I think a pretty telling example is the polygraph's use on Monster Quest. The person running the machine would come back with results all the time saying the person "had no intention to deceive." Basically - you could say the person was telling the truth about bigfoot (or werewolves, or etc). Or, you could realize these people THOUGHT they were telling the truth because their brain fooled them. Some girl really thought she saw a werewolf down by the river. Doesn't mean it's the truth. Using it in a legal preceding is just irresponsible then - if a person plans to take a polygraph based on what they *thought* they saw, and it comes out "truth," it should hardly be admissible evidence.
But, we like our crime dramas to be wrapped up neatly. I noticed SVU started commenting on its ambiguity though.
But, we like our crime dramas to be wrapped up neatly. I noticed SVU started commenting on its ambiguity though.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)


