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:
What is the last month of the year?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 04, 2003, 09:59 AM
The Western Australia Court of Criminal Appeal, the highest Australian court to have considered the admissibility of polygraph evidence, has thoroughly rejected it. In a judgment filed 3 December 2003 in an appeal by Andrew Mark Mallard of his conviction for the murder of Pamela Suzanne Lawrence, the court, having heard extensive testimony from experts including Drs. Drew Richardson, Bill Iacono, John Furedy, and Charles Honts, concluded that "it has not been shown that the polygraph technique is a reliable method for determining truth or untruth..." The ruling, which addresses polygraphy at paragraphs 201-374 (pp. 62-112), may be downloaded as a 340 kb PDF file here:

http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/mallard/mallard-v-the-queen.pdf