Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jul 8th, 2021 at 7:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
What about the post polygraph interrogation.  They are two different things. Two separate procedures.  Isn't it true that the interrogation can be watched by jurors without the polygraph test.  Can't the mention of polygraph be redacted before the recording is presented?


Post-test interrogations are indeed sometimes played in court with mention of the polygraph redacted.
Posted by: Debora L Gillis
Posted on: Jul 8th, 2021 at 4:02pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What about the post polygraph interrogation.  They are two different things. Two separate procedures.  Isn't it true that the interrogation can be watched by jurors without the polygraph test.  Can't the mention of polygraph be redacted before the recording is presented?
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 9:51am
  Mark & Quote
ThePeaceMaker12 wrote:

Quote:
I found this court document off the Department of Justices website which says that polygraphs have been ruled inadmissable in court like my attorneys have said: 


Please re-read the link you have provided.  It is one case.  A case in which other cases were cited.  It however does not mention a total legal prohibition of entry of polygraph "evidence" in a court of law.  Further, the statement includes a portion referring to unsolicited exams adminstered by a private polygraph examiner.

I understand your frustration.  I have experienced similar frustration after having been determined deceptive, although I was not.  Since that time I have studied polygraphy and laws related to it.  I have contacted legislators both nationally and in my state.  Unfortunately, to date I have never received a response.

If I have offended you I apologize.  I was simply offering up a correction to a blanket statement you made regarding admissibility.  Perhaps you reside in a state that has ruled polygraph cannot be entered into evidence.  If this is your case, that's great.  However, every state in the union is not the same.  If so, there would be no need for statehood only federal control.  I have offered up examples for you.  If you want to argue the facts, it will fall upon deaf ears.  I agree with your opinion that polygraph findings should not be allowed into court whatsoever.  However, the opinion does not match what some states' laws state.  Sorry   Sad
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:28am
  Mark & Quote
Jeffery wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:22am:
Probably not; because only a brain dead defense attorney would agree in advance to let his client take one.  I'm no lawyer and no expert here, but I'd think that the polygraph would have to be specifically and explictly agreed to in advance for it to be admissible under the hypothetical situation.  A polygraph the cops give a suspect without a lawyer wouldn't be admissible (based on what I know; not sure about New Mexico etc).


Heh, well I never took a polygraph during a criminal investigation but that is all I will say.  Not that I have anything to hide or anything, it's just that I know polygraph operators read this site and it was a polygraph operator who branded me a "liar" when in fact I was telling the truth so I do not trust them.  I have learned that sometimes political pressure will make the police or organization go after somebody innocent in the effort to appease that political pressure.  This political pressure is what causes innocent people to be railroaded.
Posted by: Jeffery
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:22am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
ThePeaceMaker12 wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:17am:
So here is a question I have Jeff.  If it is to the advantage of a prosecutor to have polygraph results in court....do these results all the sudden become admissable and only admissalbe if helps the prosecution's case?


Probably not; because only a brain dead defense attorney would agree in advance to let his client take one.  I'm no lawyer and no expert here, but I'd think that the polygraph would have to be specifically and explictly agreed to in advance for it to be admissible under the hypothetical situation.  A polygraph the cops give a suspect without a lawyer wouldn't be admissible (based on what I know; not sure about New Mexico etc).
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:18am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Jeffery wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:16am:
You get what you pay for.   Grin



Well, I am also a member of an organization that is able to hire high priced and high powered attorneys and not at my expense without going into too much detail.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:17am
  Mark & Quote
Jeffery wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:07am:
Dude, don't sweat it.  Your attorneys probably told you correct advice.  Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc).  The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.

I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...

If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.

As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place).  If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.



So here is a question I have Jeff.  If it is to the advantage of a prosecutor to have polygraph results in court....do these results all the sudden become admissable and only admissalbe if helps the prosecution's case?
Posted by: Jeffery
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:16am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
ThePeaceMaker12 wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:15am:
Heh, I have legal insurance.  I can call my lawyers at anytime and not be charged an hourly rate.  I pay a monthly rate for my legal insurance.   I think everybody should have some sort of legal insurance plan.  


You get what you pay for.   Grin
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:15am
  Mark & Quote
Jeffery wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 6:07am:
Dude, don't sweat it.  Your attorneys probably told you correct advice.  Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc).  The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.

I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...

If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.

As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place).  If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.


Heh, I have legal insurance.  I can call my lawyers at anytime and not be charged an hourly rate.  I pay a monthly rate for my legal insurance.   I think everybody should have some sort of legal insurance plan.
Posted by: Jeffery
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 6:07am
  Mark & Quote
ThePeaceMaker12 wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 5:29am:
Ok so my attorney gave me bad legal advice and I can now sue my attorney right?  and what about this web site?  Is this web site wrong? Could this web site be opening itself to a lawsuit for allegedly claiming that a polygraph is inadmissable in court.  I swear up and down that several attorneys in my state have stated time and time again that the polygraph is not admissable in court because it is inaccurate.


