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:This argument might have been raised in the SCHEFFER case, however, the ruling to disallow the polygraph evidence was not based upon this argument....
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:Drew, I admire your work in CNS technology, but this apparent pandering to defense attorneys (I assume you were paid for your work for the defense) is troubling. You must be quite popular with your former Bureau colleagues (no longer limited to examiners).Please stick to constructive research.
you write:
Quote:The two were separate statements. ?The latter was a half-joking reference to the fact that he might have allowed subjects who wish to kill an FBI agent to prevent prosecution for illicit business practices, to go free. The first statement was a separate thought (hence the separate sentence). Nothing I said linked the two and to imply that I use popularity to guide my testimony was pure FABRICATION. Nothing logically linked the two except wild conjecture (may I borrow your term?) in a sad attempt to attack me rather than the real substance of the argument.
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:Although I value friends and approval of present and former colleagues as much as you and others, such a comment in connection with courtroom testimony would suggest to me that if this would be a consideration for you, your testimony should be summarily discounted by any and all courts and that you should forever be impeached as a result of such a personally held and publicly stated opinion....
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.