This article in todays Los Angeles Times will leave you scratching your head WHY???. 

This involves two brothers in Texas, one who committed a robbery for drug money and his brother who was arrested. The brother was convicted as a habitual criminal and sentenced to thirty years in prison. The brother confesses five years later and they BOTH pass a polygraph, however this isn't enough to please several of the key players including the victim and the chief of police. 


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brothers20aug20.story?coll=...



Fred F.

Quote:


An interesting example of 'some tests are more equal than others'. 

Curiously, the party line amongst polygraphers (at least on this message board) is that issue specific polygraph testing is a valid diagnostic technique, whilst screening (they largely agree upon) is worthless or in serious need of overhaul.

The argument that a polygraph test 'is not admissible at trial' might be a good one to raise during an applicant's post-test interrogation. If it's good enough for the Chief of Police, it should be good enough for a lowly law enforcement applicant.