The question of the polygraph?

[Mrs. B]

Well, they would, wouldn't they.  Endless pitch forking debate.  Pass or fail, it makes no difference.  In fact, "Pass" is often better because then they can rabbit on interminably about Sociopaths and Psychopaths who are apparently well know for passing these tests.

Yes, sure.

And here's what Mitchell had to say:

Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said that it was "extremely unlikely" the couple would be asked to take a lie detector test by police. He said: "Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used.

http://www.standard.co.uk/newsheadlines/mccanns-offer-to-take-lie-test-6698135.html

[Puffin]

There have been murderers who passed the test, which does make the subject somewhat suspect.   

The ‘Angel of Death’, Charles Cullen, working as a nurse, murdered as many as 40 people over a ten year period by giving them lethal injections. After his first victim died, he was considered a suspect and asked to take a polygraph test. He passed the polygraph test and went on to kill at least another 39 people. The failure of the polygraph cost 39 people their lives.

The Green River Killer, Gary Leon Ridgeway, pled guilty to murdering 48 women in the Seattle area over a twenty-year period. Ridgeway was given a polygraph following the murder of his fourth victim and passed the polygraph exam.  He was then dropped as a suspect and went on to kill another 44 women.  He is listed as the most prolific killer in U.S. history.  If the polygraph had been accurate, his reign of terror would have ended after his fourth victim. The failure of the polygraph to detect Ridgeway cost 44 women their lives.

[Mrs. B]

There have been murderers who passed the test, which does make the subject somewhat suspect.

Scary, that alone should be enough to outlaw the practice.

[Puffin]

Scary, that alone should be enough to outlaw the practice.

There is also the case of the traitor Adrich Ames who, in 1986 and 1991, passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union and Russia, respectively. Ames was initially "terrified" at the prospect of taking the test, but he was advised by the KGB "to just relax."  Ames's test demonstrated deceptive answers to some questions but the examiners passed him, perhaps in the later opinion of the CIA because the examiners were "overly friendly" and therefore did not induce the proper physiological response.  He was responsible for the death of at least 10 US agents.

[stephen25000]

Well, they would, wouldn't they.  Endless pitch forking debate.  Pass or fail, it makes no difference.  In fact, "Pass" is often better because then they can rabbit on interminably about Sociopaths and Psychopaths who are apparently well know for passing these tests.

Well you really like that phrase don't you, 'pitch-forking'.

Now that really sums up the obsessive mccannites.

[Mrs. B]

There is also the case of the traitor Adrich Ames who, in 1986 and 1991, passed two polygraph tests while spying for the Soviet Union and Russia, respectively. Ames was initially "terrified" at the prospect of taking the test, but he was advised by the KGB "to just relax."  Ames's test demonstrated deceptive answers to some questions but the examiners passed him, perhaps in the later opinion of the CIA because the examiners were "overly friendly" and therefore did not induce the proper physiological response.  He was responsible for the death of at least 10 US agents.

Equally scary.

[AnneGuedes]

I can understand very well that parents of a missing child, in order to have the police concentrating on the child and not on vain suspicions on them, deliberately ask to be lie detected.
It has anyhow only a presumption value in the US. Though cold criminals manage  unsurprisingly to pass the test, there's no story of an innocent being condemned because, as he/she was a particular emotional person, he/she didn't pass the test.

[Mrs. B]

The Truth About Lie Detectors, Says David Lykken, Is That They Can't Detect a Lie

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20079233,00.html

The innocent will fail them 50 percent of the time. Thousands of people, he says, are being refused employment, fired from their jobs and, in some cases, sent to prison—without having committed any crime. A psychiatry and psychology professor at the University of Minnesota who has studied lie detectors for over two decades, Lykken talked with PEOPLE's Linda Witt in his Minneapolis office about the evils of the polygraph.

[AnneGuedes]

The Truth About Lie Detectors, Says David Lykken, Is That They Can't Detect a Lie

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20079233,00.html

This was more than 30 years ago, the situation has changed and measuring possibly improved. It has no proof value in the US, it's just a presumption, so nobody can be charged because of a polygraph result.
I still understand that the US parents of a missing child desperately propose to do it. Moreover if you think of stats concerning the perpetrators.
In the McCann case, the suggestion and later rejection was a communication mistake, imo, nothing more.

