I dont believe the Lisak criticism present there conforms with the NPV rule  Lisak doesnt 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 Kanins 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 wasnt as neutral as possible though so apologize for that  Still something must be done here