posted 04-01-2013 11:30 AM            

For those who don't know, Lee has been a polygraph promoter for most of his career. He wants to see the PCSOT model expanded to other crimes. (That will require a lot of conversations with a lot of stakeholders. Some smart people have a lot of questions....)

posted 04-04-2013 12:49 AM            

In my opinion Bailey is a promoter, of Bailey!

posted 04-04-2013 11:57 AM            

It's not hosted by Bailey. It's hosted by the APA and MPA. He's just done a lot of work to try to make it happen. He also knows the history of polygraph from beginning to present. (He lived some of it!) He is the keynote speaker, and he'll be sharing the history with those present. After that, it's a number of people presenting. You can see the schedule by clicking on the link above and navigating to it.

Yes, all of Bailey's troubles stem from the case in which he represented a drug dealer who owned stocks. Bailey's position is that the appreciation in those stocks was his to pay his legal fees. The government said it was theirs. He did time for contempt (44 days?) because he failed to turn the stocks over to the government (which he had used as collateral on a personal loan). Eventually, he gave the government the stocks, worth about 3X their original $6 million. Because the money was the government's (which he disputes), as an attorney he couldn't use it the way he did, which is a violation of bar rules. Florida took his license, and Massachusetts took it by reciprocity. He passed the bar exam here in Maine (at 79 years of age!), but he's still waiting to hear if they'll grant a license.

He still consults on a lot of polygraph cases for lawyers, and the hope is many others will learn the benefits (and limitations) of polygraph so its use will become more commonplace.

posted 04-04-2013 12:28 PM            

"The majority report cites a Maine Bar rule that says it treats a lawyer who has been disbarred in any other state “as if the attorney has been disbarred also in Maine.”

One of the six factors the board is required to consider in determining whether an applicant should be readmitted to the bar is whether “the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct.”

The majority of the board concluded that he had not recognized the wrongfulness of his past conduct. “Rather than accepting that he was disbarred because of his own misconduct, Bailey continues to place blame elsewhere,” the majority wrote.

Board members also wrote that Bailey was “less than forthright with this Board throughout the admissions process.”

Aside from the factors cited in the article, back to my initial question. Doesn't credibility mean anything anymore?

END.....

posted 04-04-2013 01:22 PM            

I don't know what is true either. But, based on the documented facts relative to wrongdoing, why would either association risk their loss of credibility, and that of the polygraph profession, by using such a person?

You haven't answered my question regarding credibility.

END.....

END.....

posted 04-04-2013 03:49 PM            

F. Lee Bailey -- Board Decision - State of Maine Board of Bar ... www.mainebarexaminers.org/.../Board%20Decision-F.%20Lee...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Nov 30, 2012 – F. Lee Bailey seeks admission to the Maine bar, contending that he has ..... Bailey, was convicted of money laundering in February 2003.

Good luck with your seminar.

posted 04-05-2013 11:20 AM            

What exactly is your thinking and your position relative to credibility as it pertains to polygraph examiners, associates and the polygraph profession? Does credibility have a role in establishing the "highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field" as stated by the APA?

END.....

posted 04-05-2013 12:28 PM            

Neither, President Clinton, President Obama nor Hillary Clinton currently has their law licenses but as Republican as I am, I'd be honored to hear any one of them speak on their areas of expertise. Assistant US Attorney James Blackburn famously and successfully prosecuted CPT Jeffrey McDonald and later lost his license to practice law. I heard him speak many times and he was both an informative and an engaging speaker with much to say that was important.

finally, before I would make a judgment about the merits of the case made by our government against Mr. Bailey which resulted in the (temporary)loss of his license to practice law, I'd consider, such cases as Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez and the current Fast and Furious case before I automatically assumed the government to be always correct.

I personally respect and admire Mr. Bailey; enjoy his lectures and consider him both a personal friend and a friend of the polygraph profession.

posted 04-05-2013 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Doesn't credibility mean anything anymore?

---

That's different from your more recent question that would require me to write a book, so let's go with your original question above.

