- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 25, 2003, 01:39 AMQuote from: The_Breeze on Aug 15, 2003, 12:38 PMFair ChanceDear Breeze,
Good to hear from you as always, hope your application process is finally on track. Any news of Stein?
Im gearing up for the start of bird and antelope season, no time for fishing...besides we have no water!
I guess my agreement with Public Servant looks like a law enforcement conspiricy to some. You would have to see these characters in action, watch them travel the country to take specific cases, and distort events to fully appreciate what we are saying. Since Its happened to me, I have some limited perspective. I think PS is on track, and right to bring up the question. Of course attacking Drew, or questioning his motives (as if they were unclear) on these pages will get a variety of hysterical responses from the ACLU wing.
It does not matter. The overwhelming number of posters here have had a couple of experiences with polygraph and now consider themselves qualified to render an opinion. At least I chose to educate myself before breaking squelch. Best of luck-
As always, some more words to chew upon. I cannot fault anyone on playing Devil's advocate. I enjoy doing it myself far too many times.
The cool weather is coming and soon you will be too busy to use the keyboard. This is good.
Regards.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Aug 19, 2003, 03:57 PMQuoteDrew lost credibility as an objective party on the issue of polygraph validity/reliability when he signed on as the doctoral hero of this site. By introducing Drew's testimony, the attorneys basically made polygraph reliability a deciding factor in the case. Thus, for the judge to make an informed, objective decision he should have heard from an objective expert or from both sides of the issue.
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.
Posted by Public Servant
- Aug 19, 2003, 12:23 AMBeech Trees,
No Back Pedaling here. Nothing devastating about Drew's fabrication (it was far from observation).
If it could be inferred from this thread that anyone seeks popularity from testimony, the finger would point at Drew. You've never seen me (or any other poly proponent) post articles about our testimony on this site. It seems Drew was looking for an "atta boy" from his fellow anti-poly crusaders.
Funny, you did not reply to what I addressed to you. But then, snide remarks are about all you seem to be capable of.
Mark,
I agree with what you say about the trier of fact being provided with all the information necessary. However, the testimony should either be provided by an objective party, or by both sides of opposing views on an issue. This did not occur in this case.
Drew lost credibility as an objective party on the issue of polygraph validity/reliability when he signed on as the doctoral hero of this site. By introducing Drew's testimony, the attorneys basically made polygraph reliability a deciding factor in the case. Thus, for the judge to make an informed, objective decision he should have heard from an objective expert or from both sides of the issue.
Let me say this for everyone's benefit. In the past Drew and I have engaged in substantive, intelligent, perhaps even friendly, debate. Looking back at my first post on this thread, I see nothing that was mean spirited. Most of thread was addressing the substance of applicability of the different types of polygraph to this case. But instead of debate on this substance I am met with personal attacks spun from one tongue in cheek comment stating that it was no longer just examiners at the bureau who might take issue with Drew. This non-substantive approach has caused me great disappointment in Drew, and in George who followed suit strictly on this line of argument.
No Back Pedaling here. Nothing devastating about Drew's fabrication (it was far from observation).
If it could be inferred from this thread that anyone seeks popularity from testimony, the finger would point at Drew. You've never seen me (or any other poly proponent) post articles about our testimony on this site. It seems Drew was looking for an "atta boy" from his fellow anti-poly crusaders.
Funny, you did not reply to what I addressed to you. But then, snide remarks are about all you seem to be capable of.
Mark,
I agree with what you say about the trier of fact being provided with all the information necessary. However, the testimony should either be provided by an objective party, or by both sides of opposing views on an issue. This did not occur in this case.
Drew lost credibility as an objective party on the issue of polygraph validity/reliability when he signed on as the doctoral hero of this site. By introducing Drew's testimony, the attorneys basically made polygraph reliability a deciding factor in the case. Thus, for the judge to make an informed, objective decision he should have heard from an objective expert or from both sides of the issue.
