Post reply

Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
Log in
Sign up

May 13, 2026, 04:52 AM

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board
► Polygraph and CVSA Forums
► Polygraph Policy
► Post reply ( Re: A case against "mutually agreed" polys )

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

[quote author=orolan link=msg=10389 date=1061854455]
The case of Jeremy Breedlove is complicated, but the only relevant part here is his polygraph. Jeremy's attorney and the prosecutor agreed that the results of his polygraph would be admissable at trial, unless the results were "inconclusive".

Jeremy was given a polygraph by the Ohio State Police on June 19th. On July 12th, the OSP gave this opinion:
[i]"After a [b]careful[/b] interpretation of Jeremy Breedlove's polygraph tracings, it is my opinion that no deception was indicated on his answers to the pertinent questions,".[/i]

When Jeremy's attorney asked the OSP for a copy of the videotape of the test in preparation for trial, the results magically changed. The OSP claimed on August 5th that the results were "inconclusive", and went so far as to say that Jeremy had manipulated the results by [i]"controlling his breathing".[/i] So much for that "careful" interpretation.

So if you're offered a polygraph in a criminal investigation, don't bet the farm on an NDI result. Next month the results may change.

Read the whole story here.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20030825/localnews/125369.html
[/quote]

Attachments: (Clear attachments)

Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB

Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached

Click or drag files here to attach them.

Insert width (px):

Insert height (px):

(Clear attachments)

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Mr. Truth

- Aug 25, 2003, 08:42 PM

I can't believe a defense attorney would agree to let a client's polygraph results be admissible under those circumstances. If the client failed, he would have been totally f**ked.

On the other hand, the prosecutor must not have had much of a case whereby the polygraph results would be the determining factor whether or not a case would be prosecuted.

Posted by orolan

- Aug 25, 2003, 07:34 PM

The case of Jeremy Breedlove is complicated, but the only relevant part here is his polygraph. Jeremy's attorney and the prosecutor agreed that the results of his polygraph would be admissable at trial, unless the results were "inconclusive".

Jeremy was given a polygraph by the Ohio State Police on June 19th. On July 12th, the OSP gave this opinion:
"After a careful interpretation of Jeremy Breedlove's polygraph tracings, it is my opinion that no deception was indicated on his answers to the pertinent questions,".

When Jeremy's attorney asked the OSP for a copy of the videotape of the test in preparation for trial, the results magically changed. The OSP claimed on August 5th that the results were "inconclusive", and went so far as to say that Jeremy had manipulated the results by "controlling his breathing". So much for that "careful" interpretation.

So if you're offered a polygraph in a criminal investigation, don't bet the farm on an NDI result. Next month the results may change.

Read the whole story here.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20030825/localnews/125369.html