I don't think you asked a real question. If I pretend you did, it's a rather nebulous question. It could be rephrased this way: "Doesn't the quality (or property) of being believable mean anything any more?" Okay, I'll play along. Sure.

Of course, the context of your question implies an answer, and that answer implies that Bailey is unfit for contributing to polygraph in any way. That's your thesis, and therefore it's circular reasoning (question begging).

If we accept that Bailey lied in his Florida case (from which this all stems), what does that mean? If he lied once, he can't be trusted about anything? Is that your position? If so, why use polygraph at all? We require people to lie with our CQs (which some of us introduce by telling lies).

I find it interesting that the two public members of the board (both well educated people with doctorates: a Ph.D. and an M.D.), found Bailey to be a man of integrity. Here's what the four dissenters said:

quote:

---

Bailey also produced clear and convincing evidence that he has the requisite evidence and integrity to practice law. Testimony and affidavits based on witnesses’

first-hand experience with Bailey in a variety of settings uniformly portrayed Bailey as having a high degree of honesty and integrity. He was described as “ a man of his word”, Tr. 163; a trusted representative in business dealings, Tr. 163-72; an inspiration and mentor to many lawyers, Tr. 196-97; characterized by humility, Tr. 196-97; forthright in disclosing his disciplinary matters, Affidavit (Aff.) of Wochok, Ex. 2; ethical in handling money, including substantial client funds, Ex. 2; a “moral compass”, Aff. of Altshuler,
Ex. 6; and living by a code of honor and truth in his personal life, Tr. 213. As noted above, Bailey’s disagreement with certain factual findings concerning the Duboc matter and his testimony as to his version of the underlying events is not evidence of a lack of honesty or integrity. As to the deficiencies with his bar application that are cited by the majority, there is little or no evidence that Bailey made intentional or material misrepresentations or omissions on his application, especially in view of the substantial materials that he provided with the initial filing.

...

Finally, Bailey’s admission to the Maine Bar would not be a detriment to the public interest, the integrity and standing of the Maine Bar or the administration of justice. M. Bar R. 7.3 (j) (5). Since his disbarment eleven years ago Bailey has served the public interest by sharing his knowledge and experience with lawyers, law enforcement personnel, those involved in the correctional system and in service of business development. He has lectured, conducted trainings, organized fundraising and
other charitable events and written articles and books on criminal law. He has pursued his commitment to improving the correctional system and increasing educational and job opportunities for inmates and releases, both in Maine and nationally. Bailey undertakes many of these activities on a pro bono basis.

...

In conclusion, the undersigned members of the Board find that F. Lee Bailey has met his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning required by M. Bar R. 7.3 (j)(5)....

---

What you really want me to do is accept the conclusions of the five member majority and ignore those of the four member minority whose reasoning I find compelling. For example, as you cited, the majority said Bailey was "less than forthright" with them. However, the minority said that was a load of baloney sandwiches. They reasoned that if he had been lying (or less than forthright), he would have tried to conceal the paperwork that he provided (up front) that told the whole story. That makes sense to me.

Your position is that since Bailey was disbarred over some old behavior, that he now (and apparently forever more) taboo. And he is somehow going to bring polygraph down with him. I disagree. Were it not for Bailey, this seminar wouldn't have happened. Were it not for him, nobody would have attended the press conference (that resulted in this conversation). Had that not occurred, the Maine Polygraph Association would not have had the opportunity to discuss polygraph with the Maine ACLU who went on the record opposing it (as a result of the press conference). Now, we've reached out to them by telling them they have adopted some of the myths and they are asking for more information. That's huge.

I think they key piece of information that got them interested is the research done by a former attorney who now runs an innocence type project. He has collected data on exoneration cases in which polygraph was used. He found polygraph was right - but ignored - in 81% of the cases. (That is not statistically different from the 87% accuracy found in the APA meta-analysis, and it includes tests from the 60s in which six RQs were presented in a single, multi-facet / issue CQT.)

