OK I'm trying to understand what's going on here.  So someone who is or has an understanding of the process of polygraph was under criminal investigation and was polygraphed? That person either after being polygraphed or during the polygraph confessed?  Sorry, I don't know what an LEA examiner or DI is.  

So, if from what I read in the "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" are true and some emails to head polygraph officials about the scenario about a guy who knows the "interrogation" tactics of polygraph.  Shouldn't they 1) not polygraph the guy   but since they did 2) couldn't the man under investigation beat the polygraph or 3) at least refuse the polygraph on the basis that it could produce a false positive because he knows the process?

Is it because only people who know what countermeasures are can beat the polygraph or at least create false positives?

DI verified by confession?  How do you know it wasn't a false confession?  Was there a follow up investigation?  What criminal matter was at issue?

Wait a minute.  Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't the confession be verified by the polygraph given it's 98% accuracy rate at detecting deception?  And given that a criminal polygraph is really an interrogation designed to get a confession, wouldn't that be using a confession to verify a confession?

That there is what ya call a "conundrum"!

TC

I polyed a LEA examiner in a criminal matter at the request of his department.  DI verified by confession.

I've never heard of a polygrapher being polygraphed in the course of a criminal investigation. But federal agencies that require polygraph screening for applicants and employees also polygraph their polygraphers. If only for appearance's sake, they have to.

I was wondering if professional polygraph persons are polygraphed for whatever reasons? Lets say for example a polygraph professional allegedly committed a crime or is trying to apply for a FBI position.  Are they administered a polygraph exam?  Isn't there federal and state guidelines for this?