Twoblock wrote on Dec 18^th, 2003 at 10:34pm:

Fair Chance I have to disagree that the FBI letter was so carefully worded that it can't be challenged in court. My understanding is that there is only three determinations that can be made by the polygraph and two of them are bad. Doesn't an inconclusive indicate there is deception on at least one question? Not within acceptable parameters means, to me, not being totally truthful (total truth is a requirement proven be the poly only, right?)) which is accusing one of being a liar. According to all polygraphers, if you tell the truth, you pass. If you don't, you fail. I fail to see any wiggle room in that letter. If that letter was written to me, it would be hard to waite until I could get that polygrapher in the witness chair.

Total truth is highly likely to cause you to fail. Polygraphers describe "No Deception Indicated" as applying to the relevant questions only - not ALL questions. If in fact you do not lie on the controls nor on the relevants and hence do not show a differential physiological response, you are most likely to be scored as "inconclusive" and hence fail a screening exam.

The exhortation to "Tell the whole truth" is simply to heighten your responses when lying. Polygraphers still expect you will lie. In fact they depend on it to get a score of NDI.

"Not being within acceptable parameters" is purposefully vague. I believe an inconclusive result is not considered "passing." With luck an examinee will get to take another test.

-Marty