In other words, Bailey's part in this has likely resulted in a chain of reactions that resulted in greater credibility for polygraph. Even if they aren't converted, the fact that the ME ACLU has even engaged in a dialog is progress.

posted 04-06-2013 12:48 PM            

Approximately how many cases are there that makes Bailey an "authority on the polygraph and the courts?" What is Bailey's "considerable experience in the field of polygraphy?" If known, in how many cases did Bailey use the polygraph? Bailey does have a brilliant legal mind but has used that mind in too many negative ways. I respectfully disagree with you when you state his current issue with his law license has nothing to do with his credibility. The current issue has everything to do with his credibility. I haven't found material that shows Bailey had much hands on polygraph experience. Do you know where I can read of this experience? The answers.com website reports "Bailey attended Keeler Polygraph Institute in Chicago, where he became an expert in lie detector tests." I don't know who wrote this statement, but if true, what is it that qualified Bailey as an "expert" in polygraph?

I doubt anyone familiar with Bailey's work as an attorney would disagree he is an informative an engaging speaker. No doubt you will hear many fascinating and interesting "war stories" relative to his cases. As cited in the answers.com website, "Bailey already was gaining renown for his eloquent oratory, his nearly photographic memory and his mastery at cross-examining witnesses." It's not his ability that concerns me, it's his credibility. If I were involved in a major criminal case and could afford his fee (when licensed) I would definitely consider retaining him. It's all out the window at that point and I would want the best I could get to save my butt.

I don't ever assume our government does anything right, especially due to the direction it is being taken today. Based on the documented lies uttered by Obama and others in elected office, would you say he/they lack credibility? Relative to your statement about examiners that "present false academic credentials." Among others, are you referring to the examiner that worked with Bailey on a TV polygraph program many years ago? A former president of the APA if I recall correctly? I respect Bailey and honor him for his military service. As I stated before, he has too much "baggage" indicating a lack of credibility to be involved as a keynote speaker in an organization with the motto "Dedicated To Truth."

Barry -

Thanks for pretending I asked a "real question," and choosing, as you say, to "play along" and provide an answer. You're a real sport.

I agree during a polygraph exam we require people to lie. Not too much different from the current issue as once a lie has been identified/confirmed, depending on the nature of the lie, say it related to a felony theft, or perjury, wouldn't this indicate that person lacks credibility? In the polygraph examinations you conduct for police agencies are they likely to accept an applicant they have determined lacks credibility?

You state you found it interesting two members of the board are "both well educated -." Did the remaining members of the board lack an education or sufficient education to satisfy you? What is the level of education of the remaining board members and more specifically the board members that voted against Bailey?

Did you or anyone in your association(s) not have the ability to put this seminar together? Are you saying only Bailey could make it happen? Don't you or anyone in your associations have the ability to establish contact with the ACLU or schedule a press conference to better inform the public about the advantages of the polygraph, to dispel their myths about the polygraph. Only Bailey could do this?

If you are a law enforcement officer, if you get caught lying about anything you say or do in an official capacity (and most likely anything you say or do off-duty included); and this lie or lies is known to defense attorney's, isn't your credibility going to be challenged by these defense attorney's every time you take the stand and testify against their client? Isn't the defense attorney going to try and make you out be be a liar, a person that lacks credibility and as a person whose testimony should not be believed? You damned well know if Bailey were the defense attorney in such a case he would hammer this point regarding your credibility to the judge/jury. Maybe you just lack sufficient criminal investigative and court experience to know this and realize its significance.

Of course the four dissenters are going to make favorable comments regarding Bailey, I'd be surprised to read anything less than favorable. But, the majority did not agree with the thoughts of the dissenters and as you know it is the majority opinion that rules. The acts in question show a lack of credibility. Isn't the credibility of an officer, an attorney, business people, the foundation for everything they do? Is an attorney going to deal with a polygraph examiner they know has been convicted of crimes or simply lacks credibility for any number of known reasons?

I'm not wanting you to accept the conclusion of the five member majority, you believe what you choose. At the same time, though you may not like their findings, I don't believe the findings of the majority should be ignored! Not getting too many rave reviews from the public in your area about this license issue. I'm sure its not just the license issue but the "baggage" people know he carries with him that prompts the negative comments. My concern is how these persons perceive an association/examiner involved with Bailey due to the issues confronting him now and in the past.

