The_Breeze wrote on Aug 15^th, 2003 at 4:38pm:

Dear Breeze,

As always, some more words to chew upon.  I cannot fault anyone on playing Devil's advocate.  I enjoy doing it myself far too many times.

The cool weather is coming and soon you will be too busy to use the keyboard.  This is good.

Regards.

Quote:


It's up to the judge or jury to decide how objective Drew is.  Opposing party is free to cross-examine Drew and try to show that he is biased, or even that he is no expert at all.

One can be objective and still take a strong position, as Drew does.  Objective does not mean neutral.  An objective person can state rather passionately that smoking is bad for your health, that Germany started WWII, that the earth is round, et al.  All of this may seem beyond doubt now, but that was not always the case.  I suspect the same will be true of polygraph.

Beech Trees,

No Back Pedaling here.  Nothing devastating about Drew's fabrication (it was far from observation).

If it could be inferred from this thread that anyone seeks popularity from testimony, the finger would point at Drew.  You've never seen me (or any other poly proponent) post articles about our testimony on this site.  It seems Drew was looking for an "atta boy" from his fellow anti-poly crusaders.  

Funny, you did not reply to what I addressed to you.  But then, snide remarks are about all you seem to be capable of.


Mark,

I agree with what you say about the trier of fact being provided with all the information necessary.  However, the testimony should either be provided by an objective party, or by both sides of opposing views on an issue.  This did not occur in this case.

Drew lost credibility as an objective party on the issue of polygraph validity/reliability when he signed on as the doctoral hero of this site.   By introducing Drew's testimony, the attorneys basically made polygraph reliability a deciding factor in the case.  Thus, for the judge to make an informed, objective decision he should have heard from an objective expert or from both sides of the issue.   

Let me say this for everyone's benefit.  In the past Drew and I have engaged in substantive, intelligent, perhaps even friendly, debate.  Looking back at my first post on this thread, I see nothing that was mean spirited.  Most of thread was addressing the substance of applicability of the different types of polygraph to this case.  But instead of debate on this substance I am met with personal attacks spun from one tongue in cheek comment stating that it was no longer just examiners at the bureau who might take issue with Drew.  This non-substantive approach has caused me great disappointment in Drew, and in George who followed suit strictly on this line of argument.

Public Servant,

You probably won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with your objection to Drew's testimony.

I scanned the exchanges, so forgive me if this is off point, but here it goes:

The trier of fact must assess witness credibility.  That assessment should be made on accurate information.  If an inveterate liar told me that you are an honest person, and I knew nothing else about you, I would be very skeptical.  It does not mean that I would think you were dishonest, only that I would not be at all convinced you were honest, based on the source.  If 5 honest people told me you were honest, then I would be inclined to believe in your honesty, absent something contradictory from a credible source.

Drew's testimony gives the trier of fact help with evaluating the credibility of the source.  Go ahead and believe the witness, Drew's testimony argues, but that belief should not be based on the polygraph test, which is not a credible source.  Note that Drew's testimony does not state that the witness should be disbelieved just because he passed a polygraph test.

You will disagree on the source's credibility.  But it seems to me completely uncontroversial that Drew would tell the trier of fact that they should not trust the credibility of the polygraph, no matter the nature of the case.  

Public Servant,

Still stinging from the devastating observation by Dr. Richardson that you apparently value the friendship and respect of your fellow law enforcement officers over the integrity and honesty one would expect during sworn expert testimony, I see.

If you backpedaled any faster there's be another Breeze in here.

Dave

Quote:

Beech Trees,

It's quite ironic that your example of corruption comes from the same organization (FBI Lab) for which Drew was such an esteemed member prior to his entry into the private sector.

George,

It's also quite fitting that you still insist that because two sentences were in the same summation paragraph, that one was dependent upon the other (regardless of the fact that no words made one part of the other).  

This type of groundless argument is likely quite indicative of the quality of the testimony provided in the case above.

