Excellent post, George.

I really enjoyed reading the Court's decision.  Although as a polygrapher I disagree with some of the Court's reasoning, there is no denying that the polygrapher in this case was in error when he incorporated relevant material within his comparison questions.  As I read the test questions used, I immediately wondered how an examinee could possibly, under the natural duress of a polygraph examination, differentiate between the relevant questions and the control questions and respond accordingly.  I would tend to believe the inconclusive result over the no deception indicated result.

Charles Honts has participated in polygraph studies that are often cited by both the "anti-" people and the "pro-" people to support their differing opinions.  Both can't be right, and yet both use Honts' studies to back their views.  And now we see in this court case that Honts himself wants to have it both ways on several occasions during his testimony.  Very interesting. Thank you.

This is one of the most positive posts on the forum. So many of the stories we read don't make sense, and this was a refreshing find for me. Thanks for the information.