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.
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.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by orolan
 - Nov 19, 2003, 10:38 AM
Human Subject,
The last time I saw a polygrapher try to explain results like these, he said something to the effect that the examiner was obviously incompetent and that HE would not have had such results because HE was GOOD.
In other words, no they haven't.
Posted by Human Subject
 - Nov 19, 2003, 01:28 AM
Do polygraphers even try to explain these results?
Posted by orolan
 - Nov 18, 2003, 05:59 PM
Well, we know what happened to the polygrapher in the Molly Bish investigation. He moved to Arkansas and continued his errant ways ;)
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Nov 12, 2003, 05:11 AM
In an article by Philip Holsinger titled, "Cold case has sheriff hot on trail," (10 Nov. 2003), the White County, Arkansas Daily Citizen reports that eleven witnesses have failed polygraph "tests" in an investigation into the suspected murder of Douglas Gene Kirk in 1995:

http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2003/11/10/news/news04.txt

While it is possible that some grand conspiracy is afoot, the more plausible explanation is that this is yet another example of the polygraph's notorious unreliability.