If a polygraph is not admissible in court, what good would that do?
I read several articles on this earlier today, as well as listening to a Fox News spread on it. Not once did I see where he denied anything (others denied he did it), nor did I see at any hearing where he actually testified. I can’t say either is absolute — don’t know for sure — but if he didn’t testify, its almost 99.99% certain that he did it.
When you’re charged with fraud and susceptible to a process crime (false statements, etc.), you may not want to testify in order to keep yourself out of further trouble. When you’re charged with murder and you really didn’t do it, can there EVER be a justification to not testify?
sodium pentathol == hey if he’s going to die, why not?
And this didn’t become a thought in someone’s mind before now?
A polygraph cannot be used against you but it can be used to support your case.
That is my non-law degree understanding anyway. 8)
Also, you can be guilty, believe your own BS and pass the polygraph.
Kind of like being crazy enough to believe your own lies.
Don’t know the situation here, but often you have something wrong upstairs to kill outside of war. Either through drugs or something else the brain is messed up and could in some cases say they are from Mars and pass the polygragh, so it isn’t that big a deal here.