Dude, don't sweat it.  Your attorneys probably told you correct advice.  Ask them to clarify if you want; they would be more knowledgable about your circumstances (i.e. the particular laws in your state, whether or not you stipulated before hand etc etc).  The responses you've had on this board have all been theoritical to your absolute statement that "Polygraph is (as in never) not admissible in court" and there are limited circumstances where it is.

I don't think that means your lawyers gave you bad info; and it definately doesn't mean you can sue this site for bad info (I can't beliece I even wasted keystrokes addressing this)...

If you want to argue this with your lawyers, I'm sure they'd learn something from it... and charge you for the time.

As a general rule, Polygraphs would not be admissible if they are favorable to the defense (because as part of the stipulation, I doubt charges would have been filed in the first place).  If there was no agreement, then the prosecution will play the "Polygraphs shouldn't be admissable because they are inaccurate" card.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 5:48am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
According to what I am reading from the DOJ website and what my attorneys have told me that polygraph evidence is ruled inadmissable in court according to rule Rule 702 and Rule 403.  The Supreme court has ruled against the admissable of polygraph evidence at trial due to "considerable evidence of a lack of general acceptance in the scientific community for use of polygraph evidence where reliability of results is critical, such as in courtroom, fact determinative use."
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 5:41am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I found this court document off the Department of Justices website which says that polygraphs have been ruled inadmissable in court like my attorneys have said:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f8700/8712.pdf#search='Polygraph%20Inadmissible%20in%20Court'
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 5:29am
  Mark & Quote
darkcobra2005 wrote on May 24th, 2005 at 5:27am:
New Mexico State Supreme Court Rule 11-707 says polygraph is admissable.  Hope this helps with the argument about admissibility.  Under certain circumstances it is admissable.  



11-707. Polygraph examinations.
1. A. Definitions. As used in this rule:
(1) "chart" means the record of bodily reactions by a polygraph instrument that is attached to the human body during a series of questions;
(2) "polygraph examination" means a test using a polygraph instrument which at a minimum simultaneously graphically records on a chart the physiological changes in human respiration, cardiovascular activity, galvanic skin resistance or reflex for the purpose of lie detection;
(3) "polygraph examiner" means any person who is qualified to administer or interpret a polygraph examination; and
(4) "relevant question" means a clear and concise question which refers to specific objective facts directly related to the purpose of the examination and does not allow rationalization in the answer.
B. Minimum qualifications of polygraph examiner. To be qualified as an expert witness on the truthfulness of a witness, a polygraph examiner must have at least the following minimum qualifications:
(1) at least five (5) years' experience in administration or interpretation of polygraph examinations or equivalent academic training;
(2) conducted or reviewed the examination in accordance with the provisions of this rule; and
(3) successfully completed at least twenty (20) hours of continuing education in the field of polygraph examinations during the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the date of the examination.
C. Admissibility of results. Subject to the provisions of these rules, the opinion of a polygraph examiner may in the discretion of the trial judge be admitted as evidence as to the truthfulness of any person called as a witness if the examination was performed by a person who is qualified as an expert polygraph examiner pursuant to the provisions of this rule and if:
(1) the polygraph examination was conducted in accordance with the provisions of this rule;
(2) the polygraph examination was quantitatively scored in a manner that is generally accepted as reliable by polygraph experts;
(3) prior to conducting the polygraph examination the polygraph examiner was informed as to the examinee's background, health, education and other relevant information;
(4) at least two (2) relevant questions were asked during the examination; and
(5) at least three (3) charts were taken of the examinee.
D. Notice of examination. Any party who intends to use polygraph evidence at trial, shall not less than thirty (30) days before trial or such other time as the district court may direct, serve upon the opposing party a written notice of such party's intention to use such evidence. The following reports shall be served with the notice:
(1) a copy of the polygraph examiner's report, if any;
(2) a copy of each chart;
(3) a copy of the audio or video recording of the pretest interview, actual testing and posttest interview; and
(4) a list of any prior polygraph examinations taken by the examinee in the matter under question, including the names of all persons administering such examinations, the dates and the results of the examinations.
E. Recording of tests. The pretest interview and actual testing shall be recorded in full on an audio or video recording device.
F. Determination of admissibility. The court shall make any determination as to the admissibility of a polygraph examination outside the presence of the jury.
G. Compelled polygraph examinations. No witness shall be compelled to take a polygraph examination over objection. However, for good cause shown, the court may compel the taking of a polygraph examination by a witness who has previously voluntarily taken an examination and has given notice pursuant to Paragraph D that the party intends to use the polygraph examination. If a witness refuses to take a polygraph examination ordered by the court under this paragraph, opinions of other polygraph examiners as to the truthfulness of the witness shall be inadmissible as evidence.


