Cops and pseudoscience go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
For more examples, see “bite mark analysis,” “911 call analysis,” “blood spatter analysis,” roadside drug testing with known false-positives, and even fingerprints (once the gold standard) have up to a 20% error rate.
And that’s not even getting into how their methodology is exactly backwards: they have a claim that they set out to prove, but do no work to disprove what they already believe.
I don’t know if it’s true (let me know if I’ve been taken for a ride), but I’ve been told that you can make it look like you lie on a polygraph simply by contacting your anus and slowly unclenching while answering, throwing their analysis out the window.
Cops and pseudoscience go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
For more examples, see “bite mark analysis,” “911 call analysis,” “blood spatter analysis,” roadside drug testing with known false-positives, and even fingerprints (once the gold standard) have up to a 20% error rate.
And that’s not even getting into how their methodology is exactly backwards: they have a claim that they set out to prove, but do no work to disprove what they already believe.
But that’s the LAWYERS job /s
I don’t know if it’s true (let me know if I’ve been taken for a ride), but I’ve been told that you can make it look like you lie on a polygraph simply by contacting your anus and slowly unclenching while answering, throwing their analysis out the window.
Really puts the “anal” in analysis, if true.
I think it’s only been used to convict 1 person but, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optography