My overall assessment of Drew's initial post is that it was was intended to provide a medium to brag about another attack on LE use of polygraph.  The part about the use of GKT was an attempt to  project blame for the dropping of a murder conspiracy investigation from himself (to whom the article clearly points) to his former agency.  He was obviously upset when I called him out on this. This would account for his (and your?) eagerness to take two unrelated sentences and spin them into slanderous attacks on me rather than addressing the substance.

And George, I don't expect Drew to respond to me.  I would hope that a PhD would know when his arguments had veered from substance into personal attacks.  And since I see little left to argue on your side regarding the actual point he tried to assert as his cover (see the title of the thread), I doubt he will post here, on this thread, further.

Oh yeah, and the court ruling on the Scheffer case is applicable to this argument.  The ruling was NOT supported by the government's argument regarding CMs... so this argument was likely just as inappropiate there as in this case.

Fair Chance
Good to hear from you as always, hope your application process is finally on track.  Any news of Stein?
Im gearing up for the start of bird and antelope season, no time for fishing...besides we have no water!
I guess my agreement with Public Servant looks like a law enforcement conspiricy to some.  You would have to see these characters in action, watch them travel the country to take specific cases, and distort events to fully appreciate what we are saying.  Since Its happened to me, I have some limited perspective.  I think PS is on track, and right to bring up the question.  Of course attacking Drew, or questioning his motives (as if they were unclear) on these pages will get a variety of hysterical responses from the ACLU wing.
It does not matter.  The overwhelming number of posters here have had a couple of experiences with polygraph and now consider themselves qualified to render an opinion.  At least I chose to educate myself before breaking squelch.  Best of luck-

The_Breeze wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 10:08pm:

Dear Breeze,

My postings have been few but I still read at this site and the frustration about the use of polygraph results seems abundant. 

You have seen the "dance" that goes on in the courtroom.  Both sides can be accused of "stepping on the toes of Justice" and even stomping on it sometimes.

Like most things in life, the appearance of being professional, polite, and honest is as important as its existence.

I just tend to think that any test which presents itself as a method to read one's mind is suspect.

I hope your summer fishing is going well.  I know you can't stay indoors that long.

Regards.

Filbert
Thanks for the little reminder why I dont bother to post much anymore.  Your replies are instructive though. I make a couple of comments about personal experiences and observations and you offer links to the police corruption library.  Do you have anything to bring to this discussion that is based on something you have been a part of, or personally witnessed?  Your hatred of LE abuses in general and polygraph in particular have my vote for vicarious warrior of the year.
I dont feel a need to clean anyones house, or take responsibility for what happened years ago in the FBI lab.  I thought we were having a discussion about "buying" testimony.  As you shuffle back to the library this afternoon ask yourself where you developed this antipathy towords Law enforcement?

Perhaps the revelations that the governement is more guilty of corruption than the defense side is with their respective expert witnesses is 'old news' to some;  it should be pointed out for the purposes of these current off topic posts that at least I have pointed to concrete evidence of 'your side's' corruption, whereas the accusations coming from your corner have yet to be substantiated, nor could they ever with regard to Dr. Richardson.

Regardless, if you'd like more recent examples of police corruption/perjury/criminal behavior, I can post links to an almost limitless list of stories concerning law enforcement's knowingly perjurious testimony in hundreds of criminal cases. Just let me know,

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 9:05pm:

Isn't this old news?  Isn't McVeigh already dead?  Let's at least keep it current.  By the way, you gotta watch those lab technicians.

