Intercept/Ed Gelb in LA--any experience?

[suethem]

Beech trees,

"let's hope that the profession of polygraphy has ethics enough to police one of their own."


-That's good stuff, Beech tress - I had a good laugh.  A real belly roller.

But seriously.... This guys has been involved in a lot of serious cases and worked with multiple agencies.

To bring him down in public (print) could lead to an investigation and a review of the cases in which he was
an expert (when he falsely claimed to have  Phd).  

Polygraphers are always saying that they are just after the truth- so lets give them what they want!

[George W. Maschke]

Suethem,

If you can make the time to do so, you might wish to contact the agencies you mentioned yourself regarding Gelb's false claim to be a Ph.D.

I think that this topic would be a great story for an investigative reporter. It would be of national  -- and not just local -- interest.

[Saidme]

Beech and others

I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.  He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.  And if it is from a degree mill, does he still not have it?  In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.  Let's not continue to put the police on trial.  Unless of course if you believe OJ's innocent!

[The Shadow]

Saidme,

I agree that Mr Gelb most likely testified about confessions in court and it may have little impact on that; however, whether he is a polygraph examiner or a doctor, lawyer, or indian chief, does it not matter if a person falsely represents his/her credentials to a court of law?  

If one will lie/misrepresent their credentials what else has one lied/misrepresented in a court of law?  If he perjured himself over his credentials, how can the court take his accounting of a confession as being truthful?  It all comes down to a matter of ethics.  

We may or may not agree with polygraph, but I believe no matter what you do in life if it is based on a lie, then you lack all character and credibility as a person.  Will the APA care if a past president falsely represented his academic credentials?  One would hope so, but I think APA President Skip Webb and crew really don't care.  If they (APA) did care, they would have urged Mr Gelb to confront this allegation as soon as it was brought up

True, in the end the bad guys are still the bad guys, but when a "good guy" must falsely represent himself.... Is he really one of the good guys?  No one is putting the police on trial here.  I don't believe Ed Gelb has ever been a sworn office of the law, only a publicity and money hungry private sector polygraph examiner.

[Anonymous]

Saidme,

I'm sorry but it is the very police who you would not have us put on trial whom we would expect and demand not to misrepresent credentials...we expect the bad guys to commit such fraud...sorry...back to the drawing board with that line of reasoning...

[George W. Maschke]

Saidme,

You write:

I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.  He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.

We can be confident that Ed Gelb has testified to matters other than admissions he may have obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations. As I noted in an earlier post in this message thread (perhaps you missed it), Mr. Gelb filed a court declaration in San Francisco Superior Court in a civil suit filed by Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird against Lori Copabianca Haigh, who had hired Gelb's services. Presumably, Haigh did not submit any opinion by Mr. Gelb that she had been deceptive with regard to her claims against Monsignor Baird.

Your assumption that Gelb "probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations" short-sighted. Gelb's services are for hire, and the results of the polygraph examinations he conducts with regard to civil litigation are presumably protected by attorney-client priviledge. If the results of any polygraph examination Gelb is hired to conduct are not to the client's liking, they will not be introduced as evidence in court.

But even if Gelb had only testified with regard to admissions obtained in the course of polygraph interrogations, this would in no way excuse the fraud he has committed against the courts (and his clients) by falsely representing himself as a Ph.D.

Regarding Gelb's bogus degree, you write:

And if it is from a degree mill, does he still not have it?  In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.

A doctoral degree from an unaccredited institution is no degree at all. Mr. Gelb is fraudulently presenting himself to the public and the courts as a Ph.D. Are you willing to excuse such fraud simply because Gelb is a fellow polygraph operator?

Let's not continue to put the police on trial.

No one is putting the police on trial. Ed Gelb is not a cop. He is is, however, a former LAPD lieutenant and a past president of the American Polygraph Association.

[beech trees]

Beech and others

I don't know what cases Mr Gelb testified in court about but my thoughts are he probably did not testify about polygraph per se.

Saidme, do you know what an 'expert witness' is?

He probably testified about confessions he obtained as a result of polygraph examinations, therefore, the results of those cases would be impacted little if at all based on his alleged phony degree.