Ok so my attorney gave me bad legal advice and I can now sue my attorney right?  and what about this web site?  Is this web site wrong? Could this web site be opening itself to a lawsuit for allegedly claiming that a polygraph is inadmissable in court.  I swear up and down that several attorneys in my state have stated time and time again that the polygraph is not admissable in court because it is inaccurate.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 5:26am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I did not go through a post-test interview.  The end of my employment screen was pretty much, thanks for coming...have a good one.  The context of my test differed from yours.  Your's a criminal matter (specific incident), mine a pre-employment screening (broad based).  That's really no matter though.  The polygraph decisions are subjective and many times completely incorrect.  The other times...flip the coin and get it right.

To continue the discussion regarding admissibility in court:  For New Mexico see statute 11-707 C  http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=nm:all

According to the book A Tremor in the Blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector by Dr. David T. Lykken published in 1998, states in which stipulated lie tests are admissible include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  States that do not allow polygraph decisions into evidence include: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.



Keep in mind Brandon that several...not just one...but three to four different attorneys have told me that the polygraph is inadmissable in court.  If you are speaking purely technical then it would make no sense for a defense attorney to allow a polygraph in court IF the defense and prosecutor even have that option.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 4:10am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Man, I tell you what.  Hope you don't have to go through the post test-interview like I did.  I was innocent and already told them everything I knew....


Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, I did not go through a post-test interview.  The end of my employment screen was pretty much, thanks for coming...have a good one.  The context of my test differed from yours.  Your's a criminal matter (specific incident), mine a pre-employment screening (broad based).  That's really no matter though.  The polygraph decisions are subjective and many times completely incorrect.  The other times...flip the coin and get it right.

To continue the discussion regarding admissibility in court:  For New Mexico see statute 11-707 C  http://nxt.ella.net/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=nm:all

According to the book A Tremor in the Blood: uses and abuses of the lie detector by Dr. David T. Lykken published in 1998, states in which stipulated lie tests are admissible include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  States that do not allow polygraph decisions into evidence include: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:35am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
You are correct in assuming that such an agreement would be very unlikely.  Thus the belief that polygraph "evidence" is inadmissable.  If I ever retained an attorney and received direction to submit to a polygraph exam, that attorney would be a client lighter in his/her caseload.

Please note that I am discussing the literal admissability of polygraph results, not the general real life admissability.


Man, I tell you what.  Hope you don't have to go through the post test-interview like I did.  I was innocent and already told them everything I knew....but they were sitting their calling me a liar when in fact I was telling the truth.  I have a strong perception that my case had alot to do with appeasing political pressure.  They had to find somebody who committed employee misconduct even if that somebody is innocent.  But if you are going to find an innocent person guilty you must first be able to make it impossible for the innocent person to prove himself innocent.  But the post test interview is where they use pressure tatics.  The pressure they try to put is immense but I was innocent so those tatics didn't work on me.  The problem is, some people are ignorant to the interrogation process and will sometimes admit to something they really didn't do in order to appease the pressure that is being placed on them.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:26am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
You are correct in assuming that such an agreement would be very unlikely.  Thus the belief that polygraph "evidence" is inadmissable.  If I ever retained an attorney and received direction to submit to a polygraph exam, that attorney would be a client lighter in his/her caseload.

Please note that I am discussing the literal admissability of polygraph results, not the general real life admissability.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:19am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
Of these attorneys; which ones are bar certified in all 50 states?

I have not attended law school, however I have done quite a bit of research.  One does not have to attend law school to review laws and understand the meanings of each.  I should have mentioned entry into evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.

Your lawyer advisors were likely making these statements because they would never enter into such an agreement as it could have detrimental repercussions upon the client should the polygraph results indicate deception.  If not agreed upon, polygraph "evidence" is certainly not admissable in  a court of law.

Perhaps one of our more senior members, such as George, can add to this thread.



The only reason why a defense attorney would agree to make polygraph results of his client admissable is because he/she thinks it will get his/her client off.  And if that is the case, why would a prosecutor agree?   I have talked to several attorneys who all stated that polygraph results are inadmissable in court.  Not to mention, in this web site's FAQs this web site has stated that polygraph results are inadmissable in court.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:13am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I have not attended law school, however I have done quite a bit of research.  One does not have to attend law school to review laws and understand the meanings of each.  I , also, should have mentioned entry into evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings.

Your lawyer advisors were likely making these statements because they would never enter into such an agreement as it could have detrimental repercussions upon the client should the polygraph results indicate deception.  If not agreed upon, polygraph "evidence" is certainly not admissable in  a court of law.

Thankfully, polygraph results are not used in place of real evidence in our courts.  If it were so the only descriptive word would be TRAVESTY.

Perhaps one of our more senior members, such as George, can add to this thread.

BTW, what state do you live in?  I would be open to researching the information.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:02am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Just a note:


Actually this statement is incorrect, although it is popular belief.  Results are, in many instances, admissable upon agreement between prosecution & defense prior to the administration of a polygraph examination.  In New Mexico polygraph results may be entered into evidence at the discretion of the presiding judge.



I mean, if polygraphs were admissable in court, their wouldn't be a need for a confession or an admission.  But here in the United States several different attorneys have advised me that the polygraph is inadmissable in court, at least it is in the state i live in.  I am sure it is the same in every state.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 2:00am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Just a note:


Actually this statement is incorrect, although it is popular belief.  Results are, in many instances, admissable upon agreement between prosecution & defense prior to the administration of a polygraph examination.  In New Mexico polygraph results may be entered into evidence at the discretion of the presiding judge.



That's not true.  I have been advised by several attorneys that polygraph results are inadmissable in court.  What law school did you attend?
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 1:48am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Just a note:

Quote:
Also understand, the result of a polygraph is inadmissable in court in the United States, but an admission or confession is admissable.


Actually this statement is incorrect, although it is popular belief.  Results are, in many instances, admissable upon agreement between prosecution & defense prior to the administration of a polygraph examination.  In New Mexico polygraph results may be entered into evidence at the discretion of the presiding judge.
Posted by: ThePeaceMaker12
Posted on: May 24th, 2005 at 1:06am
  Mark & Quote
bob123 wrote on Apr 24th, 2005 at 6:35am:
What exactly is a post-test interrogation?  I am not sure if I had one or not.

I recently took an exam for federal agency.
Proceeding the exam, the polygrapher pressed play on a tape recorder.  He then quickly re-hashed my admissions and asked if I agree with them.  I said yes.

I don't recall any detailed questions after I was detached from the apparatus.

Can someone please describe the nature of post-test interrogations in more detail?  After reading a few threads, I gleaned that whether or not you had a post-test interrogation is a good indicator of how the exam went.



I have went through post test interrogation before.  I was questioned regarding an incident I did not commit.  I told the whole and complete truth on the polygraph and yet I was still registering deceptive, I assume on one of my questions.   The polygrapher tried to get me to admit to something I really didn't do.   They used every pressure tatic they could use from threatening my job to calling me a liar to downplaying the significance of the incident.  I did not bow to the pressure because I told them the truth from the beginning when the investigation first kicked off.  You need to understand that the purpose of the polygraph machine is pressure you to give admissions and confessions and they really don't know if you are telling the truth or not.  However, if you fail a polygraph, it is true that you are treated more prejudically even if you were honestly telling the truth.   Their is nothing worse to know you were telling the truth and everybody has branded you a liar based solely on a polygraph result.  Also understand, the result of a polygraph is inadmissable in court in the United States, but an admission or confession is admissable.  Because I would not admit to something I did not do, even though I had a failing polygraph, they had nothing to go on to punish me with.  I hope that none of you get caught up in an investigation of any kind especially if you are innocent.   My situation is a bit more complex and I won't go into details as of right yet.  

Sounds like the polygraph worked on you.  The goal of the polygraph is to get you to admit to things you normally wouldn't admit to and that is what you did.  So, it wasn't really a post test interrogation but rather rehashing what damaging admissions you might have made during the test or just before the test.  Usually a post test interrogation is where they suspect you of lying and not making an admission and attempt to interrogate you after the test using pressure tatics to get you to confess or make the admission.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Apr 25th, 2005 at 4:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
A post-test should consist of questions regarding areas in which the examiner has found reactions on your part during the in-test to relevant questions.  Examiners are supposed to question you to find out if there is any reason, other than deception, that may indicate why you have shown a reaction.

However, from much of what I have read, mostly pertaining to federal hiring, it could be a fishing trip.  In other words you have not shown strong reactions to any relevant question, but you are questioned nonetheless.  In that case the examiner is searching to see if you have "beat the box" and/or to elicit an admission or confession.

A post-test is not indicative either way in my experience.  You shall have to wait to find out your results.

-Brandon
Posted by: Bob123 - Ex Member
Posted on: Apr 24th, 2005 at 6:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
What exactly is a post-test interrogation?  I am not sure if I had one or not.

I recently took an exam for federal agency.
Proceeding the exam, the polygrapher pressed play on a tape recorder.  He then quickly re-hashed my admissions and asked if I agree with them.  I said yes.

I don't recall any detailed questions after I was detached from the apparatus.

Can someone please describe the nature of post-test interrogations in more detail?  After reading a few threads, I gleaned that whether or not you had a post-test interrogation is a good indicator of how the exam went.
 
  Top