Let me say this for everyone's benefit. In the past Drew and I have engaged in substantive, intelligent, perhaps even friendly, debate. Looking back at my first post on this thread, I see nothing that was mean spirited. Most of thread was addressing the substance of applicability of the different types of polygraph to this case. But instead of debate on this substance I am met with personal attacks spun from one tongue in cheek comment stating that it was no longer just examiners at the bureau who might take issue with Drew. This non-substantive approach has caused me great disappointment in Drew, and in George who followed suit strictly on this line of argument.
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Aug 18, 2003, 05:48 PMPublic 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.
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.
Posted by beech trees
- Aug 18, 2003, 04:47 PMPublic Servant,
Still stinging from the devastating observation by Dr. Richardson that you apparently value the friendship and respect of your fellow law enforcement officers over the integrity and honesty one would expect during sworn expert testimony, I see.
If you backpedaled any faster there's be another Breeze in here.
Dave
Still stinging from the devastating observation by Dr. Richardson that you apparently value the friendship and respect of your fellow law enforcement officers over the integrity and honesty one would expect during sworn expert testimony, I see.
If you backpedaled any faster there's be another Breeze in here.
Dave
Quote from: Public Servant on Aug 18, 2003, 03:08 AMBeech 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.
Posted by Public Servant
- Aug 18, 2003, 03:08 AMBeech 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.
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.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Aug 15, 2003, 12:38 PMFair Chance
Good to hear from you as always, hope your application process is finally on track. Any news of Stein?
Im gearing up for the start of bird and antelope season, no time for fishing...besides we have no water!
I guess my agreement with Public Servant looks like a law enforcement conspiricy to some. You would have to see these characters in action, watch them travel the country to take specific cases, and distort events to fully appreciate what we are saying. Since Its happened to me, I have some limited perspective. I think PS is on track, and right to bring up the question. Of course attacking Drew, or questioning his motives (as if they were unclear) on these pages will get a variety of hysterical responses from the ACLU wing.
It does not matter. The overwhelming number of posters here have had a couple of experiences with polygraph and now consider themselves qualified to render an opinion. At least I chose to educate myself before breaking squelch. Best of luck-
Good to hear from you as always, hope your application process is finally on track. Any news of Stein?
Im gearing up for the start of bird and antelope season, no time for fishing...besides we have no water!
I guess my agreement with Public Servant looks like a law enforcement conspiricy to some. You would have to see these characters in action, watch them travel the country to take specific cases, and distort events to fully appreciate what we are saying. Since Its happened to me, I have some limited perspective. I think PS is on track, and right to bring up the question. Of course attacking Drew, or questioning his motives (as if they were unclear) on these pages will get a variety of hysterical responses from the ACLU wing.
It does not matter. The overwhelming number of posters here have had a couple of experiences with polygraph and now consider themselves qualified to render an opinion. At least I chose to educate myself before breaking squelch. Best of luck-
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 14, 2003, 12:43 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Aug 13, 2003, 06:08 PMDear Breeze,
I thought we were having a discussion about "buying" testimony. As you shuffle back to the library this afternoon ask yourself where you developed this antipathy towords Law enforcement?
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.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Aug 13, 2003, 06:08 PMFilbert
Thanks for the little reminder why I dont bother to post much anymore. Your replies are instructive though. I make a couple of comments about personal experiences and observations and you offer links to the police corruption library. Do you have anything to bring to this discussion that is based on something you have been a part of, or personally witnessed? Your hatred of LE abuses in general and polygraph in particular have my vote for vicarious warrior of the year.
I dont feel a need to clean anyones house, or take responsibility for what happened years ago in the FBI lab. I thought we were having a discussion about "buying" testimony. As you shuffle back to the library this afternoon ask yourself where you developed this antipathy towords Law enforcement?
Thanks for the little reminder why I dont bother to post much anymore. Your replies are instructive though. I make a couple of comments about personal experiences and observations and you offer links to the police corruption library. Do you have anything to bring to this discussion that is based on something you have been a part of, or personally witnessed? Your hatred of LE abuses in general and polygraph in particular have my vote for vicarious warrior of the year.
