L72cueak,
Thank you for sharing your criticisms, which are welcome. We bear in mind Benjamin Franklin's admonition that our critics are our friends, for they show us our faults.
You write:
Quote:You gentlemen have quoted people and declared they have "lied" and have gone as far as to admonish them.
Actually, I think in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector we've only made reference to
one person having lied, namely David M. Renzelman, who is the chief of the Department of Energy's polygraph program. The lie in question, which relates to his publicly stated rationale for directed-lie "control" questions, is documented at p. 35 and is explained in greater detail in my article,
"The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage." When you speak of admonishment, I suppose you're referring to my admonishment of Mr. Renzelman in my recent post,
DOE Polygraph Chief David M. Renzelman Caught in a Lie. This post involves a different public lie, and is also well-documented.
If you dispute that Mr. Renzelman lied in either instance, please explain.
With regard to the American Polygraph Association quarterly
Polygraph not having ever published a single article explaining how polygraphers can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (see p. 136, not 135), in the article by London & Krapohl you cite, no methodology is presented beyond a vague suggestion in the article conclusion that a relatively large reaction to a single "control" question and lack of "habituation" over several chart presentations may trigger suspicion.
For the benefit of readers without ready access to the article in question, here is how London describes his "detection" of the subject's ("John's") countermeasures in the main body of the article:
Quote:Following the pretest, John sat quietly in the chair as the sensors were placed on him. On the first chart, John's breathing appeared to be slow, but not uncharacteristic of other subjects tested in the past. There were no notable responses until the examiner asked the first comparison question (CQ) (3C6) [reference to illustration deleted]. The cardiograph and electrodermal tracings started moving upward and the response appeared normal. As the pens continued rising beyond that expected of a normal response, London became concerned about its authenticity. There may be no scientific explanation for the sense that something was wrong, other than the response was simply out of proportion with the general trend of other responses. London continued presenting the test questions, and when asked the next CQ, (C9) [reference to illustration deleted] there was no response. This seemed odd because if John's psychological set was truly on the comparison questions, where was the response to C9?
From the beginning of Chart II, [reference to illustration deleted] examiner London watched John closely to see if he was doing anything to help create responses. John did not appear to move, and there were no indications that he was manipulating his responses. When he was asked 3C6, the response looked like a mirror image of 3C6 on Chart I. Now there were two identical responses to the same question 3C6 [reference to illustration deleted] and different from any other question on the test. London suspected that John was creating the responses but needed more evidence. On Chart III, [reference to illustration deleted] John reacted again to 3C6 with the same intensity and appearance as on Chart I and II. It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any movement. London wondered how long John would keep manufacturing a response at 3C6, so it was asked again on Chart III. Once more John created a response similar to the previous ones on 3C6.
Considering the evidence, London confronted John on purposely using Cms during testing. Since it was still unclear how he produced the Cms, London decided to use a direct approach without mentioning terms associated with Cms, or trying to guess what he was actually doing. John would be looking for an interrogation weakness and certainly take advantage of any vague accusations. After removing the sensors, London sat down in a chair next to him.
"John, I know what you are doing," London said firmly. John paused silently and then began his denials with poor verbal responses and behaviors often associated with deception. London used a host of logical themes while avoiding any reference to a specific Cm. After a while, John admitted he used a combination of Cms by biting his tongue and contracting his sphincter muscle each time he was asked 3C6.
If you see in London & Krapohl's article any methodology for detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, please explain it, and please be specific.
If London & Krapohl meant to present a methodology for detecting countermeasures, and not just a case study (as their title, "A Case Study in PDD Countermeasures" suggests), then perhaps they would care to accept Drew Richardson's
polygraph countermeasure challenge.
You raise a good point with regard to our statement, "Had he not made the admission he would have passed." The subject would have passed
based on numerical scoring of his charts, but the polygrapher might have countermanded that based on his unverified suspicion that the subject had employed countermeasures. In the message thread
Countermeasure considerations for the innocent, Gordon Barland mentioned that federal polygraphers may be at liberty to render an opinion that a subject has employed countermeasures in the absence of an admission. I think that some clarification of this point is in order for the 3rd edition of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and I thank you for calling it to our attention.
Please don't hesitate to mention anything else in the book or on this website that you think is false, misleading, or otherwise unfair.
Pages: [1] 
Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Read 80921 times)
