George,
Quote:Are you suggesting that retired law enforcement officers should not voluntarily provide expert testimony for the defense when the charges are serious? Isn't justice better served by all relevant testimony being heard?
No, I am suggesting one should determine whether justice is best served by the testimony asked of him.
Here's why I characterize the testimony as speculative:
Quote:
Drew Richardson, a former FBI agent who specializes in lie detection, said the tests can be defeated if a person employs simple physical tasks such as biting his cheek or mental exercises such as doing complex arithmetic.
The article says that basically Drew said the test could be defeated by CMs so it is not indicative of truth. This enabled the attorney to draw a speculative conclusion that Park "beat" the test. Yet there is not a speck of evidence to support that Park even knew what a CM was. It is also speculative to say that CMs could not have been identified by the examiner.
If this is not a speculative conclusion, then no one who has passed their screening exam would mind having Drew tell their agency's adjudicator that they should not believe the applicants. Since they might have (without evidence) known about or practiced countermeasures, they should be disqualified. A little different when put that way, eh?
Perhaps I should not be upset with Drew. He is being true to his anti-polygraph (anti-establishment?) ways. I 'm shocked the AUSA did not find an expert without an anti-poly axe to grind. The AUSA seemed as in awe of the PhD as the judge. Neither seemed to question any of it. The judge seemed to say, well if Drew says so, Park must have used countermeasures. And the AUSA just threw up his hands in defeat, as if he agreed.
Here's the other thing that bothers me; if Park really didn't hear the conversation, how was he able to name the FBI SA that worked the case on the other two?
I stated the screwdriver (CQT) fit, because it was the only tool left to test the validity of Park's claims... Well, other than SI R/I. A CQT was quite appropriate to testing Park's claims.
Quote:I'm glad that you've clarified that your remark about Drew's popularity with his former colleagues was "merely a jab," and that you would not jeapordize your integrity over concerns about popularity. But I think your jab was an inappropriate and unfortunate one, that, in the context in which it appeared, logically leads to the inference that you might condition your testimony on the anticipated reaction of colleagues.
George, how in the hell can you or Drew go from me saying he's losing popularity with his former LE colleagues, to insinuating I base testimony on popularity. This is
LUDICROUS, BASELESS, and SLANDEROUS. I obviously know Drew does not care about popularity with LE. You should know I have devoted my adult life to integrity and justice.
This was a HUGE stretch by any measure. While I admit, I was a bit harsh and sarcastic in this thread, I did not question anyone's competence or character ... just their decision making processes.
This is an on-going, unapologetic, BASELESS attack on my very fiber. Yet both you and Drew seem to spend more time on that than on the substance of my argument.
This choice to spin my comments into ad homenem character attacks, brings both of your credibility into question. Nothing in my post insinuated I would ever consider basing testimony on popularity.
Now anyone care to address the substance here?!
The thread is titled "A Case for Concealed Information Testing," yet I am the only one discussing whether this is such a case.
Or perhaps we could discuss the use of CQT to test the accuser in this case....
Or perhaps we could discuss whether justice (or public safety) was served in this case....
Or you can go on making up things about the character on which I have based my LE career; in which case I will conclude that even Drew and George can no longer stick to the substance of the debate. Has everyone here become Beech Trees and Batman?!