Beech, no reply to my reply concerning your post ?

Beech, you said:

Why not shut us all up by simply posting any case, any evidence, any charts, any criminal charges, anything in which a polygraph interrogation subject was caught-- not through virtue of verbal admission-- using the kinds of countermeasures advocated in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector.

A case was already discussed and posted (London & Krapohl).  George & Gino advised readers not to make admissions to CM and they will "pass" (which was a false and misleading statement).  The fact that the person described in London & Krapohl's article made an admission had no bearing on whether or not it was a CM.  As explained in the article, the decision the examinee engaged in CM was made prior to the admission being obtained.   

I could post a case to illustrate my point where the CM were detected, defeated with CCM and the person did not confess to the crime or the CM & was later convicted of the offense, but what would be the point?  It will not "shut you guys up" (that is not my objective here anyway...).  I like running into your readers in the field.  Some have confessed to CM (they obviously didn't read your literature thoroughly) and some have not confessed.  The fact is they were all listed as having employed CM.  As I have said before, some people will defeat an examiner not trained in CM and CCM - but not all of them.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:09pm:


None. You'll note that our arguments in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are based not on any claimed personal authority on our part, but on peer-reviewed research and other published material that skeptical readers may check.

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 5:13pm:


Probably not. For example, if a subject mistakes a relevant question for a "control" question and augments his reactions to it, he's likely to fail. However, the feedback we've received from those who report having employed countermeasures has been overwhelmingly positive.

Quote:


How much feedback have you received from those who reported not being successful?  There are obviously those who have been detected.

George, thank you for the link.  Interesting account.  A good example of what happens when one does not achieve the sub-maximal level you recommend.  I noticed that post was made in July, 2001.  The author didn't admit to the CM, yet still "failed" the test.  That's interesting, because your current edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, dated well after that post, said that as long as one doen’t admit to CM they will “pass.”  You and Gino obviously knew at the time you published your manual that the statement you made was not true, false, miseleading, etc. (also known as a “lie”).  Why did you knowingly make that false statement?  I see it as evidence of Lies contained in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.  

L72cueak,

You wrote:

Quote:


We did not write that one will pass as long as one does not admit to using countermeasures. Our reference was only with regard to "John" in London & Krapohl's article. As we've discussed above, I now agree that John may or may not have passed had he not admitted to having employed countermeasures.

Again, you didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.  

Quote:


You took a middle of the road type position on that one.  Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?  That makes no sense.