I dont feel a need to clean anyones house, or take responsibility for what happened years ago in the FBI lab. I thought we were having a discussion about "buying" testimony. As you shuffle back to the library this afternoon ask yourself where you developed this antipathy towords Law enforcement?
Posted by beech trees
- Aug 13, 2003, 05:44 PMPerhaps 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,
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,Quote from: Saidme on Aug 13, 2003, 05:05 PMIsn't this old news? Isn't McVeigh already dead? Let's at least keep it current. By the way, you gotta watch those lab technicians.
Posted by Saidme
- Aug 13, 2003, 05:05 PMIsn't this old news? Isn't McVeigh already dead? Let's at least keep it current. By the way, you gotta watch those lab technicians. 
Posted by beech trees
- Aug 13, 2003, 03:41 PMLOS 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.
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.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Aug 13, 2003, 01:33 PMFriends
Oh yes, the police expert. I have seen them all in a variety of topics from use of force shootings to pursuits. Nothing could be more aggravating to a working LE officer trying to do a difficult and dangerous job than to have some retired administrator with 2 years of street experience, comment after the fact on the proper way to handle a violent and difficult incident they they themselves never experienced! Cops call these gentlemen "whores" as they do indeed pander to defense attorney's and work against the profession....at a very high rate of pay. ( Yes, even when the officers were fully justified and action was proper) Now before some patriot tries to point out that I seem to be asking that no one ever testify against LE in cases of wrongful action, that is not the case.
Having investigated Internal affairs cases myself, there is no delimma for me. But there exists a class of "expert" that has taken this service to a new level, and does not apply ethics in selecting when to testify voluntarily. Is Drew this kind of person? I dont know. But should he be involved with any polygraph testimony in our area, it would be pointed out that there is an anti-polygraph affiliation, a lack of working experience in this area, personal and professional interest in a competing technology, and of course observations from co-workers. (Some of whom work at the national labs) Other "experts" have not put thier agenda's on display as fully as Drew.
One thing is sure, testimony of all types is bought and sold daily at the federal and local level.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Aug 13, 2003, 01:33 PMFriends
Oh yes, the police expert. I have seen them all in a variety of topics from use of force shootings to pursuits. Nothing could be more aggravating to a working LE officer trying to do a difficult and dangerous job than to have some retired administrator with 2 years of street experience, comment after the fact on the proper way to handle a violent and difficult incident they they themselves never experienced! Cops call these gentlemen "whores" as they do indeed pander to defense attorney's and work against the profession....at a very high rate of pay. ( Yes, even when the officers were fully justified and action was proper) Now before some patriot tries to point out that I seem to be asking that no one ever testify against LE in cases of wrongful action, that is not the case.
Having investigated Internal affairs cases myself, there is no delimma for me. But there exists a class of "expert" that has taken this service to a new level, and does not apply ethics in selecting when to testify voluntarily. Is Drew this kind of person? I dont know. But should he be involved with any polygraph testimony in our area, it would be pointed out that there is an anti-polygraph affiliation, a lack of working experience in this area, personal and professional interest in a competing technology, and of course observations from co-workers. (Some of whom work at the national labs) Other "experts" have not put thier agenda's on display as fully as Drew.
One thing is sure, testimony of all types is bought and sold daily at the federal and local level.
Oh yes, the police expert. I have seen them all in a variety of topics from use of force shootings to pursuits. Nothing could be more aggravating to a working LE officer trying to do a difficult and dangerous job than to have some retired administrator with 2 years of street experience, comment after the fact on the proper way to handle a violent and difficult incident they they themselves never experienced! Cops call these gentlemen "whores" as they do indeed pander to defense attorney's and work against the profession....at a very high rate of pay. ( Yes, even when the officers were fully justified and action was proper) Now before some patriot tries to point out that I seem to be asking that no one ever testify against LE in cases of wrongful action, that is not the case.
