Page 211 of Murder in the Family

(firmly)

There’s a reason polygraphs aren’t admissible in court, Nick. And not just here, in the US as well. The science simply isn’t robust enough – some people find it relatively easy to beat the machine, while others react so badly to the stress it can lead to dangerous false positives.

TAREK OSMAN

(a little hesitantly)

Though they’re used on sex offenders here, aren’t they? If they’ve been let out on licence – to check if they’re complying with their release conditions?

HUGO FRASER

Yes, that’s true, but it’s a very limited and strictly controlled exception to the rule. The Offender Management Act 2007 explicitly prohibits the use of any such polygraph test results in criminal proceedings. For all the reasons Laila mentions.

BILL SERAFINI

Understood. Though I’ve seen innocent people eliminated from enquiries thanks to polygraphs. But you’re right: they do have to be administered by a trained practitioner, not some TV bum.

No offence, Nick.

NICK VINCENT (Producer)

(smiling)

I’m not that easily offended, Bill. Probably just as well.

And I agree with you, by the way – I definitely think polygraphs have a role to play.

JJ NORTON

(still clearly furious)

No one’s treating me like a bloody lab rat, and that’s final.

HUGO FRASER

I agree. Nick just wants to try and catch us out – go around grubbing under stones just to see what’s underneath.

MITCHELL CLARKE

(raising an eyebrow)

‘The lady doth protest too much’?

HUGO FRASER

(turning to him)

What the hell does that mean?

MITCHELL CLARKE

Oh come on, you haven’t exactly been ‘completely open’ either, have you?

LAILA FURNESS

What are you talking about, Mitch?

MITCHELL CLARKE