For starters, I am a big fan of a suspect or a family member taking a polygraph. Some aren't and I get it. But they are not admissible in court and if anything they are meant as a way to clear your name. In other words, despite the risk of a polygraph, if I know I am innocent, I would like to co-operate because the police also want to know the truth in the case as well. If they can rule you out it makes things easier. You can't be convicted with a failed polygraph, but you can be ruled out.

That being said, humans make mistakes, and machines - which humans create - can be wrong. Science is never settled. Polygraphs are a good example of this.

Remember the Wendi Long incident? The friend of hers drove her home after a party and said while they were at a gas station she was talking to two guys whom he assumed she knew and she went home with them he said. The cops had him take a polygraph to see if he was telling the truth and he passed with flying colors to the point that the administrator of the test noted how impressed he was. They even put him under hypnosis to get a proper description of the two men. Well, it was all a lie. He confessed to raping and killing Wendi eventually.

Larry Gibson has claimed in his interview that he passed the polygraph. I have never seen anything that disputes this claim either. Is he guilty? Many think so.

So these are two cases that I can think about where they passed a polygraph but are either guilty or highly suspected of guilt. David Dowaliby failed a polygraph but claims it was because they were asking him to purposely lie about something. Guys like Mike Morris and Paul Pollis never took one and I never like when especially a husband refuses to take one. But are there cases other than the two that you can think about that I mentioned where a guilty person passed a polygraph?

Judy Groezinger. She passed a polygraph, but there was so much evidence (circumstantial even), that I'm surprised she was never charged with killing her husband Mark.

It makes ya realise how unreliable they are!!

Same thing when an innocent person fails them, because they are unreliable; they are inadmissible in court for that very reason.

I have watched and read enough true crime to know that there is no way I as an innocent person would take a polygraph.it might not be admissible in court but it could sure cause LE to zoom in on you as a suspect if you failed and were innocent.

Judy Groezinger. She passed a polygraph, but there was so much evidence (circumstantial even), that I'm surprised she was never charged with killing her husband Mark.

Could part of the reason be that a sociopath would have better luck passing one of them? They can remain calm, maybe even convince themselves they are innocent.

I have watched and read enough true crime to know that there is no way I as an innocent person would take a polygraph.it might not be admissible in court but it could sure cause LE to zoom in on you as a suspect if you failed and were innocent.

I get it. I still wish some highly suspect individuals would take them though. I can understand consulting a lawyer. Marlene Aisenberg if I recall had an inconclusive polygraph test and she has long been suspicious of being involved in the whereabouts of her missing daughter. I would likely still try it if I knew I was not involved. The risk is worth the reward.

There are people that should have NEVER taken one. Chris Watts, not an Unsolved Mystery case, but a well known one where he killed his wife Shannan and his two daughters and dumped them in an oil tank. He takes a polygraph test and fails it miserably in every which way and the investigator confronts him basically saying that he knows where they are and he should just tell them. So he breaks down and does. Why on earth he thought he could pass that test with flying colors is beyond me.

Polygraphs were considered “reliable” 40+ years ago. But you’d be wise to avoid them today.

Jeff Oberholtzer volunteered AND passed a polygraph in 1982. But that didn’t stop police from making his life miserable and warning any woman who was in the same room as him that he was a wife killer. It would be another 15 or so years before he was officially cleared thanks to DNA.

I have watched and read enough true crime to know that there is no way I as an innocent person would take a polygraph.it might not be admissible in court but it could sure cause LE to zoom in on you as a suspect if you failed and were innocent.

The funny part is that if you refuse you take one then they look at you suspiciously. Double-edged sword

They are easy to beat. George's advice from Seinfeld is actually good advice for the guilty taking a polygraph - "it's not a lie, if you believe it." Undisclosed medications may work too, and there are physiological strategies (it's gross, but sneaking a thumb tack into your shoe and pressing down during the pre-exam screening to cause pain and mimic your reactions when "lying"). As far as the innocent or victims, the emotional dysregulation caused by the events can easily result in a false positive. I wouldn't take one. DNA, hair sample, skin sample, fingerprints, footprints, physical exam for suspicious injury, no problem. But not a polygraph. It's pseudoscience and should have been tossed into the dust bin of history long ago.

They are easy to beat. George's advice from Seinfeld is actually good advice for the guilty taking a polygraph - "it's not a lie, if you believe it.".

