Suethem,

If you can make the time to do so, you might wish to contact the agencies you mentioned yourself regarding Gelb's false claim to be a Ph.D.

I think that this topic would be a great story for an investigative reporter. It would be of national  -- and not just local -- interest.

Saidme,

I agree that Mr Gelb most likely testified about confessions in court and it may have little impact on that; however, whether he is a polygraph examiner or a doctor, lawyer, or indian chief, does it not matter if a person falsely represents his/her credentials to a court of law?   

If one will lie/misrepresent their credentials what else has one lied/misrepresented in a court of law?  If he perjured himself over his credentials, how can the court take his accounting of a confession as being truthful?  It all comes down to a matter of ethics.   

We may or may not agree with polygraph, but I believe no matter what you do in life if it is based on a lie, then you lack all character and credibility as a person.  Will the APA care if a past president falsely represented his academic credentials?  One would hope so, but I think APA President Skip Webb and crew really don’t care.  If they (APA) did care, they would have urged Mr Gelb to confront this allegation as soon as it was brought up

True, in the end the bad guys are still the bad guys, but when a “good guy” must falsely represent himself…. Is he really one of the good guys?  No one is putting the police on trial here.  I don’t believe Ed Gelb has ever been a sworn office of the law, only a publicity and money hungry private sector polygraph examiner.

Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


We can be confident that Ed Gelb has testified to matters other than admissions he may have obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations. As I noted in an earlier post in this message thread (perhaps you missed it), Mr. Gelb filed a court declaration in San Francisco Superior Court in a civil suit filed by Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird against Lori Copabianca Haigh, who had hired Gelb's services. Presumably, Haigh did not submit any opinion by Mr. Gelb that she had been deceptive with regard to her claims against Monsignor Baird.

Your assumption that Gelb "probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations" short-sighted. Gelb's services are for hire, and the results of the polygraph examinations he conducts with regard to civil litigation are presumably protected by attorney-client priviledge. If the results of any polygraph examination Gelb is hired to conduct are not to the client's liking, they will not be introduced as evidence in court.

But even if Gelb had only testified with regard to admissions obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations, this would in no way excuse the fraud he has committed against the courts (and his clients) by falsely representing himself as a Ph.D.

Regarding Gelb's bogus degree, you write:

Quote:


A doctoral degree from an unaccredited institution is no degree at all. Mr. Gelb is fraudulently presenting himself to the public and the courts as a Ph.D. Are you willing to excuse such fraud simply because Gelb is a fellow polygraph operator?

Quote:


No one is putting the police on trial. Ed Gelb is not a cop. He is is, however, a former LAPD lieutenant and a past president of the American Polygraph Association.

Boys and Girls

Don't misinterpret my posts as defenses for Mr Gelb.  I think my feelings on this guy are quite clear.   

As to the rest of the information, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  You guys/gals are out waving the flag and crying about how this store bought examiner has lied and deceived the courts.  At the same time, you're providing known convicted criminals with information you perceive will assist them in getting through court ordered polygraph examinations.  Potentially allowing them to reoffend.  Then you'll attack  the polygraph profession for allowing this terrible thing to occur.  And you'll do this from your high idealistic plateau you've created for yourselves probably patting each other on the back because you've protected our great nation (even the world) from the deceitful polygraph monster.  You guys make me sick.  You should all be charged as accessories.

BT

I guess I'm puzzled by your response.  Where in that thread did I say CM's are not detectable?  I think I wrote:  "with information you perceive will assist them..."  Perceive would be the operative word in that phrase.  Please don't misinterpret that I've changed my stance on detecting CM's.  I do concede that a ill prepared examiner could give credibility to your crude CM's you pitch on that website.   

As to the remaining thread, I noticed you decided not to respond to the hypocrisy charge.  I understand.

Does anyone know when Mr. Gelb was an guest instructor at the FBI's advanced polygraph course?

It would be interesting to find out if this was after he started claiming to have a PhD.

I wonder if the FBI just took him at face value, or actually checked his background?

How sad it would be if Ed Gelb has held his academic history out to be something that it was not.  I know Mr. Gelb personally.  For the life of me I cannot understand why he would do that since he had already achieved the pinnacle of success.  He has been the president of Intercept which he started in the early 70's, he is the past president of the American Polygraph Association and I know from personal experience that he is an extraordinary skilled interviewer.  I know these things because I used to work with Ed as an investigator back in the early 70's and while I knew him to be a talented and tough investigator, I also knew him to be quite fair and extremely honest.  While I have not had much interaction with him over these past fifteen or twenty years, and while I am a direct competitor of his firm, on the occasions that I have sought his help, he has taken the time to work with me.  I do know that quite a few polygraph examiners were getting mail order degress but Ed Gelb is a uniquely smart man whom I suspect would not shortcut this process.  I could be wrong and sincerely hope that I am.  If I am wrong, while extremely dissapointed, my own experiences with him would insist that I recall him in a very positive way.  I could never discard all the great work that he has done to clear the innocent and identify the guilty.  I know that this post will draw the ire of many, and yes, I too have been an investigator and polygraph technician for almost forty years.  I have made no attempt to hide this and unlike what some of you want to believe about Mr. Gelb, he has always been very straightforward with me and those of us who have worked with him in the past.  As I have done for almost four decades, I will save my final opinion until all of the evidence is in.  Anyone who has ever been accused of a crime would expect nothing less.  By Federal statute, Mr. Gelb and all other polygraph examiners must preserve the polygraph charts for a period of five years.  Mr. Gelb knows full well that his work could be inspected at any time by any interested Federal agency and while serious questions now exist about his academic training, I have, and will continue to have the highest level of confidence in his polygraph work.  Incidentally, he was voted into the presidency of the A.P.A. by his peers and as I recall, it was a landslide win.  During his tenure with that office, I recall a campaign wherein he did a massive survey on the voluntariness of those taking the test and he has done extraordinary validity and reliability research.  I know that because I participated in that research.