It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lugovoy not guilty in Litvinenko death - British lie detector test

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:51 AM

Lugovoy not guilty in Litvinenko death - British lie detector test

"After careful analysis of all the diagrams obtained from the [polygraph] test, we have determined that the answers to these questions were not false. Thus, in our professional opinion, Andrey Lugovoy was telling the truth when answering the above questions,” members of the British Polygraph Association Bruce and Tristam Burgess said.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:51 AM
Litvinenko's father and brother argue that their relative was killed by order of Boris Berezovsky.
because Litvinenko had dirt on Berezovsky who wanted to publish in Russia

He actually knew. And he knew about the case of Berezovsky," - says Walter Litvinenko.

"And about the political affairs of his, too, know that?" - Asks the reporter.

"For example, someone wanted to poison pen. Hrenovina This, of course, was specifically to Berezovsky's leave in England," - said Walter Litvinenko.

Maxim believes that poisoned his brother could do anything. A polonium was needed to trace around London, to suspect the FSB and a scandal to the whole world.

The next hearing in the case of Litvinenko appointed by the court in April. Neither his father nor his brother in London, was not invited.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:49 AM
I do not trust Putin and the FSB
but much more do not trust Berezovsky

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:54 AM
Since when are polygraph's considered a reliable method of telling if someone is lying or not?

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Since when are polygraph's considered a reliable method of telling if someone is lying or not?

Whenever it is politically expedient. Otherwise polygraphs are considered "non-binding" (at least here in the US.)

Is British law different? Can machine readings interpreted by a human be considered "proof"?

Soon we may be told "yes"... but we will not be allowed to see the results unless that too is politically expedient.

The reason they will give will be that "the subject is too complicated and specialized."... sort of like climate data.

edit on 25-4-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Ive never heard of a polygraph being used as evidence in the UK.

In the UK, polygraph testing is increasingly used outside of the courts system, for example between warring couples and by employers. In addition to this, legislation passed last year allows the use of polygraph tests as part of probation conditions for certain criminals, though it specifically forbids its use in criminal courts. Polygraph testing is currently being used to determine whether sex offenders are ready to be released from prison and will continue to be used as a pilot in certain areas of England and Wales for two more years. Whether this will alter the opinion on court use remains to be seen. Lie detector results can be admissible in some tribunal and civil cases, but their introduction into criminal courts would require legislation.


posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:09 PM

Currently polygraph testing is not admissible because of concerns over its accuracy. It is thought that a polygraph test is between 60% and 95% accurate, but this is not known for certain and there have been concerns that if used, the polygraph could lead juries to make decisions based on its result, leading to convictions of innocent people and non-convictions of those able to beat the polygraph.

I suppose we will have to accept that 65-90% accuracy is sufficient to label criminals via conviction.

I'm not lucky... I wonder how do you contest the accuracy of a polygraph? Another equally suspect polygraph?

I know the criminal systems like to call it "science" when it suits them... and if it doesn't, it's considered inadequate or flawed.

I guess the British have more faith in it than the Americans do - generally speaking.

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:38 PM
Polygraphs don't work. It's quack science and there is a great website to learn all about the subject and why it's a joke. I see many parallels between polygraphers and psychiatrists. Both fields are based on bs. (Electroshock therapy, anyone?)

From the front page:
"Did you know:

The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis?
The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot?
The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts?
The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge?
A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem?
The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college?
The National Center for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites?
The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?"
The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?"
Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph? "

new topics

top topics


log in