Fakegrah test

[Can't Say]

Here's the only thing. It's like a no-lose situation(I think). If I take the polygraph, and pass I'll be left alone with this whole matter. If I take it an fail, they will be investigating more trying to find evidence againts me.

If I refuse to take it, they will continue to investigate this and try to find evidence againts me. So it's like a no lose situation?

[George W. Maschke]

Can't Say,

No, it's not a no lose situation, because, as I mentioned earlier, if you "fail,"  the results might be considered in such judicial proceedings as search warrant requests, bail or sentencing hearings, or in any civil litigation that might be brought against you. And again,  there is the possibility that negative results might be leaked to the press to tarnish your reputation.

In addition, if the investigators actually believe in polygraphy (there are those in law enforcement who are true believers), they may well intensify their investigation of you.

[Anonymous]

I was accused of a felony crime, interrogated by the authorities and when asked to take a polygraph, I "Refused" the polygraph, hands down!!  This is a mere tool for them to aquire other information from you, meaning, trick questions or answers from you whereby they can use any little word you use and twist it into any form they want to try and charge you with something.  An officer told me the polygraph was 98% effective, while my lawyer told me, it was less than 90% and not used in a court of law.(at least for my state)  I was also told that refusal doesn't mean guilt.  After all, isn't there a shadow of quilt, just for being asked to take one?  Yes there is!  I also are not even remotely concerned over this even though its a potential felony crime as I know I didn't do it.  I told the authorities, that I didn't have the time or loss of income to take off from work to even bother with it as its a 300 mile trip for the day.  They don't have any evidence as I wasn't part of the felony anyway and I was never formaly charged with the accusations, so for me to refuse the polygraph, gave them nothing to twist and turn around to form to what they were looking for.  Furthermore, ask the ones whom asked you to take the polygraph, that if it is(say 98% effective in your case also) to find the hidden deceptions, then it must only be 98% effective in preserving you innocence.  Since it isn't 100% effective in preserving this innocence, then your not taking it.  They cannot guarantee this either, your innocence that is.  Consequently, I'm not even remotely bothered by it all.  This site is the best and you should listen carefully

[G Scalabr]

They don't have any evidence as I wasn't part of the felony anyway and I was never formally charged with the accusations, so for me to refuse the polygraph, gave them nothing to twist and turn around to form to what they were looking for.

When the prosecution asks a suspect to submit to a polygraph "test," it is often a strong indication that the potential case is extremely weak. The polygraph is often hauled out only in cases where there is a very minute chance for a conviction (or even an indictment) absent a "home run" confession. Defendants are extremely wise to refuse such foolishness.

[Public Servant]

Gino, George, Seeker, et al,

It sounds like "Can't Say" and/or defense counsel have requested this.  "Can't Say" said the attorney has selected the private examiner (or will do so).  A private examiner, hired by a defense attorney, will not conduct a post exam interview, regardless of the results.  No defense attorney worth his JD will allow a post test interview of his client.  This is an exculpatory exam.  As long as the exam results  can't be used in court, it is a no lose situation.  Sounds like Can't Say will likely be NDI.  Why else would a person be so adamant about taking it?

Much to the contrary of what Gino is saying, when a subject with counsel requests an exam (or is agreeing to one), charges have been filed, or they are about to be.  I run these types of exams for defense counsel quite often, and counsel never agrees to them unless prosecution is about to take it to court.  Gino's assertion could only hold true if the investigating agency is pushing for a suspect to come while the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been filed (and there is little chance they will with existing evidence) .  And even when the investigating agency asks for the exam early on, it does not always signify lack of evidence.

Just because there might be a strong case, doesn't mean Can't Say is guilty.  The case might be based upon testimony, which can be strong evidence, yet not always 100% reliable.  Perhaps someone else involved is lying about Can't Say's involvement.  What other recourse is there to bolster credibiltity when it's one (or more) person's word against another's?  An exculpatory poly could not hurt in such a situation.

Can't Say,

It's your decision and your future.  Seek advice from your counsel, not any of us on this board.

Regards,

Public Servant.

[Fed-up Fed]

You're right, the advice on this site sucks.

[Skeptic]

You're right, the advice on this site sucks.

You lose a job thanks to the polygraph, Fed-up?  Sure seems like you have an axe to grind.

Skeptic