LOS ANGELES -- Officials at the FBI's crime lab complained that agents pressured them to lie about their scientific findings and say supervisors sometimes altered their conclusions to support criminal prosecutions, the Los Angeles Times reported today. ..." 
        Among the potential impacts? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who writes for the London Telegraph, reports from Washington Feb. 2: "The government case in the Oklahoma City bombing trial, due to open next month, is disintegrating. ... 
        "The latest blow to the prosecution is a report that the FBI crime lab altered forensic conclusions to accommodate government claims that the blast, which killed 168 people in the spring of 1995, was caused by a 4,000-lb. ammonium nitrate bomb. ... With the FBI crime lab going through the worst crisis in the history of the Bureau, everything it touches is now tainted.
        Michael Sniffen of the Associated Press in Washington confirms as of Jan. 31: "One FBI supervisory agent, Dave Williams, who oversaw collection of explosives evidence at Oklahoma City, has been withdrawn as an expert witness in McVeigh's trial. ... Williams and two other lab supervisors criticized in the report were transferred out of the lab." 

Clean up your own house first, then start critiquing the other side.

The_Breeze wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 5:33pm:

Friends
Oh yes, the police expert. I have seen them all in a variety of topics from use of force shootings to pursuits.  Nothing could be more aggravating to a working LE officer trying to do a difficult and dangerous job than to have some retired administrator with 2 years of street experience, comment after the fact on the proper way to handle a violent and difficult incident they they themselves never experienced!  Cops call these gentlemen "whores" as they do indeed pander to defense attorney's and work against the profession....at a very high rate of pay. ( Yes, even when the officers were fully justified and action was proper) Now before some patriot tries to point out that I seem to be asking that no one ever testify against LE in cases of wrongful action, that is not the case.
Having investigated Internal affairs cases myself, there is no delimma for me.  But there exists a class of "expert" that has taken this service to a new level, and does not apply ethics in selecting when to testify voluntarily.  Is Drew this kind of person?  I dont know.  But should he be involved with any polygraph testimony in our area, it would be pointed out that there is an anti-polygraph affiliation, a lack of working experience in this area, personal and professional interest in a competing technology, and of course observations from co-workers. (Some of whom work at the national labs)  Other "experts" have not put thier agenda's on display as fully as Drew.
One thing is sure, testimony of all types is bought and sold daily at the federal and local level.

Public Servant,

Regarding DOJ lawyer Michael R. Dreeben's argument before the Supreme Court that "[t]he fundamental unreliability of polygraph evidence is underscored because of the possibility that countermeasures can defeat any test," you write:

Quote:


The Supreme Court's ruling is entirely irrelevant to the point I raised, which is that the U.S. Government has made the very same argument before our nation's highest court that Drew testified to in the detention hearing of Znetix defendants Michael Culp and Steven Reimer (and for which you have reproached him): that polygraph examinations can be defeated through countermeasures. That polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures is not speculation; it has been demonstrated in peer-reviewed research.

The anecdote you relate regarding the expert on false confessions is not relevant to the matter at hand: in any particular case, factors that might lead to a false confession may or may not have been present. By contrast, CQT polygraph results should never be considered as evidence before any court of law (or other decision-making body) under any circumstances because in all cases, CQT polygraphy is nothing more than pseudoscientific quackery.

Regarding your earlier remark to Drew:

Quote:
 

you write:

Quote:


You are dead wrong when you say that nothing linked the two. You linked them by putting them in consecutive sentences in a single paragraph. Your accusing Drew of "apparent pandering to defense attorneys" followed up with the remark that he "must be quite popular with your former Bureau colleagues (no longer limited to examiners)" strongly suggests a belief on your part that popularity with former Bureau colleagues should have been a consideration for Drew in connection with the testimony he provided (or his decision to provide testimony at all).

You have explained that the latter remark was intended "merely as a jab." But bear in mind that attempts at humor may not be readily apparent in the context of a text message, where nuances of spoken language, such as inflection, are absent.

Note also that Drew did not specifically accuse you of basing your testimony on popularity. Rather, what he wrote was (emphasis added):

Quote:


You, on the other hand, have directly and groundlessly accused Drew of "apparent pandering," prostitution, and having provided speculative testimony. Perhaps you should not be surprised if he chooses not to further respond to your postings here.

Public Servant, you have taken great umbrage at a perceived attack on your integrity, even though you are protected by the veil of anonymity. Perhaps this experience will help you to understand the righteous indignation of the many individuals whose honesty and integrity have been wrongly called into question on the basis of nothing more than polygraph chart readings.

