Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

[George W. Maschke]

Again, you didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.  

What you asked was:

Do you agree that an examiner trained in CM and CCM is more likely to detect and defeat CM than one who is not?

Again, I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels. You may not be satisfied with that answer, but so be it.

I am struck by the irony of your remonstrance, "I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question."

[George W. Maschke]

You took a middle of the road type position on that one.  Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?  That makes no sense.  

When London & Krapohl write, "It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any physical movement," they write with 20/20 hindsight. We cannot know what opinion London would have ultimately rendered absent "John's" admission that he employed countermeasures.

[L72cueak]

I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that.  By just applying common sense, what do you think?  

[L72cueak]

George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?  

[George W. Maschke]

I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that.  By just applying common sense, what do you think?  

What is common sense in the absence of reason? The available information about DoDPI's countermeasures course (that provided on DoDPI's webiste) doesn't give me any reason to think that those who matriculate from the course will be any more capable of detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector than they were before the course.

[George W. Maschke]

George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?  

One consideration that may have made London hesitate to accuse John of having employed countermeasures absent his admission is that John was described as a "high-priority candidate for employment with the federal government."

If London were prepared to render a decision that countermeasures were employed absent any admission from John, then he need not have bothered with the post-"test" interrogation. He could have simply rendered his opinion and shown John to the door.

London & Krapohl also place some importance on obtaining an admission when they write:

Since this case, London has worked several other confirmed Cms cases and presented them as case studies to various gatherings of PDD examiners. From the feedback received during the conferences, those examiners who have suspected examinees of using Cms were reluctant to probe the issue because they lacked substantial evidence and a suitable interrogation strategy. This suggests a need for practical hands-on training for examiners on detecting Cms, employing validation procedures, and developing effective elicitation and interrogation strategies for handling Cms.

The emphasis on interrogation strategies suggests that admissions are indeed of some importance to rendering a determination that a subject employed countermeasures.