Unless of course, he's lying about those results as well.

In the end, the bad guys are still the bad guys.

In your opinion saidme, is someone who commits perjury a 'bad guy'? If not, why?

Let's not continue to put the police on trial.

As has been noted previously, Ed Gelb is not a police officer-- however I'm curious about your double standard.

Finally, I find it infuriating and pathetic that you would defend a man whom you would be mercilessly castigating if he wasn't a polygrapher like you. Tell me saidme, what would you be typing right now if it was Dr. Drew Richardson instead of Eddie Gelb who was found to have falsified his credentials?

[Saidme]

Boys and Girls

Don't misinterpret my posts as defenses for Mr Gelb.  I think my feelings on this guy are quite clear.  

As to the rest of the information, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  You guys/gals are out waving the flag and crying about how this store bought examiner has lied and deceived the courts.  At the same time, you're providing known convicted criminals with information you perceive will assist them in getting through court ordered polygraph examinations.  Potentially allowing them to reoffend.  Then you'll attack  the polygraph profession for allowing this terrible thing to occur.  And you'll do this from your high idealistic plateau you've created for yourselves probably patting each other on the back because you've protected our great nation (even the world) from the deceitful polygraph monster.  You guys make me sick.  You should all be charged as accessories.

[beech trees]

Boys and Girls

Don't misinterpret my posts as defenses for Mr Gelb.  I think my feelings on this guy are quite clear.

Yes you made your feelings quite clear. You think that because Mr. Gelb was at one time a police officer, he should not be held accountable for his illegal, unethical behavior ('let's not put the police on trial'), and because his expert testimony did not go towards the scientific accuracy of the polygraph, his testimony would likely be unaffected by the fact that he's a serial perjurer. Of course you ignore the fact that a man who would so casually lie in an oath before the courts about his credentials would also likely lie about anything else he wished to.

As to the rest of the information, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.  You guys/gals are out waving the flag and crying about how this store bought examiner has lied and deceived the courts.  At the same time, you're providing known convicted criminals with information you perceive will assist them in getting through court ordered polygraph examinations.  Potentially allowing them to reoffend.  Then you'll attack  the polygraph profession for allowing this terrible thing to occur.  And you'll do this from your high idealistic plateau you've created for yourselves probably patting each other on the back because you've protected our great nation (even the world) from the deceitful polygraph monster.  You guys make me sick.  You should all be charged as accessories.

I don't understand this new assertion of yours, Saidme. In various previous posts you have written:

Having been an examiner for some time now I can tell you with certainty that most countermeasures are detectable.  It's not really a matter of how well you (examinee) employ them, it's more how close the examiner is watching for them.  Most federal examiners are well versed in countermeasures and do a pretty good job ferreting them out... I know our detection efforts detect more than the crude CM's you describe... I know many examiners who run across CM's regularly and regularly obtain confessions to the relevant issues and then turn around and confess to CM's... I can only provide you with my personal experiences regarding polygraphs and CM's.  I can't account for the last 50 years of lie detection.  A properly trained examiner can, will, and does detect CM's...

So.... I'm puzzled, Saidme. If the information concerning countermeasures here is actually valid and impossible for you to detect, thus enabling criminals to get away with whatever it is you wish to frighten us with, what's with the previous multitude of assertions that countermeasures are easily detected? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

[Saidme]

BT

I guess I'm puzzled by your response.  Where in that thread did I say CM's are not detectable?  I think I wrote:  "with information you perceive will assist them..."  Perceive would be the operative word in that phrase.  Please don't misinterpret that I've changed my stance on detecting CM's.  I do concede that a ill prepared examiner could give credibility to your crude CM's you pitch on that website.  

As to the remaining thread, I noticed you decided not to respond to the hypocrisy charge.  I understand.

[beech trees]

BT

I guess I'm puzzled by your response.  Where in that thread did I say CM's are not detectable?  I think I wrote:  "with information you perceive will assist them..."  Perceive would be the operative word in that phrase.

