TH's polygraphs

[Sherbie]

In Haleigh's case they've been telling us that polygraphs are just an investigative tool forever. Everyone's failed them in Haleigh's case. Some (Misty comes to mind) keep taking them like they're a GED or something, hoping with each try to pass one. They even find kind souls to pay for independent ones so they can impress LE, but ... they even fail those. LOLOLOL.

Anyway, I'm really posting to say, LE always says a polygraph is merely an investigative too. They've said it before in this case too.

Polygraphs don't clear people. Evidence accounting for time & whereabouts, and actual clear alibis is what clears people. Conversely, polygraphs don't convict people either. Evidence does. And polygraphs are not admissible evidence.

...still trying to count Misty's polygraphs... I seen 3 ... at least 3....

:laugh: OMG, Emma, you literally made me LOL with the above! Ha! :thumb:

Has there ever been a truly dumber bunch than that group. Boy am I sitting on my hands just now. Anyway, given their stupidity, I am just shocked the case hasn't been solved!

 

[WestCoastLady]

BeanE - thank you for posting the link to the answered questions. Somehow I had totally missed that response from LE and have been supremely busy at work/home and hadn't had a chance to search for it yet.

I think a LDT is all about willingness, reactions and whether their (LE) "hinky meter" goes off....

 

[Sherazhad]

I'm not sure of the percentage of accuracy of these tests, but I know they are not allowed to be used as evidence. I just wonder if there were parts of the tests Terri actually passed & if the questions she failed indicate guilt about other things. For instance if she passed the question ''are you responsible for Kyron's disappearance?'', but failed the question ''have you been totally honest about your whereabouts that morning?'', makes a big difference to her guilt or not. And even though they can't be used against her it's very useful to any future prosecution of Terri, as anyone who has a TV now knows she failed 2 tests, including a future jury. I;m not so knowledgable about these tests though, so would be interesting to get other thoughts on this, particularly if other people have failed these tests, but later been proven to be innocent. Also this may sound dumb, but how many wrong questions constitutes a fail?

 

[Bennettras]

I'm not sure of the percentage of accuracy of these tests, but I know they are not allowed to be used as evidence. I just wonder if there were parts of the tests Terri actually passed & if the questions she failed indicate guilt about other things. For instance if she passed the question ''are you responsible for Kyron's disappearance?'', but failed the question ''have you been totally honest about your whereabouts that morning?'', makes a big difference to her guilt or not. And even though they can't be used against her it's very useful to any future prosecution of Terri, as anyone who has a TV now knows she failed 2 tests, including a future jury. I;m not so knowledgable about these tests though, so would be interesting to get other thoughts on this, particularly if other people have failed these tests, but later been proven to be innocent. Also this may sound dumb, but how many wrong questions constitutes a fail?

Because of the main question of your thread I would have to answer no.

 

[IBsleuthin]

The relevance of a failed polygraph test is in direct proportion to what the people involved WANT the results to be.

Until this method can be PROVED to be accurate then no a failed poly means nothing to me. It's considered an investigative tool. I think it should be abolished all together until it can be made to be accurate.

 

[scotslass]

The relevance of a failed polygraph test is in direct proportion to what the people involved WANT the results to be.

Until this method can be PROVED to be accurate then no a failed poly means nothing to me. It's considered an investigative tool. I think it should be abolished all together until it can be made to be accurate.

Thank you!! good answer beats my only when it leaked to the press statement I was about to provide

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think a LD test is something that can ever be made to be accurate, people are just too different in make-up, with varied chemistries. Not to mention any meds, herbs, etc. that one takes, which could slow down or speed up pulse, etc. When I am early for a doctor appointment I have a Dunkin Donuts coffee in the car and then they take my pulse and it is racing. I know that is not an exact example, but things affect people differently, and if you are taking a LD because of something extremely serious and felonious, I would imagine your body could go haywire. (Especially if you are the obvious person who needs to be eliminated.)

 

[Sherazhad]

I seems unfair that it was leaked to the press. What doesn't make sense to me is why she agreed to take the test, guilty people don't normally agree (the anthony's-whom I believe to be guilty). If she is such a cold, manipulative, plotting person, I'm surprised she didn't put up more resistance. It's also odd that the anthony's (not Casey) haven't been accused by police of not co-operating, yet they refused a polygraph, yet Terri has been & she took 2. I'm mor eon the fence about this case, but all seems very strange.