George, 

After making my last post, I engaged in an unrelated conversation with a fellow investigator which reminded me of an anectdotal reply to your assertion that expert opinion should be provided whenever requested.

A few years back I was involved in obtaining a confession to murder (no poly involved).  The subject provided both a written statement and a video-taped confession.

As the trial date approached, I was informed by the prosecutor that defense was consulting an expert on false confessions (psychiatrist or psychologist, I believe).  Just prior to the trial, I was informed that the expert witness was not going to testify.   

After the trial , I heard that the expert witness reviewed the statements and circumstances surrounding the statements and apparently he felt the statements did not fit the criteria of his research for false statements (and he might also have felt that the physical evidence indicated the confession was not false).   

Following your assertion, this professional should have provided testimony about how a confession could be false, even though he believed this one was not.   

In my opinion, this was a man of integrity because he would not allow his expertise to be misused (and thus possibly discredited) to disprove (or provide doubt to) something it did not.  Whether it was his decision or the defense counsel's decision to pull him from the witness list, no doubt it was his candor with counsel that prevented him from testifying.  Perhaps this display integrity applied to counsel and expert alike.

Now mind you, I only have word of mouth information about why this expert did not testify.  But given this set of circumstances, am I wrong here?  Do you think this expert witness was somehow morally flawed?  Should he have testified about possibilities of false confession if he did not believe it occurred in the case at hand?
   
Drew testified about CMs to discredit the exam and ultimately the witness; yet he had no reason to beleive they had been practiced.  That's the bottom line to my view on that issue.

Cheers.

George,

Quote:


I think a potential expert witness should be guided by his/her conscience.  In this case I feel such an expert should have seen that his testimony did not provide solid evidence of what the defense was trying to say.  

However, you are correct that any evidence allowable should be presented.  Perhaps my concern is misdirected and should directed at the fact that the AUSA did not obtain an expert to counter Drew's testimony and that the judge saw the speculation he raised as sufficient to vacate the charge.

This argument might have been raised in the SCHEFFER case, however, the ruling to disallow the polygraph evidence was not based upon this argument.  Rather the court ruled that since the MCM includes a rule of evidence specifically disallowing polygraph, it could not be introduced.  The court said the MCM is signed by the President in his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and thus could not be overruled by the court.  It goes on to say that differing views on reliability of polygraph makes it reasonable for various jurisdictions to make their own determinations on admissibility, thus the decision to do so is not arbitrary.  (Forgive my paraphrase.)

Quote:


I disagree.  Though Drew might not have said "you must disbelieve the informant", his testimony was clearly used to make this statement.  If one person said derogatory information about you (correlate to the sister's letter in the article), yet you passed your polygrah exam, would you want an "expert" to tell the adjudicator that the person providing derogatory info (who might just have a grudge to settle) is more credible than you and the exam you passed?

Quote:


I must respectfully disagree with you.  Here's what I said:
Quote:


The two were separate statements.  The latter was a half-joking reference to the fact that he might have allowed subjects who wish to kill an FBI agent to prevent prosecution for illicit business practices, to go free.  The first statement was a separate thought (hence the separate sentence).   Nothing I said linked the two and to imply that I use popularity to guide my testimony was pure FABRICATION.  Nothing logically linked the two except wild conjecture (may I borrow your term?) in a sad attempt to attack me rather than the real substance of the argument.

In terms of proving validity of an assertion, this assessment of my statement is very unscientific; as is the defense attorneys use of Drew's testimony in discrediting the informant in the cited case.  I am a bit disappointed to see this from a scientist and supposed subscriber to science.

I guess I've been pretty successful in my arguments regarding what formats were and were not applicable in this case.  No one seems to want to continue that topic.  Drew left two messages, both of which only addressed my credibility.

