Proof of unreliability of polygraphs. Why there arent admissible in court

I am looking up videos of the bright yellow Indian Bullfrogs on my smartphone, while the tv is on in the background. Another episode of 'Forensic Files' just started on HLN, season 11, episode 7, titled "Murder, She Wrote". In this episode, a well respected man named David Duyst, was convicted of murdering his wife, Sandy Duyst. She had allegedly committed suicide according to husband, but the evidence proved otherwise. Also it was proven that he had almost killed her a year before, but she survived, and covered for him.

Bottom line, right after her death, the police gave him a polygraph, which he passed with flying colors, despite the fact that he was lying throughout the test! THAT is why polygraphs are NOT admissible in court! Fast forward to 3:58 below.

https://youtu.be/3u_wiEyfdF0

ModerationNow! said:

I am looking up videos of the bright yellow Indian Bullfrogs on my smartphone, while the tv is on in the background. Another episode of 'Forensic Files' just started on HLN, season 11, episode 7, titled "Murder, She Wrote". In this episode, a well respected man named David Duyst, was convicted of murdering his wife, Sandy Duyst. She had allegedly committed suicide according to husband, but the evidence proved otherwise. Also it was proven that he had almost killed her a year before, but she survived, and covered for him.

Bottom line, right after her death, the police gave him a polygraph, which he passed with flying colors, despite the fact that he was lying throughout the test! THAT is why polygraphs are NOT admissible in court! Fast forward to 3:58 below.

https://youtu.be/3u_wiEyfdF0

Click to expand...

Turtledude pointed out in another thread that Jeffery Dahmer passed a polygraph. More proof that polygraphs aren't all that and a bag of chips.

apdst said:

Turtledude pointed out in another thread that Jeffery Dahmer passed a polygraph. More proof that polygraphs aren't all that and a bag of chips.

Click to expand...

That's funny, because the democrats and their news & entertainment media allies are selectively acting as if the polygraph taken by Her Highness, Doctor, Lady Christine B Ford MD esquire ARE all that and a bag of chips, with a side of "best thing since sliced bread"! I've heard the hyper-partisan hacks at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR etc, repeatedly bring up the polygraph, but not once have I heard ANY of them qualify her polygraph test results with the fact that they ARE NOT admissible in court, are notoriously unreliable, and can be manipulated and defeated fairly easily.

But what I DO see and hear the aforementioned hacks doing, is selectively presenting less reliable details of the issue, while largely ommitting the more reliable EVIDENCE that effectively render her claims questionable at best. That would include the most important evidence, i.e.. her hand picked witnesses testimony. They all testified to NOT recall any aspects of her story. They said they don't recall any such party, nor do they recall ever seeing or meeting Cavanaugh at any party. Worse yet, they don't recall her claiming to have been raped by Cavanaugh.

That's not to mention the fact that she has changed her story regarding the number of co-conspirators in the rape-room, from 4 to just 2, and she conveniently cannot remember the house, the street it was on or the general vicinity, and her claim of the timeframe have changed radically, from "early 80s" to "mid 80s". So it could've happened anywhere from roughly 1980 to 1987! Also her own parents didn't sign on to the paper she offered up as a list of character witnesses who believe her credibility with this story.

The media have largely omitted all that pertinent evidence, in favor of hearsay.