Oh dear, another Sandra - this might get confusing.
Anyway, the poster who said that the tester is paid for the results was, of course, absolutely correct. Just one problem with that. It was a national newspaper which paid for Corinne's test, so they had no vested interest in the result one way or the other - they would have had a massively sensational story with either result.
The polygraph tester (and you do the professionals a disservice in suggesting that their tests are "slanted" to suit the paymaster, but that's another story, for those who take the care to research the subject), therefore had no "pressure" to produce results one way or the other.
What could the tester possibly have gained from a "slanted" result?
The "junk science" argument is something of a waste of time and energy, but may I just point out that polygraph tests have been used in the UK for some years to assess whether sex offenders are "safe" for release (and continued liberty), and have now been introduced on a trial basis within certain police forces (to assess whether suspects should be further pursued or not). So, if it's junk, it's junk being relied upon by our prison service and our police forces, sanctioned by our government.
On another note, as someone else, I believe, pointed out, the findings of fingerprint evidence, DNA testing, various forensic processes etc, have all turned out, in some cases, to be "junk science" by individuals using highly selective (and unprofessional) techniques. So perhaps it would be more accurate to say the sciences themselves are sound, the problem lies with the junk scientists who allow themselves to be unduly influenced by their paymasters.
That however, can't be said about the polygraph tester who carried out these tests, as has just been explained.