As an aside, in the latter of those last messages, Drew seemed to insinuate I would only criticize someone testifying for the defense.  He obviously missed the thread wherein, George, you and I discussed my extensive experience in providing support to the defense.  Again the scientist makes unsubstantiated insinuations about me personally, yet avoids the substance.  Could it be that a little old layman like myself has Dr. Drew on the defensive?  I don't understand it.

Take care.

Public Servant,

I will defer to Drew regarding the applicability of the GKT to the case at hand, but would like to address some of the other points you raised. You write:

Quote:


As I wrote earlier, I find this notion troubling. You seem to be saying that expert witnesses like Drew should voluntarily withhold relevant expert testimony depending on the way one thinks the case should be decided. Isn't justice better served when the trier of fact has access to as much relevant evidence as possible?

Drew's testimony that polygraph examinations can be defeated through countermeasures is hardly speculative. It has been demonstrated through peer-reviewed research. The U.S. Government itself has made this very argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in arguing against the admissibility of polygraph evidence. In U.S. v. Scheffer, DOJ lawyer Michael R. Dreeben noted that "[t]he fundamental unreliability of polygraph evidence is underscored…because of the possibility that countermeasures can defeat any test."

Making the observation that CQT polygraphy can be beaten through the use of countermeasures is not the same as arguing that a person did in fact use countermeasures. But the very fact that polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures speaks to the unreliability of polygraph results.

You write:

Quote:


You've drawn a false analogy here. Drew wasn't arguing that Park should be disbelieved, but rather that his having passed a polygraph examination is not reliable evidence that he told the truth.

Finally, I wish to clarify that it was not at all my intention to insinuate that you base your testimony on popularity. To the contrary, and as I noted, I'm glad that you clarified that you do not base your testimony on popularity, and that your remark about it to Drew was "merely a jab." I'm sorry if my remarks may have appeared to be facetious or tongue-in-cheek; I didn't intend them to be.

But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "[n]othing in [your] post insinuated [you] would ever consider basing testimony on popularity." I think the wording of your first reply to Drew regrettably lent itself to that interpretation.

George,

Quote:


No, I am suggesting one should determine whether justice is best served by the testimony asked of him.

Here's why I characterize the testimony as speculative:
Quote:


The article says that basically Drew said the test could be defeated by CMs so it is not indicative of truth.  This enabled the attorney to draw a speculative conclusion that Park "beat" the test.  Yet there is not a speck of evidence to support that Park even knew what a CM was.  It is also speculative to say that CMs could not have been identified by the examiner. 

If this is not a speculative conclusion, then no one who has passed their screening exam would mind having Drew tell their agency's adjudicator that they should not believe the applicants.  Since they might have (without evidence) known about or practiced countermeasures, they should be disqualified.  A little different when put that way, eh?

Perhaps I should not be upset with Drew.  He is being true to his anti-polygraph (anti-establishment?) ways.  I 'm shocked the AUSA did not find an expert without an anti-poly axe to grind.  The AUSA seemed as in awe of the PhD as the judge.  Neither seemed to question any of it.  The judge seemed to say, well if Drew says so, Park must have used countermeasures.  And the AUSA just threw up his hands in defeat, as if he agreed.

Here's the other thing that bothers me; if Park really didn't hear the conversation, how was he able to name the FBI SA that worked the case on the other two?

I stated the screwdriver (CQT) fit, because it was the only tool left to test the validity of Park's claims... Well, other than SI R/I.  A CQT was quite appropriate to testing Park's claims.

Quote:


George, how in the hell can you or Drew go from me saying he's losing popularity with his former LE colleagues, to insinuating I base testimony on popularity.  This is LUDICROUS, BASELESS, and SLANDEROUS.  I obviously know Drew does not care about popularity with LE.  You should know I have devoted my adult life to integrity and justice.

This was a HUGE stretch by any measure.  While I admit, I was a bit harsh and sarcastic in this thread, I did not question anyone's competence or character ... just their decision making processes.  