There was that classic episode of Roseanne where she was stealing condiments from the diner and they were going to give the staff a polygraph. And there was this classic exchange between her and Jackie:

Roseanne: What are the chances of beating a lie detector?

Jackie: You’re actually going to lie?

Roseanne: Well, if I tell the truth, I’ll get fired. And if I lie, at least I got a shot. I sort of figured, you being a cop and everything would know some of the tricks.

Jackie: There are no tricks. It’s a machine.

Roseanne: I can beat it.

Jackie: The test measures blood pressure, heart rate, respiration. These are things you can’t control.

Roseanne: I think I can.

Jackie: The only ones who can beat a lie detector test are people who have no conscience at all. Psychos. Schizos. Pathological liars.

Roseanne: I know I can.

There was that classic episode of Roseanne where she was stealing condiments from the diner and they were going to give the staff a polygraph. And there was this classic exchange between her and Jackie:

Roseanne: What are the chances of beating a lie detector?

Jackie: You’re actually going to lie?

Roseanne: Well, if I tell the truth, I’ll get fired. And if I lie, at least I got a shot. I sort of figured, you being a cop and everything would know some of the tricks.

Jackie: There are no tricks. It’s a machine.

Roseanne: I can beat it.

Jackie: The test measures blood pressure, heart rate, respiration. These are things you can’t control.

Roseanne: I think I can.

Jackie: The only ones who can beat a lie detector test are people who have no conscience at all. Psychos. Schizos. Pathological liars.

Roseanne: I know I can.
:lol:

I guess when guilty people pass it just shows how unreliable that they are. and it's unfortunate that sometimes people are set aside by them (as suspects).

We used them in the USAF for people with higher level security clearances. Some positions have a warning in the job description about it. This is actually brought up in an UM segment where someone takes one, although I think it might of been an agent working in the Army.

The polygraph & other "lie detectors" are machines.They measure stress. They are subject to malfunction & operator error or manipulation A series of questions records responses to establish a baseline. IF everything goes right it can produce reasonably accurate results.
Operaters can manipulate the machine or person being questioned to produce the results they want.
The person being questioned can manipulate results by establishing a false or unreliable baseline.

The spookiest thing I saw was a Vietnam POW consistently beat the polygraph. He had amazing physiological self control. Like an Asian monk.

I had a condition labeled "training bradycardia" at the time. Low vital signs from good physical condition. I was too low to establish a reliable baseline. We had a guy on the other end of the spectrum his norms were way too high.
False positive & false negative interpretions make the results inadmissable in court.

Simple, polygraphs are bunk that should not be taken seriously in 2026. I have the same opinion of guilty people beating them as I do innocent people failing them: it means nothing. I would never agree to take one for any reason, guilty or innocent.

It's absurd that until very recently they were used as screening tools for employment.

https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/582106318_1492181295715713_4059924453701143186_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s565x565_tt6&_nc_cat=111&_nc_cb=99be929b-ad57045b&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=W0mmPp_4VWMQ7kNvwFA8j52&_nc_oc=Adl8pMdirIqxmuO_4kvewa2q7VM3PyKYBUtbhiiCm9iCRpobA8alYc_GoGe911qeNnc&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&_nc_gid=8TCsLDiSuaeGGX1dIlgKhw&oh=00_AfojX5DbNpv-SEtmNJbGy_bAhTIx-rYZ3oUH4PVJycTRxw&oe=696C6ED3

:lol:

How many people beat a polygraph? Far, far less than those who are wrongfully suspected due to them.

Plus.. I'd posit that you don't have to beat the machine. You just have to beat the examiner. That's the human element in it and that's what winds up being wrong.

If someone passed a polygraph but is then declared "guilty" it certainly makes me question the reliability of the conviction. There are cases where very solid witness and forensic evidence backs it up, but if someone passes and is convicted on a flimsy case I tend to distrust the case.

If someone passed a polygraph but is then declared "guilty" it certainly makes me question the reliability of the conviction. There are cases where very solid witness and forensic evidence backs it up, but if someone passes and is convicted on a flimsy case I tend to distrust the case.

Polygraphs tests are usually inadmissible as evidence, for valid reasons. There are many cases of innocent people flunking polygraph tests, and many cases of guilty parties passing polygraph tests.

