Hmm...I can't access the pages you indicated, but from the TOC it appears to be written by Maria Hartwig. I did manage to find this Abstract in another paper that Dr. Hartwig co-authored.
"Research on deception detection in legal contexts has neglected the question of how the use of evidence can affect deception detection accuracy. In this study, police trainees (N=82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interviewing lying or truth telling mock suspects (N=82). The trainees strategies as well as liars and truth tellers counter-strategies were analyzed. Trained interviewers applied different strategies than did untrained. As a consequence of this, liars interviewed by trained interviewers were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interviewed by untrained interviewers. Trained interviewers created and utilized the statement-evidence consistency cue, and obtained a considerably higher deception detection accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interviewers (56.1%)."
ETA:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
So an 85% accuracy rate in detecting deception when trained. Not bad! :moo:
I'm glad that the Task Force working Dylan's case includes the CBI & FBI. They surely have appropriate training in detecting deception! :moo: