Public Servant,

Regarding DOJ lawyer Michael R. Dreeben's argument before the Supreme Court that "[t]he fundamental unreliability of polygraph evidence is underscored because of the possibility that countermeasures can defeat any test," you write:

Quote:


The Supreme Court's ruling is entirely irrelevant to the point I raised, which is that the U.S. Government has made the very same argument before our nation's highest court that Drew testified to in the detention hearing of Znetix defendants Michael Culp and Steven Reimer (and for which you have reproached him): that polygraph examinations can be defeated through countermeasures. That polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures is not speculation; it has been demonstrated in peer-reviewed research.

The anecdote you relate regarding the expert on false confessions is not relevant to the matter at hand: in any particular case, factors that might lead to a false confession may or may not have been present. By contrast, CQT polygraph results should never be considered as evidence before any court of law (or other decision-making body) under any circumstances because in all cases, CQT polygraphy is nothing more than pseudoscientific quackery.

Regarding your earlier remark to Drew:

Quote:
 

you write:

Quote:


You are dead wrong when you say that nothing linked the two. You linked them by putting them in consecutive sentences in a single paragraph. Your accusing Drew of "apparent pandering to defense attorneys" followed up with the remark that he "must be quite popular with your former Bureau colleagues (no longer limited to examiners)" strongly suggests a belief on your part that popularity with former Bureau colleagues should have been a consideration for Drew in connection with the testimony he provided (or his decision to provide testimony at all).

You have explained that the latter remark was intended "merely as a jab." But bear in mind that attempts at humor may not be readily apparent in the context of a text message, where nuances of spoken language, such as inflection, are absent.

Note also that Drew did not specifically accuse you of basing your testimony on popularity. Rather, what he wrote was (emphasis added):

Quote:


You, on the other hand, have directly and groundlessly accused Drew of "apparent pandering," prostitution, and having provided speculative testimony. Perhaps you should not be surprised if he chooses not to further respond to your postings here.

Public Servant, you have taken great umbrage at a perceived attack on your integrity, even though you are protected by the veil of anonymity. Perhaps this experience will help you to understand the righteous indignation of the many individuals whose honesty and integrity have been wrongly called into question on the basis of nothing more than polygraph chart readings.

LOS ANGELES -- Officials at the FBI's crime lab complained that agents pressured them to lie about their scientific findings and say supervisors sometimes altered their conclusions to support criminal prosecutions, the Los Angeles Times reported today. ..." 
        Among the potential impacts? Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who writes for the London Telegraph, reports from Washington Feb. 2: "The government case in the Oklahoma City bombing trial, due to open next month, is disintegrating. ... 
        "The latest blow to the prosecution is a report that the FBI crime lab altered forensic conclusions to accommodate government claims that the blast, which killed 168 people in the spring of 1995, was caused by a 4,000-lb. ammonium nitrate bomb. ... With the FBI crime lab going through the worst crisis in the history of the Bureau, everything it touches is now tainted.
        Michael Sniffen of the Associated Press in Washington confirms as of Jan. 31: "One FBI supervisory agent, Dave Williams, who oversaw collection of explosives evidence at Oklahoma City, has been withdrawn as an expert witness in McVeigh's trial. ... Williams and two other lab supervisors criticized in the report were transferred out of the lab." 

Clean up your own house first, then start critiquing the other side.

The_Breeze wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 5:33pm:

Perhaps the revelations that the governement is more guilty of corruption than the defense side is with their respective expert witnesses is 'old news' to some;  it should be pointed out for the purposes of these current off topic posts that at least I have pointed to concrete evidence of 'your side's' corruption, whereas the accusations coming from your corner have yet to be substantiated, nor could they ever with regard to Dr. Richardson.

Regardless, if you'd like more recent examples of police corruption/perjury/criminal behavior, I can post links to an almost limitless list of stories concerning law enforcement's knowingly perjurious testimony in hundreds of criminal cases. Just let me know,

Saidme wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 9:05pm:

The_Breeze wrote on Aug 13^th, 2003 at 10:08pm:

Dear Breeze,

My postings have been few but I still read at this site and the frustration about the use of polygraph results seems abundant. 

You have seen the "dance" that goes on in the courtroom.  Both sides can be accused of "stepping on the toes of Justice" and even stomping on it sometimes.

Like most things in life, the appearance of being professional, polite, and honest is as important as its existence.

I just tend to think that any test which presents itself as a method to read one's mind is suspect.

I hope your summer fishing is going well.  I know you can't stay indoors that long.

Regards.

Beech Trees,

It's quite ironic that your example of corruption comes from the same organization (FBI Lab) for which Drew was such an esteemed member prior to his entry into the private sector.

George,

It's also quite fitting that you still insist that because two sentences were in the same summation paragraph, that one was dependent upon the other (regardless of the fact that no words made one part of the other).  

This type of groundless argument is likely quite indicative of the quality of the testimony provided in the case above.

My overall assessment of Drew's initial post is that it was was intended to provide a medium to brag about another attack on LE use of polygraph.  The part about the use of GKT was an attempt to  project blame for the dropping of a murder conspiracy investigation from himself (to whom the article clearly points) to his former agency.  He was obviously upset when I called him out on this. This would account for his (and your?) eagerness to take two unrelated sentences and spin them into slanderous attacks on me rather than addressing the substance.

And George, I don't expect Drew to respond to me.  I would hope that a PhD would know when his arguments had veered from substance into personal attacks.  And since I see little left to argue on your side regarding the actual point he tried to assert as his cover (see the title of the thread), I doubt he will post here, on this thread, further.

Oh yeah, and the court ruling on the Scheffer case is applicable to this argument.  The ruling was NOT supported by the government's argument regarding CMs... so this argument was likely just as inappropiate there as in this case.

Public Servant,

You probably won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with your objection to Drew's testimony.

I scanned the exchanges, so forgive me if this is off point, but here it goes:

The trier of fact must assess witness credibility.  That assessment should be made on accurate information.  If an inveterate liar told me that you are an honest person, and I knew nothing else about you, I would be very skeptical.  It does not mean that I would think you were dishonest, only that I would not be at all convinced you were honest, based on the source.  If 5 honest people told me you were honest, then I would be inclined to believe in your honesty, absent something contradictory from a credible source.

Drew's testimony gives the trier of fact help with evaluating the credibility of the source.  Go ahead and believe the witness, Drew's testimony argues, but that belief should not be based on the polygraph test, which is not a credible source.  Note that Drew's testimony does not state that the witness should be disbelieved just because he passed a polygraph test.

You will disagree on the source's credibility.  But it seems to me completely uncontroversial that Drew would tell the trier of fact that they should not trust the credibility of the polygraph, no matter the nature of the case.  

Quote:


It's up to the judge or jury to decide how objective Drew is.  Opposing party is free to cross-examine Drew and try to show that he is biased, or even that he is no expert at all.

One can be objective and still take a strong position, as Drew does.  Objective does not mean neutral.  An objective person can state rather passionately that smoking is bad for your health, that Germany started WWII, that the earth is round, et al.  All of this may seem beyond doubt now, but that was not always the case.  I suspect the same will be true of polygraph.