This is an on-going, unapologetic, BASELESS attack on my very fiber.  Yet both you and Drew seem to spend more time on that than on the substance of my argument.  This choice to spin my comments into ad homenem character attacks, brings both of your credibility into question.  Nothing in my post insinuated I would ever consider basing testimony on popularity.

Now anyone care to address the substance here?!
The thread is titled "A Case for Concealed Information Testing," yet I am the only one discussing whether this is such a case.  

Or perhaps we could discuss the use of CQT to test the accuser in this case....

Or perhaps we could discuss whether justice (or public safety) was served in this case....

Or you can go on making up things about the character on which I have based my LE career; in which case I will conclude that even Drew and George can no longer stick to the substance of the debate.  Has everyone here become Beech Trees and Batman?!

Public Servant,

Are you suggesting that retired law enforcement officers should not voluntarily provide expert testimony for the defense when the charges are serious? Isn't justice better served by all relevant testimony being heard?

You've accused Drew of having given "speculative" testimony. I don't see on what basis you make that claim. Specifically what testimony did Drew provide that you believe to be speculative?

Is not CQT polygraphy itself an exercise in speculation? (After the National Academy of Sciences report, virtually no one is seriously claiming that polygraphy has any scientific basis.)

You asserted that in the case in which Drew testified, "...The Bureau used the only tool left (CQT) to corroborate (or refute) a very serious accusation.... " Drew replied (quite reasonably, I think) that using the CQT in this situation was liking using a screwdriver for a job that requires a wrench, to which you replied, "The screwdriver fit quite well here, my friend." On what basis do you make this assertion?

I'm glad that you've clarified that your remark about Drew's popularity with his former colleagues was "merely a jab," and that you would not jeapordize your integrity over concerns about popularity. But I think your jab was an inappropriate and unfortunate one, that, in the context in which it appeared, logically leads to the inference that you might condition your testimony on the anticipated reaction of colleagues.

What I still find troubling, though, is your apparent suggestion that someone such as Drew (that is, someone who is under no compulsion to testify) should voluntarily withhold relevant expert testimony depending on the way one thinks the case should be decided.

Drew,

OK, hopefully that will end our bout of couter-attacks and defensiveness.  

Here's my point in reference to GKT:
In my opinion, it would be foolhardy to base a GKT entirely on the testimony of one witness.  The information (details of the conversation) could be unreliable, while the overall picture (the conspiracy conversation) might have occurred.  The suspect(s) might recall the details differently than the informant and now they have little response to the keys you used.  Yet a criminal conspiracy might have occurred.  

Would that be a false negative; or an invalid exam due to faulty keys?  I'd go with the latter.  That's the problem, you could not be sure of the validity of your keys with only one witness's account.

Ever take statements from various well-meaning eywitnesses to a crime and get differing details; and/or details differ from the physical evidence.  It's a flaw in human memory.   

Here's another illustration:  In school you have someone read a passage then pass it around the class from memory.  By the last person, you get an entirely different passage.  

This is why I'd be hesitant to use a GKT with the suspects in such an instance, based on one persons testimony.  

Don't get me wrong, I think the GKT is an extremely reliable tool.  It just has to be planned for in advance and used when you have very concrete keys, sure to be in the perpetrator's memory.

I'll use your analogy to tools.  The GKT is the wrench.  It is a sturdier, perhaps more reliable tool, but useless on a phillips head screw.  When faced with the screw, you have to lay the wrench aside and use what works. In this case, the screwdriver is the useful, if un-loved, CQT.

Regards.

Drew,

First of all, perhaps, "prostituting" was a bit harsh a term.  No doubt the defendent has a right to present a defense; and if evidence of culpability will be presented  he has the right to "attack" that evidence by reasonable means.  

However, if I were you, and I looked at the facts of this case, I would decline to provide the testimony desired.  The defense wanted someone to give some doubt to the polygraph results.  However, this doubt you provided them did not disprove the allegation and likely dismissed a case against persons who were a danger to society.  They used your "expert" testimony to speculate that the polygraph was a false positive.  I would like to think that most, regardless of their leanings on the issue of CQT, would not allow their expertise to be used for such a stretch. (What I fail to understand is why the judge used this to override the informatn testimony -- why would Park make this up?-- and why didn't prosecution have a rebuttal witness). 

