontrollable rabid pit bull in someone’s house. There’s no controlling it, there’s no reason for it.

    Democrat party is firmly in the throws of Behavioral Sink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink It’s become crowded, with the elders trying so hard to hold onto power that they’re eating their young. Sometimes being all inclusive is unsustainable.

    • The Democrat Party is in the throws of behavioral sink? Why after carefully watching the Clintoons, the News Media, and their Democrat allies right up to this week, I’d say you have a gift in your ability to slander an understatement!
      Maybe a rabid incestuous pit bull from the cesspool’s of hell………………… Just my observation.

    • > Democrat party is firmly in the throws of Behavioral Sink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink It’s become crowded, with the elders trying so hard to hold onto power that they’re eating their young.

      Interesting concept.

      The Democrat party has “cleared the field” in California and is now the only electoral party that matters.

      The Party has attained “absolute power” over elections, and as many people outside of the Democrat bubble have noted “power corrupts”.

      (Democrats inside the bubble still think they’re fighting for “the little guy”. Why does the little guy want a flood of illegal aliens and H1B visas to depress his wages, push him out of his job, drive up the cost of housing, and flood the public spaces with feral humans who poop on the sidewalks and throw their used needles on public transit carriages?)

      “Behavioral sink” is caused by “overpopulation”. Is illegal immigration and “open borders” the overpopulation that is causing the behavioral sink?

      • I’ll leave you to do this research on your own, but look on youtube for behavioral sink videos. It’s somewhat humbling to see the direct analogies between mouse and human behavior when they’re crammed into sky high density housing.

  5. I am always shocked to see how people jumped to safe a man and condemn a woman. Libel and slander is a civil matter. If someone accused me of this harming my career and reputation, I would have filled suits long ago! BELIEVE VICTIMS! I give a shit about the Dems or Reps No sexual pigs in public office!

  6. Well, well, well, I see the local fake news is at it again. Mine, how some have disgraced the fine art of journalism. If my journalism teacher was still here, she would have had a heart attack at all the reporting holes in your “coverage” of Caserta. In fact, there’s more holes in your “coverage,” than there is in a block of Swiss Cheese. And look here at your editorializing, lionizing Mr.Crueldad as “blowing the whistle,” didn’t your journalism teacher(s) taught you that editorializing is a sin of journalism? Especially with that last paragraph, debating the merit of the test results when real news isn’t suppose to be a cheerleader nor condamners of the involved parties. The last time I check this was supposed to be a news article, not an article from the opinion section. If one wants phony baloney, I would suggest either going to a deli or here. Actually on second thought, the deli would be a much better option given the phony baloney news here not only degrade one’s IQ, but isn’t as delicious like the one over in the deli. On the note of test, Caserta has never received military/special forces training that would allow him to cheat the test nor does he have any pacemaker or heart condition that would have the same effect. You have absolutely, no empirical evidence that Caserta prepare for the question in advance therefore implying received them in advance, but yet you make that argument and report as fact with no source to back you up. Also, I know the truth about you Wadsworth and you too Lydia. How you two are pretty buddy buddy with each other. Not sure how that would count as objective reporting. Real journalists like the PBS Newshour alway tell their audience about possible conflicts of interest. Furthermore, you break another virtue of good journalism, telling all sides to the story. By the count, you give far more coverage to anti Caserta forces, giving only genetic quotes to the Caserta camp when you rarely quote them. Caserta was voted by class after class teacher of the year in Santa Clara High School. All those parents you see whining against Caserta, merely do so out of envy that he has more respect from their kids than they do. In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. We, not like China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. The DA found that there is NO evidence, NONE, ZILCH, ZERO, NADA, a big donut hole bigger than any of the fine donuts made at Stan’s against Caserta. The case against Caserta is about as valid as Trump’s claim that millions of people voted illegally in the last presidential election. The only reason the DA used the term “insufficient’ is because DAO is full of the filth of corruption. Full of anti Caserta political animals, mostly Ellenberg and Rocha supporters especially the top two people heading it up are Ellenberg’s puppets. Don’t believe me? Unlike the pathetic excuse of “journalism” or rather yellow journalism (the worse since William Randolph Hearst), I paid attention to the evidence that was in front of the public’s eyes and boy the report I’ve written about all is going to be the biggest since the Mueller Report. Oh how juicy the steak that is the report and how loud the sizzle it will give once all the juicy details come out. Oh like how Iago Ian was fresh out of college and fired from that lobbying gig with that Realtors’ Association shortly before he accused Caserta, then took a job with a shady, Gillmor linked campaign. In closing, I’m on you Wadsworth, your McCarthyist character assassination/political stunt/distraction, and your little friends too!(the old SJ Inside boss and Ellenberg cheerleader Tom McEnery) and Lisa Gillmor’s Michael Cohen/Bannon/Roger Stone to her Trump and a blast from the past for the SJ Inside Jude Berry). Winter maybe over, but the truth is coming!