Was it Bailey that collected the data on the exoneration cases you refer to in which polygraph was used? How many polygraph examinations were reviewed that led to the finding the "polygraph was right - but ignored - in 81% of the cases?" Not surprised tests from the 60's included six RQ's. How many tests of this type were involved? Did Bailey review the charts in all the referenced cases or were the charts reviewed by another examiner and the results reported to Bailey?

I didn't make any doomsday prediction relative to Bailey. I simply suggest a profession "Dedicated To Truth" might be impacted in a negative manner and I would not want to see this happen.

It will be interesting to learn the outcome of the appeal process.

posted 04-06-2013 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

Approximately how many cases are there that makes Bailey an "authority on the polygraph and the courts?" What is Bailey's "considerable experience in the field of polygraphy?" If known, in how many cases did Bailey use the polygraph?

---

Do you remember the show "Lie Detector"? That was Lee Bailey. Do you recall the APA amicus brief on polygraph admissibility? That was, in part, Lee Bailey. How about Keeler's book? That was the Bailey family who published it. How about the APA mock trial that was one of the biggest successes at a conference (and elsewhere later via DVD)? That also included Bailey. I suspect Bailey has been involved in (in one way or another) thousands of polygraph cases. He tested all of his clients, and he can read charts.

My point was not that I didn't like the majority view. My point was that it was a split call and people can see it both ways. I know the majority rules. That's not the point. The minority makes the most sense. The point about the public members were that they were public - not lawyers - and not dummies who couldn't think for themselves. The Ph.D. was the highest degree. The rest had law degrees and an M.D. They were all educated, of course. Sometimes the public members are just on boards for looks as tokens. That's not the case here.

I've got too much going on to address all your issues. You don't understand the law in regard to officers lying, however. The reason pre-employment tests are usually confidential (or destroyed) is so nobody has access to what was said there. As you know, a lot of people lie but come clean before the test (and are hired).

Bailey gets a crowd wherever he goes, and the press conference wouldn't have gotten any attention without him. His ideas were the ones that prompted the ME ACLU to take notice - not anything we would have come up with on our own.

posted 04-15-2013 01:49 AM            

I see no problem with him putting on a seminar on polygraph, I believe we could learn many things from him. I have been at seminars in law enforcement that featured some high dollar criminals that taught us how to catch them. I don't judge Bailey because I don't have all the facts, I know he is knowledgeable on polygraph and law, we can learn from him. I don't expect speakers to be angles, I expect them to be knowledgeable and able to teach me something..

posted 04-15-2013 12:58 PM            

"Dennis Nellany, who had worked with me as an examiner on the "Lie Detector" TV show, attempted to test Simpson despite the enormous pressures facing counsel, the client, and the examiner. It didn't work. Simpson's reactions were severe, in Dennis' view. In the opinion of virtually all experienced polygraph examiners, it is not
feasible to test someone accused of killing a loved one within a short time after the
death has been discovered. Indeed, Dennis said as much, when Simpson insisted
he wanted to continue, despite the fact that every time Nicole's name was mentioned he felt as though a jolt of lightning had coursed through his body. When Shapiro told me over the phone what was happening, I instructed him unequivocally to discontinue the test, and finish it later. It might have been possible to test Simpson on whether he killed Goldman, where the emotional factor
would presumably have been attenuated, but I thought it not worth the risk.
Shapiro did me one better; he terminated the testing and walked out of Nellany's office with the polygrams, or test charts. Examiners never, never permit this to happen. Dennis should not have. To my knowledge, I am the only other person
capable of making sense of a polygram that ever saw the Simpson charts which
were created that night. I studied them in Bob's office one day the following month. To me they showed rather dramatically that the rule against testing suspects who have recently lost a loved one is well-justified. The tracings painted a picture of a human subject whose emotions were roiling like the oceans in a typhoon. Since Shapiro has since reported that these charts are "missing", no other qualified examiner will likely ever get to see them. They certainly did not, in my view show "guilt". I don't believe they even showed deception."