They are too unreliable, to establish guilt.

How many people beat a polygraph? Far, far less than those who are wrongfully suspected due to them.

Plus.. I'd posit that you don't have to beat the machine. You just have to beat the examiner. That's the human element in it and that's what winds up being wrong.


You make a good point.

"However, a person’s body can react differently for a variety of reasons, like stress or being asked uncomfortable questions. A person might not be anxious about lying and the polygraph test might produce inconclusive results. The reliability of a polygraph will also be dependent on the expertise of the person administering the test."



source: https://provincialcourt.bc.ca/navigating-court-case/information-all-types-cases/courtroom-basics/evidence-and-oaths/polygraph-tests

Polygraphs tests are usually inadmissible as evidence, for valid reasons.
Yes with taped confessions.. They arent allowed either because its easy to make it say something otherwise...

Polygraphs tests are usually inadmissible as evidence, for valid reasons. There are many cases of innocent people flunking polygraph tests, and many cases of guilty parties passing polygraph tests.

They are too unreliable, to establish guilt.

Polygraphs are widely used by the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad, etc. They are far more reliable than most civilians realize.

Something being admissible or not is not strictly a function of its reliability, its more of a question of how courts have ruled on one whim or another.

There are many cases of almost every evidence failing in one way or another, many of them are still perfectly admissible. Something being imperfect does not make it useless.

I dont consider the results of a polygraph sufficient to establish guilt or innocence alone, but they are never used that way so it matters little.

Polygraphs are widely used by the CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad, etc. They are far more reliable than most civilians realize.

Something being admissible or not is not strictly a function of its reliability, its more of a question of how courts have ruled on one whim or another.

There are many cases of almost every evidence failing in one way or another, many of them are still perfectly admissible. Something being imperfect does not make it useless.

I dont consider the results of a polygraph sufficient to establish guilt or innocence alone, but they are never used that way so it matters little.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/960px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

If I were charged with a crime I might be interested to know how I would fare on a lie detector test but I'd be afraid of the results in case I was innocent but I got nervous and the test said I lied. :(

They don't work, that's why they aren't allowed as evidence in court... I remember reading about some jerry springer like talkshow in spain that used it on guests and it claimed some guy was cheating on his wife, yet he wasn't and he had proof he didn't and ended up sueing the show after his marriage ended...

I'm sure they can indicate at times when someones heart rate changes or whatever when asked a certain question, but it's never black and white...

As a part of a criminology tesis i once did, i read up a lot about sociopaths, a sociopath over time can reason with himself and eventually convince himself that he either never did the crime or that it was justified, it's common un certain organized crime types, thats how they can sleep at night.

meaning if lie detector detects lies, and someone has convinced themselves that it never happened, and it really is true, they do that.. then how would it work? it's too much of a kooky science for me, again, exactly why it's not usable in court...

They don't work, that's why they aren't allowed as evidence in court... I remember reading about some jerry springer like talkshow in spain that used it on guests and it claimed some guy was cheating on his wife, yet he wasn't and he had proof he didn't and ended up sueing the show after his marriage ended...

I'm sure they can indicate at times when someones heart rate changes or whatever when asked a certain question, but it's never black and white...

As a part of a criminology tesis i once did, i read up a lot about sociopaths, a sociopath over time can reason with himself and eventually convince himself that he either never did the crime or that it was justified, it's common un certain organized crime types, thats how they can sleep at night.

meaning if lie detector detects lies, and someone has convinced themselves that it never happened, and it really is true, they do that.. then how would it work? it's too much of a kooky science for me, again, exactly why it's not usable in court...

https://i.postimg.cc/q7bwV8dW/IMG-3524.jpg

Pretty sure I didn't pass when I took one to work in jewelry years ago. I wasn't hired and I'm not a thief!!!

Ya they shouldnt be used in many cases.....

I wanted to add that this is tough. If I was accused if a crime I didn’t commit, absolutely I’d want to prove my innocence in any way that I could. Like in the Patsy Wright case, everybody close to her (with the exception of her ex-husband of course) voluntarily took polygraphs and all passed.

As mentioned Judy Groezinger passed hers but these days I don’t tend to believe she is guilty. On the other hand Tim McClure flunked his and I question his guilt too. UM mentioned that everybody at the school in the Chaim Weiss case passed their polys too. I don’t know what to make of Ralph Sigler, I think the theory presented in the segment explains why he failed his. I guess ultimately these examples contribute to why polygraphs aren’t admissible in court. Just can’t depend on them.

