I don't believe the Lisak criticism present there conforms with the NPV rule.  Lisak doesn't have a neutral point of view to begin with.  If an offer to polygraph or even concerned review of polygraph results shocks a complainant into thinking her lies have been uncovered, the recantation is still perfectly valid.  If you know you are telling the truth, you will argue with machine or investigator.  Also part of Kanin's research was a followup of the recanted story where possible to verify if any were false recantations.  In all followups the recanted version of events matched what the accused said happened.

Arguing that Lisak is a respected PHD is baseless if Kanin is a respected PHD.  I agree that my edit wasn't as neutral as possible though, so apologize for that.  Still something must be done here.