Quote Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer View Post
Lie detectors are very inaccurate, that's why they are inadmissable in court. Very unreliable.
Wrong!!! I know this isn't law school, but they are reliable and used in evidence in many federal and about 20 or so state courts.

In United States v. Scheffer 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In 2007, in Ohio v. Sharma, an Ohio trial court overruled the objections of a prosecutor and allowed a polygraph examiner to testify regarding a specific issue criminal examination. The court took the position that the prosecutors regularly used a polygraph examiner to conduct criminal tests against defendants, but only objected to the examiner's testimony when the results contradicted what they hoped to achieve

Anyhow, what guilty person ever agrees to take a polygraph? I sure wouldn't. Who lies and then sues someone for defamation to perpetuate that same lie? Who would pay for illegal drugs with a check? (other than Jerry Springer who was removed as Mayor for paying a hooker with a check). I'm not a Shane fanatic, but it just looks to me like he got caught up making some bad choices - but he wasn't complicit.

AND NO, I'M NOT A LAWYER. . .BUT I DIDN'T STAY AT A HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS ONCE.