  7. From the press release

    The polygraph examiner concluded that Dominic Caserta passed with the highest score, 99.9%.

    https://www.apnews.com/ACCESSWIRE/34577ed67a8e0774b18f12f8ec4174a6

    Is a 99.9% score really credible? When I see something like that I always think the numbers are cooked up. The press release also claims, “examiner has conducted over eleven thousand polygraph examinations…” 11,000 seems like a lot of examinations.

    • Do research as to why these tests are not admissible in court to support or not a case. If he is sure that he has nothing to hide, he should take this to a civil court against all his alleged victims. His reputation and his high likelihood of becoming a supervisor were seriously harmed by these allegations. It appears he has a case. One might fight these suits with cleans hands. If not, it might just bring bigger skeletons out of a closet.

  8. Regardless of these tests being admissible, my BS detector goes off when I see numbers like 99.9% and that the examiner had conducted over 11,000 tests. 99.9% is better than Ivory Soap’s purity (99.44%), and 11,000 is almost as many as the number of women Wilt Chamberlain claimed to have had sex with.

    People are posting about fake news, but this press release is in the category of news for dummies.

  9. He scored 99.9% ??

    This guy must be the most holiest, spotless, wholesome, flawless, impeccable, immaculate, spotless, gleaming, pristine, untarnished, unblemished, person on earth to be that pure. God doesn’t even get that 99.9% polygraph score.

    But seriously,
    The reason why polygraphs are inadmissible, is because they are unreliable. Otherwise, they would be accepted by the courts.
    1-The main reason why polygraphs are inadmissible is because people who have little conscience,or are sociopaths, can easily pass a polygraph test.
    2-Some clergy molesters, who are known to have dozens of rape victims, have passed a polygraph test with a smile, even after they admitted to countless rapes and child molestation.
    3- Convicted criminals in jail who admitted to heinous crimes have volunteered to take polygraphs in experiments, and have successfully duped the polygraphs at will.
    4-Polygraphs can be manipulated by the person giving the test, and the desired results can be achieved depending on what the polygraphers intention is.
    5-You can also take lessons on fooling or passing the tests, or find a cooperating polygrapher for your rehearsed questions and answers.
    6- Expert witnesses are paid for what they do – to accomplish the purchased goal.
    All that said, the courts know this, and consider the polygraph results useless. As far as reaching a 99% score in a polygraph, refer to 1,2,3,4,5, and 6.

    It’s disgraceful to bash abuse victims. But it’s all too common.
    And it’s disgraceful to teach our children that coming forward courageously when you believe you have been sexually harassed or abused will get you re-victimized by the accused, and his fan club. It’s a shame.

    That’s why less than 10% of sex abuse victims come forward, because of bad behavior by people who should know better. You have to ask yourself why people don’t want to believe sex abuse victims, and the answer is scary.
    The people who usually say “if it happened to you, then why didn’t you come forward?”
    Are the same people who attack you when you do come forward. They don’t want to hear the truth at all, for any reason.

    I admire and commend all the abuse victims who courageously come forward, in light of the disgraceful attacks they endure.

    • I don’t know anything about polygraph tests, but 99.9% means 999 out of 1,000. Were there really anywhere near 1,000 discrete elements to score in Caserta’s test? This is what is known as “false precision.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

      In this particular instance, it doesn’t seem as though they are fudging. It seems like they are fabricating.

Leave a Reply to joey piscitelli Cancel reply