No doubt you were sought out by defense counsel due to your anti-polygraph leanings.  If, say, Dr. Barland had been called, an equally (perhaps more) qualified  expert, the expert testimony would likely have been in favor of the validity of the exam and absent your opinin that CMs are not detectable.  Perhaps you even sought to provide this testimony to present your views to the court system and seek case precedence which could end CQT exams in LE (and I thought you were only after screening). 

I characterized this testimony negatively, not because of the substance, but because of its use.  I would not care if you were providing culpatory or exculpatory evidence; when you have a choice, you should make a decision (to provide such testimony) based on whether the use of the testimony is appropriate and for the common good.  I think this was for neither.  I am entitled to that opinion and I'm sure I am not alone.

I have never had a choice in my testimony.  I have always been summoned to court as a witness (investigator).  The testimony was always truthful, whether given for defense or prosecution (and sometimes not polular with my co-workers).  I was giving testimony in such a capacity long before I became an examiner, and wil continue to due so with the utmost integrity.

Your insinuation that I would jeopardize my integrity due to popularity was GROUNDLESS SPIN!!  My mention of your popularity with LE colleagues was merely a jab regarding your CHOICE to give testimony in this instance.  If you feel you made a good moral decision to provide such testimony, then you should have not have a need to question my courtroom integrity in response.  I did not question the integrity of your testimony, just its use and your decision to provide it.  I'd have expected such low level comments from the poster just before your response, but I did not expect such from you.

Public Servant,

I suppose, because i will be unavailable for some time with other matters, a few additional comments to my last reply to you are in order.  With regard to the matter involved, although only I provided oral testimony for the defense, the written publications and comments of at least two other Ph.D.s were presented to the court.  Although I have not been paid in the matter and have not yet provided the formal request for such payment, if I am paid it will be by the court, not the defense counsel, in part inasmuch as my testimony and that of the prosecution witnessess was at a hearing requested by the judge to resolve various issues of concern to her.  With regard to present activities, amonst other things, I am currently involved in a  criminal matter involving polygraph examinations and one in which four Ph.D.s (none of whom conducted any of the polygraph examinations involved) will likely provide sworn testimony.  Would you categorize us all as prostitutes or only those testifying for the defense?  Again, I will suggest very strongly to you that if you ever made such a blanket allegation about others (a group of well-educated experts) before a court of law, you would only serve to impeach your own testimony.  Regards,

Public Servant,

I will address the other aspects of your questions and comments as they apply to the issue of a possible concealed information test in this case when i have more time.  With regard to the first issue you raise, I would suggest that if you don't want your concerns about friends confused with your concerns about proper expert testimony that you not bring up the former in connection with a discussion dealing with the latter.  The latter is immaterial and irrelevant at best and should not in any way be associated with the former.  The discussion and this thread had nothing to do with old times and friends at the Bureau but specifically with expert testimony as well as the possibility of a having done a concealed information test in the matter at hand.  You have only yourself to blame if there is any lingering question(s) about your motives when providing testifying.  Note also that I did not categorically state that your testimony would be so affected and directed, but pointed out how clearly wrong such would be if that were the case.  Again I can only advise you if and when you ever do testify that you never make any references in court to the impact of that testimony on friends and colleagues.  Again, I don’t have time to deal with it now, but I take great exception to your commentary suggesting that those who testify for the defense on polygraph examinations conducted by another are prostituting Ph.D.s.  Regards,

Drew,

Quote:


I had to address this first because it was quite infuriating!!!!!!  You dare question my integrity as a witness!!  I would never jeopardize my integrity on the stand.  I also only testify to facts about an investigation.