 

[wondering1]

failing is worse than passing. failing twice is worse than failing once, but not unexpected. Showing up for three, failing two and leaving one before it begins, is worse than failing two, but marginally better than failing three. I wonder if she passed the questions about sexting MC? jmoo

 

[sherbetjello]

There are so many things that are a factor in a poly; medication, mental illness, brainwashing, stress, caffeine intake, what the person ate, if they smoke etc. etc.
The line of questioning for the person taking the test has also been known to cause problems with "results."

In no means what-so-ever is this technique perfected, I am not seeing it so either.

 

[txsvicki]

There's been too many proven innocent people who've failed polygraphs. I don't think they mean anything and don't understand why anyone would submit to one. I'f I'm ever hauled in for questioning, bullied, badgered, and forced into one I might understand why they take them.

 

[Sherazhad]

I wonder if Terri was on anti-depression medication for her post natal depression & whether this would influence the result. Many have said that these tests don't mean anything, but they are being reported in the media as an indication of her guilt & it does sound bad failing 2 tests.

 

[froginTtown]

I appreciate this thread... I think that this test should be abolished.. burn it.. stomp it ..what ever... THERE IS A REASON THEY WILL NOT ALLOW IT IN COURT.... It's deceptive,.. An investigators tool..?? yeah right,, to lead them into tunnel vision.. because people have nervous tendicies..I'd be guilty right off the bat... Then you have the habitial liars, They could tell you that they seen Elvis Presley in a U.F.O. doing a jigg dance... and pass it...!!
I think that if they do keep the "Lie Detector" around... That is should NEVER become the publics knowlege on how that person did.. and the LE NOT tell them them how they did either.... JMO but I feel strongly about it..!!!

 

[Karen Anne RN]

Does failing the lie detector tests mean anything?

(Respectfully snipped)

Not in my opinion. My first husband had to take a poly as part of a job application. The results showed that he was a drug addict and an alcoholic !

We never took any drugs, not even pot. He drank a few beers on the weekends, that's it.

But he was nervous, and he did have high blood pressure. There's no way he could have passed it.

 

[Donjeta]

IMO it depends on who you ask. Some estimate the accuracy rate of the polygraph at about 60 % which is only slightly better than tossing a coin, and it would be a waste of time and resources IMO. The highest estimates are about 85-95 % accurate which is considerably better but still, you get the wrong result in about 5-15 tests out of 100. A test with such an accuracy rate might be useful as an investigative tool but leaves a lot of reasonable doubt which is why other evidence is needed in court. LDTs are not in fashion where I live and IMO the police can do without.

When you measure something that has to do with human physiology and/or psychology you aren't ever going to get a 100% accurate test because there are lots of variables that might mess your results up. It's like cancer screening. If you have a PSA test or a mammogram done and it comes up positive you may think it means you have cancer but really it's just a risk estimate, and a number of people undergo unnecessary tests and even subjected to unnecessary treatments because of false positive cancer screening results. Often it's a matter of choosing the significance level. If you demand higher PSA values or a more alarming mammogram you can decrease the number of false positives but you're going to miss more cancers. If you demand lower PSA values or less alarming mammograms to invite the people to further tests you can catch more cancers but end up operating and chemoing more people without cancer. A lie detector test is similar in that the physical responses that indicate potential lying are on a continuum and theoretically you can manipulate the specificity and sensitivity of your test by changing the threshold values. If you lower the threshold you might catch more liars but falsely implicate more innocent ones as well. If you raise the threshold you will implicate fewer innocent people and miss more liars.

You just have to understand the limitations of the tests you're using and realize that there are going to be both false negatives and false positives, and weigh your results accordingly, in relation to other evidence. It can't distinguish liars from honest people, it can just give an estimate of the relative "risk" of them being liars versus innocents IF you know the accuracy rate of the LDT version you're using (which we don't know about Terri).

To answer the question in the title of the thread simply and shortly: No.

To answer with more words: Knowing nothing else about the case, the evidence, the people concerned or even what was asked in the test, a failed LDT result means practically nothing because it's not 100% accurate and fool proof. But then what is? Eye witness testimony is not 100 % accurate, DNA evidence is not 100% accurate, confessions are not 100% accurate. If you have other indicators that the person has lied you may feel relatively confident that the failed LDT result means the person is somewhat more likely to have lied than told the truth, but then again they may be one of the false positives and just a victim of coincidences and unfortunate coincidences. If you have a murder suspect who had a motive, who was heard shouting threats just moments before the murder, who was seen exiting the murder scene with a smoking gun in his hands and blood on his clothing you might feel it's probable that he failed the LDT because he lied. In other cases it may seem a real possibility that nerves or some other factor accounts for it. It's hard to know for sure which is why courts devote a lot of time to studying the evidence.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I'm not sure of the percentage of accuracy of these tests, but I know they are not allowed to be used as evidence.

