Quote:Actually, Mark did not exactly write that he believed deception to create a response. What he wrote was, "I find it plausible that a lie will produce a strong reaction, and that reaction will be reflected on the charts during a stim test."
It should be pointed out that during the stim test, when the examinee denies having written the number he actually wrote, any reaction produced has nothing to do with a willful act of deception. The examinee's denial that he wrote the number he actually did is an act of compliance with the polygrapher's instructions and not an act of deception.
First of all I see little difference with my paraphrase (from memory at the time) and the actual quote you provided. I'd leave it to Mark to say for sure if I misrepresented his statement. I would be the last to do so.
Likewise, while being told to write a number is not deceiving the examiner, giving an answer that is not true, is certainly a lie. This coincides even better with Mark's direct quote.
It appears to me we have reduced this from substantive argument to semantics.
You have correctly assessed my view on witnessing of exams.
On the topic of naming agencies who do these type of exams, I would say that doing so might indicate I work for one of these agencies. Giving hint to the agency for whom I work, might give room for the inference I sought to avoid. Besides, there are many agencies who employ examiners at the local, state, andfederal level. I couldn't name all or even know if all of them run these types of exams.
I think that I can provide the service you seek, by stating that most agencies would allow the attorney to be present, or make an agreement to no post as I mentioned, if the exam was requested by counsel or set up as an agreement between prosecutor and defense counsel. If one is in a situation wherein their attorney suggests (or they request the attorney to set up) an exculpatory exam, the best way to ensure they obtain this type of agreement is to demand it of their attorney. The defense counsel can not force the client to do anything any more than the prosecution, so demand he enter into such an agreement and/or witness the exam as a prerequisite.
Also, as an aside, some jurisdictions have examiners who work for the prosecutors office, or even the public defender's office.
And don't worry George, no one will mistake you as speaking for the FBI.