posted 03-23-2008 03:17 PM            

NoLie has already responded.

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1206261662

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/holden-sexual-harassment.shtml

While I'm curious about how GM obtains these things, the facts are that a complaint was made and upheld.

This is a case of he-said/she-said, and he lost.

Texas DPS must surely have considered questions or possibilities regarding hyper-reactivity or vindictiveness in the complaint. Regardless of what we think personally about the complaint and complainant, the The Texas DPS exercised its authority in reaching a conclusion (which is not fully articulated in the materials at AP), and recommending a response (which does appear to be fully articulated). It does us no good to question the authority or wisdom of the DPS administrators at that time, unless we can back that up with evidence of overarching problems.

It also does us no good to dismantle the detailed and articulate statements of the complainant, who was a Police Detective from New Hampshire.

All that results from suggestions that someone is "too damn sensitive" is that we look calloused and insensitive to victims of harassment. (that's bad) While we don't know the degree to which they concurred with the details of the complaint, DPS administrators evidently determined that some response was in order.

Whether Mr. Holden agrees with the decision or not, there is an important message about professional and personal boundaries, topic-sensitivity, physical touch, and honoring the message when someone expresses they are bothered by an activity.

I suggest no further response to this matter at AP, unless Mr. Holden himself wishes to address it.

There are times when the best response is no response. Mr. Holden is under no obligation to answer to the folks at AP. Of course, those upstanding citizens will rally about this, and make inferences about silence. Mr. Holden is a big boy and he can speak for himself.

Similarly, we are under no obligation to explain, answer for, or mitigation Mr. Holden's or anyone else's activities.

While a bart-simpson approach (I didn't do it, do can't prove it, there's no evidence) might be strategic at times of desperation, we need to keep in mind that one of the surest ways to look stupid and lose credibility in court settings is to deny something that is obvious to others, or for which the facts are self-evident.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-23-2008 04:57 PM            

does it seem just too coincidental to you that in the very week that the Wall Street Journal references Eric Holden and other PCSOT examiners around the country that AntiPolygraph.org reaches into a nine year old case which occurred at that school level to try and discredit him. While I am not surprised at anything Maschke would do in his zealous hatred of us, I do set bounds by which he should be able to do it in the real ethical world. Communicating with sex offenders (Wards of the Court) as previously stated, is out of bounds for them, and Maschke knows that. I know Eric Holden and he is an Icon in this profession. That his folksey Texas way was misread by some New England liberal which ruined her day does not rise to the level of us dismissing Eric Holden's contribution.

posted 03-23-2008 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

does it seem just too coincidental to you that in the very week that the Wall Street Journal references Eric Holden and other PCSOT examiners around the country that AntiPolygraph.org reaches into a nine year old case which occurred at that school level to try and discredit him

---

posted 03-23-2008 06:47 PM            

The timing is only mildly curious to me. Maschke's inquiry began several days before the WJS article, though there is no doubt his rage and indignation might be fueled by it.

quote:

---

That his folksey Texas way was misread by some New England liberal which ruined her day does not rise to the level of us dismissing Eric Holden's contribution.

---

At the risk of sounding like a victim advocate...

Det. Kimball, in her 2-page complaint of 7-20-99 wrote "I was quite surprised by this use of me as an example and I was embarrassed." She further wrote "I became increasingly uncomfortable, embarrassed, humiliated, shocked and angry as he listed each action. As soon as he finished his statements, I told him, 'I've been a good sport, but you just crossed the line.'" After their review, The Texas DPS does NOT seem to have concluded that she "misread" his folksey ways.

You may know Det. Kimball, but I do not. Most of us have no way of knowing about her liberal political leanings. At any rate, it comes across as polemic and xenophobic to characterize someone this way a professional discussion forum.

The rules of human decency that we try to teach sex offenders are that it always matters when you do something that bothers someone, even if the effect is unintended (just as someone bumping into my motorcycle by "accident" still sucks for me). A little responsibility in those situations goes a long long way. We don't automatically assume that someone is being too sensitive, unless there is evidence to indicate that. In this case there was apparently evidence that someone was bothered. I don't know of any evidence of hypersensitivity.

I don't think that anyone (except maybe GM) wants to dismiss Mr. Holden's important contributions to PCSOT and the polygraph profession. Its also important that things are accurately represented.

Laurie Cohen referred to Mr. Holden as a "psychologist," which I believe he is not. "Psychologist" is, in most if not all states, a legislated title that is restricted to licensed clinical psychologists who have earned a Ph.D., Psy.D, or Ed.D in clinical or counseling psychology. The last I knew, Mr. Holden's credentials were equivalent to my own, with a master's degree in some counseling psychology and a professional counselor (LPC) license in Texas. The National Counselor Exam, administered by the National Board for Certified Counselors administers that licensing exam, and sets educational and professional experience requirement for eligibility for licensure, consistent with the guidelines of the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Program (CACREP) and the American Counseling Association (ACA), not the American Psychological Association (one of the other APAs). The NCE is the same exam and requirements in many states, and for the National Certified Counselor credential that I hold. Mr. Rob Lundell has the same qualifications. I point this out because you referred to Mr. Holden as "Dr. Holden" at AP. I know there is a psychological researcher named Eric Holden. That person has published interesting articles on children's mental health, and diagnostic algorithms, but I believe the middle initial is W, not J. Please correct me if I am incorrect about Mr. Holden's education and credentials.

The term "research psychologist" is different than "psychologist."

I know Laurie Cohen contacted Mr. Holden when she wrote the article. She told me she had not spoken with George Maschke because she already knew what he would say. Still, you never know... Her article was mostly supportive to us.

I am aware that Mr. Holden has been a trainer and proponent of the containment approach to sex offender management. I am also aware that he was involved in some research in psychophysiology in the past. I emailed him last week, requesting to read a work from 1971.

I think GM's recent attacks on Mr. Holden have more to do with his inquiry last week than the WSJ article.

Aside from this, we all really enjoy watching your unrelenting challenges towards the AP folks at every opportunity. Keep it up.

I've been tempted to join the fun, but my task-list is demanding my attention for now.

Maybe its time for another round of AP distraction. We could resurrect some focus on Zelicoff's lies/inaccuracies.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)