Depends on many factors, including the individual examiner. Studies (some of highly dubious quality) have claimed between 55% (barely better than random chance) to nearly 100% accuracy.

Keep in mind that factually innocent people have failed polygraphs and factually guilty people have passed them. One of the most famous examples of the latter is Gary Leon Ridgway, the Green River Killer. LE received a good eyewitness lead about him from the boyfriend of one of the missing (killed) women. Ridgway passed a polygraph and was moved down the list of possible suspects as a result. This left him free to kill many other victims.

Strictly in my own opinion, polygraphs are woo-woo science and I would never consent to one, no matter what the circumstances were.

I just wonder if there were parts of the tests Terri actually passed & if the questions she failed indicate guilt about other things. For instance if she passed the question ''are you responsible for Kyron's disappearance?'', but failed the question ''have you been totally honest about your whereabouts that morning?'', makes a big difference to her guilt or not. And even though they can't be used against her it's very useful to any future prosecution of Terri, as anyone who has a TV now knows she failed 2 tests, including a future jury. I;m not so knowledgable about these tests though, so would be interesting to get other thoughts on this, particularly if other people have failed these tests, but later been proven to be innocent. Also this may sound dumb, but how many wrong questions constitutes a fail?

Considering that both LE and KH and DY have all said that there is no evidence that Kyron is dead, I'm inclined to believe that TMH passed any questions about harming or killing Kyron. The hole in that speculation is whether LE, KH and DY actually consider polygraph results as evidence.

Going further out on my speculative limb, I wonder if the question(s) that TMH received inconclusive or failed results on had to do with whether she had an accomplice. KH and DY seemed so convinced that she had an accomplice, long before LE started releasing any info to that effect that I wonder if TMH's polygraph results were what gave them that belief.

 

[GrainneDhu]

There's been too many proven innocent people who've failed polygraphs. I don't think they mean anything and don't understand why anyone would submit to one. I'f I'm ever hauled in for questioning, bullied, badgered, and forced into one I might understand why they take them.

Practise this one simple sentence until you can deliver it with sincerity: "I refuse to answer any questions until I can consult a lawyer."

If hauled in and the bullying begins, turn into a broken record. Keep repeating that sentence until the lawyer appears.

No matter what any police officer tells you, you can only improve your situation by consulting a lawyer.

I'm just kidding but I'm not joking.

 

[froginTtown]

It may sound stupid, but I get nervous enough about a doctor visit...That makes me nervous... But if LE. wanted to test me.. .....ok , i just sat here stunned.. I pray I will never come even close to a murder investigation...SERIOUSLY.. WOW..just the thought of someone wanting to do a lie detector test...thats scarey... :shocked2:

 

[KAE]

No.
It's called a Polygraph.
There's no such thing as a "lie detector".
Our legal system would be completely different if there was.
MOO

 

[Donjeta]

It may sound stupid, but I get nervous enough about a doctor visit...That makes me nervous... But if LE. wanted to test me.. .....ok , i just sat here stunned.. I pray I will never come even close to a murder investigation...SERIOUSLY.. WOW..just the thought of someone wanting to do a lie detector test...thats scarey... :shocked2:

Yeah... IMO it is quite easy to understand why an innocent person and a liar might be equally more nervous in response to questions like "Did you kill X?" than compared to questions like "Do you have brown eyes?" Both the liars and innocent people know which questions are the ones that could get them in trouble.

I think some version of guilty knowledge tests might work best. In theory, at least. If you investigate a stabbing with a dagger the testee is presented with alternatives such as "Was X killed with a pistol? A rifle? A kitchen knife? A dagger? A blunt object?" and the guilty person would supposedly have more information than an innocent one so if the person is more nervous at the mention of the dagger you may think it indicates awareness of the murder weapon. An innocent person with no knowledge wouldn't know to be more nervous about the dagger than about the pistol (except maybe if he owns a dagger collection but no pistols).

In practice it would be more difficult to construct such a test because it depends on the investigation and what has been published, rumored or leaked and it might require secrecy that they don't have. The above example wouldn't work if everybody knows the victim was stabbed or if they thought he might have been stabbed because it's the word on the street or if the testee suspected one of his relatives who is known to have a dagger.