I wanted to add that this is tough. If I was accused if a crime I didn’t commit, absolutely I’d want to prove my innocence in any way that I could. Like in the Patsy Wright case, everybody close to her (with the exception of her ex-husband of course) voluntarily took polygraphs and all passed.

As mentioned Judy Groezinger passed hers but these days I don’t tend to believe she is guilty. On the other hand Tim McClure flunked his and I question his guilt too. UM mentioned that everybody at the school in the Chaim Weiss case passed their polys too. I don’t know what to make of Ralph Sigler, I think the theory presented in the segment explains why he failed his. I guess ultimately these examples contribute to why polygraphs aren’t admissible in court. Just can’t depend on them.

No, no, no. If you were accused of a crime you would want to prove your innocence by reliable means only. Polygraphs are not reliable. It’s pseudoscience. Akin to seeing a chiropractor for kidney problems. You could, depending on your physical outputs and belief as to what is true and what is not, easily be focused on in an investigation after failing. Even if you were 1,500 miles away and had absolutely no attachment to the person. I’d let them take DNA, hair, semen, skin scrapes, cheek scrapes, pictures, but never a polygraph. But as a topic of discussion, would lead nicely into the Edgar Cayce stuff. In other words, it’s clearly quackery!

Supposedly the only people that can beat a lie detector have no conscience.

I did get a false result on the only lie detector I took. They said I was a commie and I never have been.

It must not be easy to fake it and win!!

Polygraphs were considered “reliable” 40+ years ago. But you’d be wise to avoid them today.

Jeff Oberholtzer volunteered AND passed a polygraph in 1982. But that didn’t stop police from making his life miserable and warning any woman who was in the same room as him that he was a wife killer. It would be another 15 or so years before he was officially cleared thanks to DNA.

I mentioned pros & cons of polygraph in a previous but failed to point out how results can be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

Jeff Oberholzer's tragic case is an example of abuse in my opinion. But it highlights that interpretation and presentation of polygraph results are subjective.
Interpreters of polygraph results:
1) Polygrapher
2) Detective or interrogater
3) Immediate supervisor
4) Department head
5) Prosecuters office in LE, HR for employee screening.
6) Every individual who reads or hears about a case or incident involving polygraph results.
Misinterpretation can be an honest mistake or deliberate. Anyone along the line can use or misuse results for their own agenda. It is a lose lose situation for a suspect/subject.
1) Fail=guilty
2) Inconclusive=guilty
3) Pass=guilty

As for the original question about the guilty passing a polygraph. If you are not stressed you will pass.
1) Subject knows they are lying but does not stress about deception
2) Subject believes their own lie & doesn't stress.
3) Machine malfunction
4) Polygrapher error

Personally I would never take one. Even under the best circumstances the final results are unreliable.

It is a bit like a bloodhound sniffing for clues. Neither are admissible in court. Why with a bloodhound? Because even a trained dog is a dog. A dog can sometimes react to its owner. If a dog smells something and is on the trail for it and is getting praise for it then the dog often will continue that. It is similar with a toddler if they know their parent likes something they are doing.

It is a bit like a bloodhound sniffing for clues. Neither are admissible in court. Why with a bloodhound? Because even a trained dog is a dog. A dog can sometimes react to its owner. If a dog smells something and is on the trail for it and is getting praise for it then the dog often will continue that. It is similar with a toddler if they know their parent likes something they are doing.


The dog sniffing is an interesting one, i mean it reminds me of the two dogs eddie and keela in the madeleine mccann case...these dogs were experts, flown around the world on private jets and to hire them for the day was more than the pay the heads of the fbi and scotland yard...

They both found on two seperate occasions the scent of blood and of a cadaver in the two same locations in the appartment and hire car. to say "they made it up for praise" doesn't really make sense, these dogs are highly disciplined, like the famous saying goes "dogs dont iie"

i mean have you ever seen those airport reality shows, where they take a dog along a queue and he "signals".. everytime theres something in the case. it's not about "getting a treat"

but we dismiss the dogs for 2 reasons, 1, they obviously can't speak and testify in court and 2. usually what the dogs have found is counter to what we want or not want to have happened...