L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 8:18pm:


When London & Krapohl write, "It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any physical movement," they write with 20/20 hindsight. We cannot know what opinion London would have ultimately rendered absent "John's" admission that he employed countermeasures.

George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28^th, 2002 at 8:43pm:


One consideration that may have made London hesitate to accuse John of having employed countermeasures absent his admission is that John was described as a "high-priority candidate for employment with the federal government."

If London were prepared to render a decision that countermeasures were employed absent any admission from John, then he need not have bothered with the post-"test" interrogation. He could have simply rendered his opinion and shown John to the door.

London & Krapohl also place some importance on obtaining an admission when they write:

Quote:


The emphasis on interrogation strategies suggests that admissions are indeed of some importance to rendering a determination that a subject employed countermeasures.