Having investigated Internal affairs cases myself, there is no delimma for me. But there exists a class of "expert" that has taken this service to a new level, and does not apply ethics in selecting when to testify voluntarily. Is Drew this kind of person? I dont know. But should he be involved with any polygraph testimony in our area, it would be pointed out that there is an anti-polygraph affiliation, a lack of working experience in this area, personal and professional interest in a competing technology, and of course observations from co-workers. (Some of whom work at the national labs) Other "experts" have not put thier agenda's on display as fully as Drew.
One thing is sure, testimony of all types is bought and sold daily at the federal and local level.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 13, 2003, 05:01 AMPublic 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:
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:
you write:
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):
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.
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:
QuoteThis 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:
QuoteDrew, 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:
QuoteThe 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):
QuoteAlthough 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.
Posted by Public Servant
- Aug 12, 2003, 04:05 AMGeorge,
After making my last post, I engaged in an unrelated conversation with a fellow investigator which reminded me of an anectdotal reply to your assertion that expert opinion should be provided whenever requested.
A few years back I was involved in obtaining a confession to murder (no poly involved). The subject provided both a written statement and a video-taped confession.
As the trial date approached, I was informed by the prosecutor that defense was consulting an expert on false confessions (psychiatrist or psychologist, I believe). Just prior to the trial, I was informed that the expert witness was not going to testify.
After the trial , I heard that the expert witness reviewed the statements and circumstances surrounding the statements and apparently he felt the statements did not fit the criteria of his research for false statements (and he might also have felt that the physical evidence indicated the confession was not false).
Following your assertion, this professional should have provided testimony about how a confession could be false, even though he believed this one was not.
In my opinion, this was a man of integrity because he would not allow his expertise to be misused (and thus possibly discredited) to disprove (or provide doubt to) something it did not. Whether it was his decision or the defense counsel's decision to pull him from the witness list, no doubt it was his candor with counsel that prevented him from testifying. Perhaps this display integrity applied to counsel and expert alike.
Now mind you, I only have word of mouth information about why this expert did not testify. But given this set of circumstances, am I wrong here? Do you think this expert witness was somehow morally flawed? Should he have testified about possibilities of false confession if he did not believe it occurred in the case at hand?
Drew testified about CMs to discredit the exam and ultimately the witness; yet he had no reason to beleive they had been practiced. That's the bottom line to my view on that issue.
Cheers.
After making my last post, I engaged in an unrelated conversation with a fellow investigator which reminded me of an anectdotal reply to your assertion that expert opinion should be provided whenever requested.
A few years back I was involved in obtaining a confession to murder (no poly involved). The subject provided both a written statement and a video-taped confession.
As the trial date approached, I was informed by the prosecutor that defense was consulting an expert on false confessions (psychiatrist or psychologist, I believe). Just prior to the trial, I was informed that the expert witness was not going to testify.
After the trial , I heard that the expert witness reviewed the statements and circumstances surrounding the statements and apparently he felt the statements did not fit the criteria of his research for false statements (and he might also have felt that the physical evidence indicated the confession was not false).
Following your assertion, this professional should have provided testimony about how a confession could be false, even though he believed this one was not.
In my opinion, this was a man of integrity because he would not allow his expertise to be misused (and thus possibly discredited) to disprove (or provide doubt to) something it did not. Whether it was his decision or the defense counsel's decision to pull him from the witness list, no doubt it was his candor with counsel that prevented him from testifying. Perhaps this display integrity applied to counsel and expert alike.
Now mind you, I only have word of mouth information about why this expert did not testify. But given this set of circumstances, am I wrong here? Do you think this expert witness was somehow morally flawed? Should he have testified about possibilities of false confession if he did not believe it occurred in the case at hand?
Drew testified about CMs to discredit the exam and ultimately the witness; yet he had no reason to beleive they had been practiced. That's the bottom line to my view on that issue.
Cheers.