In an article entitled “Civil war over the Holts rages in Lyndeborough,” Union Leader staff writer Nancy Meersman writes regarding the use of a polygraph “test” to bolster an allegation in a criminal appeal. Excerpt:
A polygraph expert says Walter Holt was telling the truth when he claimed that his farm hand, Chuck Grant, confessed to setting the Dec. 1, 1999, fire that destroyed the Holt homestead in Lyndeborough.
The assertion that Holt passed a lie detector test is the basis of the latest legal try by Nashua attorney Frances Holland to overturn the arson and insurance fraud convictions against Walter Holt’s wife, Monica.
…
Certified polygraph specialist George E. Tetreault of Portsmouth administered the test to Walter Holt on May 3. Polygraph evidence is not admissible in New Hampshire courts.
According to the polygraph expert, Holt answered “yes” when asked if Grant confessed to burning down the house. He also answered “yes” when asked if he saw Grant and a fire marshal going in and out of the burned home the day after the fire and “yes” to whether Monica told him within a week of the fire that Grant had confessed to her.
Tetreault said he observed ‘no physiological responses” when Holt answered the questions. “Therefore, with a reasoned judgment, it is hereby determined that all of his answers are truthful,” Tetreault said.
Those who understand the dubious method by which truth vs. deception is inferred in polygraph “tests” (See Ch. 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector) might question just how “reasoned” George E. Tetreault’s “judgment” is.