I see. So, it's the perception we anti-polygraph types have concerning the efficacy of countermeasures that is criminal? What are you now, Saidme, the Thought Police? Your response is absurd and is highly illustrative of your murky thought processes.

Please don't misinterpret that I've changed my stance on detecting CM's.  I do concede that a ill prepared examiner could give credibility to your crude CM's you pitch on that website.

Uh huh.

As to the remaining thread, I noticed you decided not to respond to the hypocrisy charge.  I understand.

If the charge held any merit whatsoever, I would have responded. However, since you're on a long roll of wild, meritless accusations, why not use that law enforcement role God gave you and attempt to arrest those of us here whom you feel are breaking the law?

[suethem]

Does anyone know when Mr. Gelb was an guest instructor at the FBI's advanced polygraph course?

It would be interesting to find out if this was after he started claiming to have a PhD.

I wonder if the FBI just took him at face value, or actually checked his background?

[gelb disliker]

   i had the unfortunate meeting with Gelb at a interrogation of a company situation.  He was trying to stare me down prior to questioning.   He introduced himself as "Dr. Edward Gelb"  wearing his fancy cowboy boots.  i wasn't polygraphed by him, but was angry at his foolish questioning.   Gelb worked for our company and I have always felt that he was somehow, someway always easily "swayed" to answer for the former company that I worked for.   Gelb comes off as a self-aggrandising piece of crap.  Never liked him, never will.  Him or his fancy cowboy boots!  He really seems self-righteous, after all he did work for LAPD and I am sure he's got "friends" he can call upon.

[Stevieblog]

How sad it would be if Ed Gelb has held his academic history out to be something that it was not.  I know Mr. Gelb personally.  For the life of me I cannot understand why he would do that since he had already achieved the pinnacle of success.  He has been the president of Intercept which he started in the early 70's, he is the past president of the American Polygraph Association and I know from personal experience that he is an extraordinary skilled interviewer.  I know these things because I used to work with Ed as an investigator back in the early 70's and while I knew him to be a talented and tough investigator, I also knew him to be quite fair and extremely honest.  While I have not had much interaction with him over these past fifteen or twenty years, and while I am a direct competitor of his firm, on the occasions that I have sought his help, he has taken the time to work with me.  I do know that quite a few polygraph examiners were getting mail order degress but Ed Gelb is a uniquely smart man whom I suspect would not shortcut this process.  I could be wrong and sincerely hope that I am.  If I am wrong, while extremely dissapointed, my own experiences with him would insist that I recall him in a very positive way.  I could never discard all the great work that he has done to clear the innocent and identify the guilty.  I know that this post will draw the ire of many, and yes, I too have been an investigator and polygraph technician for almost forty years.  I have made no attempt to hide this and unlike what some of you want to believe about Mr. Gelb, he has always been very straightforward with me and those of us who have worked with him in the past.  As I have done for almost four decades, I will save my final opinion until all of the evidence is in.  Anyone who has ever been accused of a crime would expect nothing less.  By Federal statute, Mr. Gelb and all other polygraph examiners must preserve the polygraph charts for a period of five years.  Mr. Gelb knows full well that his work could be inspected at any time by any interested Federal agency and while serious questions now exist about his academic training, I have, and will continue to have the highest level of confidence in his polygraph work.  Incidentally, he was voted into the presidency of the A.P.A. by his peers and as I recall, it was a landslide win.  During his tenure with that office, I recall a campaign wherein he did a massive survey on the voluntariness of those taking the test and he has done extraordinary validity and reliability research.  I know that because I participated in that research.

[George W. Maschke]

It is indeed sad that Mr. Gelb has falsely represented himself as a Ph.D. (and even sadder that he continues to do so after having being exposed as a phony). But there can be little doubt but that he obtained his "doctorate" from an unaccredited diploma mill. You'll find the case against Gelb succinctly documented here:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml

Could you tell me in what year(s) Gelb served as president of the American Polygraph Association? I am interested in knowing whether it was before or after he began passing himself off as a Ph.D.

On an unrelated topic, you mentioned a federal statute that requires that all polygraph examiners maintain their files for a period of five years. I was unaware of any such law. Could you provide a reference?