You on the other hand testified in this case as an "expert witness."  You had no first hand knowledge of the case.  You chose to testify in this case for no other purpose then to condemn the investigating agency's attempts to corroborate or refute informant information regarding a possible murder of LE agents.  

You did not answer my question about whether you were paid?!!  Perhaps pandering was a euphemism; prostituting your PhD might have been more appropriate.  I'll bet there weren't many other PhD's or ex-LE standing in line to provide this testimony for this case.  Beech says I attack the Constitution by saying this, but does he know that expert testimony is NOT compulsory?! I believe in expert testimony, but one's own morals should decide if they wish to have their expertise used as the attorney wants.

THIS ATTACK ON THE EXAM (your testimony) DID NOT DISPROVE THAT THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE.  It likely did take place but the only witness was easily discredited.  The exam lended credibility to the witness. The article you provide makes it appear that your voluntary testimony was the one thing that caused the case to be dismissed.

When I spoke of popularity, it was in regard to your choice to give speculative expert testimony; not in regard to whether honesty was more important than popularity.  PLEASE.

And I repeat that it was speculative.  You have no reason to believe Park practived CMs...only that he could have.  And posters here say the problem is not identifying a lie, but identifying the truth.  They say the problem is false positives.  Your testimony deals with false negative.  

Honestly, Drew, I think you started this thread because you wanted some reassurance for your conscience from contributors to this site.  "Disconcerting" might have been too light as well.  It is disturbing that you have helped discredit an allegation, which just might have been completely true.  

Quote:


The screwdriver fit quite well here, my friend.

Quote:


Specious? If you say so. Beech has eloquently pointed out that I'm inexperienced here.  But, do you disagree that you need concrete facts for a GKT?  Isn't the existence or non-existence of a conspiracy the issue, not if memory of details by all parties present were the same?  Please give me an educated answer, if I am so lacking here.  

I've been dealing with testimonial evidence my entire adult life.  Details often get lost or confused with otherwise honest people.  Weren't you an FBI agent?!

It's intersting that you also avoided my question about on whom you would place blame if these persons carried out their plan.  Hopefully just going to court for it will be deterrent enough for these guys. 

Regards.

Public Servant,

Nice to see you as always,

You write:

Quote:


As well you and others should be who seek to utilize purported diagnostic tools (e.g., CQT exams) lacking diagnostic validity (I acknowledge some (although an unknown) degree of utility in those cases resulting in admissions and/or confessions which can be independently corroborated) ...

You further write:

Quote:


This is kind of like saying if you have a job that requires a wrench and all you have is a screwdriver with you, go ahead and use the screwdriver...I don't think so....and continuing with my analogy, I believe the apparent lack of effort in pursuing (including requesting such of the defense) the much preferable GKT is analogous to not really looking for the right tool in the first place...

You further write:

Quote:


I think this line of reasoning is rather specious--all that is known about this matter (as far as I have been made aware) comes through one accuser.  If there was an absence of credible specific information provided by this one source, then there would have been no basis to take such an allegation seriously in the first place--an allegation that would have to be considered in any regard with a careful eye in that it was allegedly offered by a known and established liar.  I find it highly unlikely that an honest individual relating that which he had been told regarding a conspiracy to commit murder would not or could not provide many useful key items related to methods planned for the alleged murder, timing of the alleged act, as well as the circumstances (location, time of day, etc) and nature of the event/act in which the allegation was made by the alleged co-conspirators, etc....

You further write:

Quote:


Although I value friends and approval of present and former colleagues as much as you and others, such a comment in connection with courtroom testimony would suggest to me that if this would be a consideration for you, your testimony should be summarily discounted by any and all courts and that you should forever be impeached as a result of such a personally held and publicly stated opinion.  The basis for proper expert testimony relates to an honest appraisal of the facts at hand and in no way should be influenced by the winning or losing of friends in the short term or long term.  I am quite disappointed with such a comment from you as well as your blanket (no qualifications/no explanations as to how it might relate to this case) characterization of testifying for the defense as pandering.  Regards as always…