What are your thoughts about guilty people that passed a polygraph?

[Clockwork]

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?

[1990 UM fan]

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.

[Dude111]

It makes ya realise how unreliable they are!!

[TheCars1986]

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

[Killarney Rose]

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.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

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.

Originally Posted by Killarney Rose

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.

[dynoguy88]

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.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by Killarney Rose

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

[StackTime]

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.

[dynoguy88]

Originally Posted by StackTime

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.

[ThisLittlePiggy]

Originally Posted by dynoguy88

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.

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

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.

[Dogface82]

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.

[Mike82]

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.

[ghosthouse]