Sitting for a polygraph shows a much higher likelihood of innocence. They can piece together a profile by how a person responds to the request, and of course, the results.
The wedding, which had been scheduled for Saturday, was elaborate. The couple had mailed 600 invitations, and the ceremony was to feature 14 bridesmaids and 14 groomsmen.
Yes. In a normal environment, it is a giant leap.
But, it is so close to other very similar crimes, and I think the likelihood is greater that she was murdered by her fiance than kidnapped, or killed by a random stranger.
Still. We'll see.
If I was innocent, they wouldn't even have to ask me to submit to a polygraph.
Is there any evidence that the polygraph is really able to detect lies? The machine measures changes in blood pressure, breath rate, and respiration rate. When a person lies it is assumed that these physiological changes occur in such a way that a trained expert can detect whether the person is lying. Is there a scientific formula or law which establishes a regular correlation between such physiological changes and lying? No. Is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than non-experts using other methods? No. There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth.
Some people, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, don't trust the polygraph machine, even if used by an expert like Paul Minor who trained FBI agents in their use. Anita Hill passed a polygraph test administered by Minor who declared she was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas. Hatch declared that someone with a delusional disorder could pass the test if the liar really thought she was telling the truth. Hatch may be right, but the ability of sociopaths and the deluded to pass a polygraph test is not the reason such machines cannot accurately detect lies with accuracy any greater than other methods of lie detection.
The reason the polygraph is not a lie detector is that what it measures--changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, and respiration--can be caused by many things. Nervousness, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and fear can all be causal factors in altering one's heart rate, blood pressure, or respiration rate. Having to go to the bathroom can also be causative. There are also a number of medical conditions such as colds, headaches, constipation, or neurological and muscular problems which can cause the physiological changes measured by the polygraph. The claim that an expert can tell when the changes are due to a lie and when they are due to other factors has never been proven. Even if the device measures nervousness, one cannot be sure that the cause of the nervousness is fear of being caught in a lie. Some people may fear that the machine will indicate they are lying when they are telling the truth and that they will be falsely accused of lying. Furthermore, even the most ardent advocate of the polygraph must admit that liars can sometimes pass their tests. One need only remember the spy Aldrich Ames, who passed the polygraph test several times while with the CIA. This lesson was lost on the FBI, however, who started requiring polygraph tests of its employees after spy Robert Hanssen was caught. Heretofore, the FBI had only used the polygraph on suspected criminals. Apparently, the FBI thinks that they could have prevented Hanssen's betrayal if only he had been made to take the polygraph.
In California and many other states, the results of polygraph tests are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. This may because polygraph tests are known to be unreliable, or it may be because what little benefit may be derived from using the polygraph is far outweighed by the potential for significant abuse by the police. The test can easily be used to invade a person's privacy or to issue a high-tech browbeating of suspects. Skeptics consider evidence from polygraphs no more reliable than testimony evoked under hypnosis, which is also not allowed in a court of law in California and many other states. Also, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court argued that Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings, does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense (United States, Petitioner v. Edward G. Scheffer).