[Mrs. B]

The only communication mistake was by those who failed to understand what the McCanns actually said, it was clear enough to the rest of us.

[Carana]

 Find a Lawyer with LegalMatch Find the Right Lawyer Now

Legal Topics > Criminal Law and Police > General Criminal Law > Criminal Procedure
Admissability of Polygraph Tests in Court
Authored by Ken LaMance, LegalMatch Law Library Managing Editor and Attorney at Law
inShare
What Exactly is a Polygraph Test?

A polygraph, or "lie-detector," is a machine that measures various physical attributes (blood pressure, perspiration, heart rate, etc...) and attempts to correlate them with telling lies.  In past times they were often used by police and government agents to interrogate suspected criminals, but as they have been proven to be extremely unreliable indicators of lying, their use has lessened in recent years (usually because of court rules prohibiting their use). 

If I am Arrested For a Crime, Can I be Forced to Take a Polygraph?

No!  In no state can anyone be forced by the police or anyone else to take a polygraph examination.  However, many people are not aware of this, and police can often apply plenty of psychological pressure on a suspect to the effect that not taking the test is an automatic admission of guilt.   Moreover, refusing to take a test may often convince police that you are guilty, at which point you may be harassed and searched until some kind of evidence is found.  But even if one agrees to take a polygraph test and passes it, if the police consider you a suspect, they may believe you "beat the test" rather than told the truth, making it somewhat of a lose-lose situation. 

What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?

Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence). 

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy. 

    California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish. 
    Georgia, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.
    Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy. 

The states in which polygraphs are inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  In these states, even if both parties wish to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very rare scenarios).

    Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts.
    Other states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause (to obtain search warrants).

Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion).  For a complete list of the state and federal rules regarding polygraphs, you can check here for your state.

Do I Need an Attorney?

If you are suspected of a crime, or have already been arrested, and the police are trying to make you take a polygraph examination, you should speak to a lawyer immediately.  The police will try to make it seem like refusing the test (or even asking for an attorney!) will lead to your arrest or prove your guilt, but this is absolutely not the case, so it is essential that you have a lawyer present to defend your rights.  No one can ever be forced to take this very unreliable test, and you should speak to an experienced criminal lawyer as soon as you can about whether you should agree to one and what would be in your best interest.

Consult a Lawyer - Present Your Case Now!
Last Modified: 05-06-2013 09:59 AM PDT

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

[ferryman]

Why would anyone want to faff around with 'lie detector' tests?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyT-7Zi5HM

[mercury]

If so, people who actually know how to read body language declared the McCanns are innocent.

Why would anyone want to faff around with 'lie detector' tests?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyT-7Zi5HM

Who is she? Anyone interesting? Or relevant? Has body language reading qualification above other body language commentators?
As for lie detector tests, if they weren't an issue in any way why did anyone bring the subject up?

PS, it's OK, I found some info...it was him that "dun it"

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id393.html

[Carana]

indubitably, the failure to do the lie detector tests as promised.

I haven't found anything to indicate that lie detector tests are accepted as evidence in Portugal.

Who invited them to take such tests? What credentials does whoever it was have? And what purpose would it have served beyond a Jeremy Kyle pantomime show?

[Brietta]

I haven't found anything to indicate that lie detector tests are accepted as evidence in Portugal.

Who invited them to take such tests? What credentials does whoever it was have? And what purpose would it have served beyond a Jeremy Kyle pantomime show?

You've only got one thing wrong there Carana ... not Jeremy Kyle ... maybe Trisha Goddard??


Summary of Verifiable Facts

• The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell is quoted as saying that the McCanns would take a lie detector (polygraph) test if the Portuguese Police asked them to - NOT one sponsored for the media and administered by a polygrapher who works in the entertainment industry.
• The Portuguese Police did not ask the McCanns to take a lie detector test.
• Lie detector tests are not admissible in Portuguese courts, nor in British courts.
• The McCanns declined a lie detector test administered by Don Cargill who is a polygrapher on daytime entertainment programme "Trisha".

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077824/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2022