Kidnapping hoaxer Sherri Papini fighting eviction from home owned by her ex-boyfriend
Shasta County's Sherri Papini, widely known as a notorious kidnapping hoaxer, is being evicted from her home in Shingletown by an ex-boyfriend.
Papini claims she made an agreement to purchase property on Woodridge Drive in Shingletown, but since she ended her relationship with Shawn Hibdon of Orland, that deal has fallen through and he wants her out of the house, according to court documents that name Papini and Hibdon.
Hibdon sent Papini a letter on Jan. 5 notifying her she had 30 days to move off the premises, but Papini continues to fight the eviction, and claims Hibdon has harassed and threatened her.
Papini gained worldwide attention in 2016 when she went missing for 22 days after she was abducted while out on a jog near her home just north of Redding. She was found along a remote road in Yolo County on Thanksgiving Day, bruised and branded.
Her story unraveled in March 2022, when the FBI arrested Papini and she admitted to faking her kidnapping and inflicting the injuries to herself. She later admitted to being voluntarily in Costa Mesa, California, with an ex-boyfriend the entire time.
In a new docuseries, Papini continues to claim she was abducted in 2016, but now she says she was held against her will by the former boyfriend. She now says in the documentary the narrative that she was kidnapped Nov. 2, 2016 by two Hispanic women is a lie manufactured by the media.
Her claims in the documentary differ sharply from the tearful statements she made in court during her sentencing in September 2022 on charges of mail fraud and lying to the FBI.
"I am guilty of lying, I am guilty of dishonor. I trust in this court ... and I trust in you," Papini said to the judge. "What was done cannot be undone. I am choosing to humbly accept all responsibility."
During the court proceeding, Judge William Shubb called Papini a "skillful liar and a manipulator."
'If she had not been caught, she'd still be living the lie," Shubb said. "She'd still be telling everybody how she was kidnapped and she'd still be taking the money that people were contributing to," he said.
Papini pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. She also agreed to pay $309,686.33 in restitution. The total included $30,694.15 to the California Victim Compensation Board; $127,783.50 to the Social Security Administration for benefits paid to her; $148,866.23 to the Shasta County Sheriff's Office for the cost of investigating the case; and $2,558.35 to the FBI.
In addition to her financial obligations related to her criminal conviction, Papini is fighting eviction from the house she said she has lived in since January 2023.
In a declaration filed in the eviction case, Papini says Hibdon is using the eviction as an opportunity to publicly shame her.
"The plaintiff (Hibdon) has made threats both implied and explicit ― that unless I purchase the home under specific, unfavorable terms, I will be evicted, publicly humiliated or face further harm to my personal financial well-being," she wrote in the declaration.
Neither Papini, Hibdon or their attorneys responded to messages left with them asking for comment.
It isn't clear if Papini is still living at the Shingletown home, but Hibdon's lawyer indicated in court papers that fair rent on the property was $115 a day, or about $3,450 a month.
Before she pleaded guilty to the federal charges, her ex-husband's mother loaned Papini $50,000 to help pay for a criminal defense attorney. The loan was supposed to be repaid, but Kathleen Papini of Redding filed a lawsuit in Shasta County Superior Court in September 2024, claiming Sherri Papini has not lived up to the terms of the loan.
A default judgment for $53,701 was filed against Sherri Papini on May 2. It isn't clear whether Kathleen Papini has collected any of that money.
After she pleaded guilty to federal charges, Sherri Papini's husband, Keith Papini, filed for divorce from his wife and was granted custody of their two children.
Sherri Papini is also due in court this week as she seeks a temporary restraining order against a woman who claims on a GoFundMe account that her husband left her for Sherri Papini. The woman, Katherine Parrick, said she was left homeless after her husband left her.
As of Monday, Parrick had raised $1,315 toward a goal of $3,500, according to her GoFundMe account.
Reporter Damon Arthur welcomes story tips at 530-338-8834, by email at damon.arthur@redding.com. Help local journalism thrive by subscribing today!
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Kidnapping hoaxer Sherri Papini fights eviction filed by ex-boyfriend
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Is Losing Support With Hispanics
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is losing support among Hispanic and Latino voters, according to polling. Since at least the 1960s, Hispanic voters in the U.S. have generally supported Democratic candidates. For example, according to Pew Research Center, about 71 percent of Hispanic voters supported Barack Obama in 2012, and 66 percent backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2020, 63 percent chose Joe Biden, according to AP VoteCast. In 2024, however, Trump made significant gains. His support among Hispanic voters rose to 43 percent—an 8-point increase from 2020 and the highest level for a Republican presidential candidate since such data has been tracked. Meanwhile, 55 percent supported Kamala Harris, narrowing the Democratic advantage. Yet recent polling suggests Trump's momentum is fading. Newsweek's analysis of major surveys since April shows his approval among Hispanic and Latino voters has dropped to 40 percent, with 56 percent disapproving—down from March averages of 43 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval. YouGov's data mirrors this trend, showing Trump's net approval plummeting from -12 in January to -32 in May. President Donald Trump speaks during the 157th National Memorial Day Observance at Arlington on May 26 in Arlington, Virginia. President Donald Trump speaks during the 157th National Memorial Day Observance at Arlington on May 26 in Arlington, Virginia. Jacquelyn Martin/AP While a few surveys show scattered signs of support, the overwhelming majority of polls conducted from late March to mid-May show Trump underperforming with Hispanic and Latino voters. Echelon Insights, which polled from May 8 to May 12, found Trump's approval at 32 percent and disapproval at 67 percent, marking a sharp drop from his earlier approval rating of 42 percent and disapproval of 56 percent. The Marist/NPR/PBS poll from late April also recorded a similar downward trend, with Trump's approval slipping from 44 percent to 32 percent. Fox News polling from mid-April showed Trump's approval dipping slightly from 44 percent to 41 percent, while McLaughlin found a more substantial drop, from 44 percent to 36 percent. Pew Research Center also reported a stark fall in Trump's favorability, with approval plummeting from 35 percent to 27 percent, and disapproval rising from 62 percent to 72 percent. But some other polls have shown Trump's approval rating increasing among Hispanic voters. For instance, the Civiqs poll conducted from May 17 to May 20 shows a notably higher approval rating of 57 percent among Hispanics, an increase from 42 percent earlier in the year. Likewise, Insider Advantage/Trafalgar's mid-May poll reports a 59 percent approval rating, up from 39 percent in April. However, these results contrast with the broader majority of polling data, which has shown that Trump's ratings remain below 40 percent, while disapproval consistently climbs above 50 or even 60 percent. This decline isn't a sudden collapse but a slow erosion of trust and confidence—particularly among a demographic Trump courted heavily in 2024. Experts point to dissatisfaction with his handling of the economy as a key driver of this shift. It comes after Trump introduced his "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery. It also saw Trump's overall approval ratings take a hit. And his approval marks among Hispanic voters have not been exempt. The latest YouGov/Economist poll shows that only 32 percent of Hispanic voters approve of Trump's performance on the economy, which is down from 40 percent at the end of March, before he introduced the tariffs. And on the issue of inflation, only 28 percent of Hispanic voters said they approve of Trump's performance, down from 39 percent. Similarly, Fox News shows that Trump's approval rating on the economy among Hispanic voters is down to 37 percent, from 43 percent in March. On inflation, Trump's approval rating was down 10 percentage points, to 30. Meanwhile, 80 percent of Hispanics polled said they think it is extremely or very likely that the U.S. economy will plunge into recession this year. Clarissa Martínez De Castro, vice president of the Latino Vote Initiative, told Newsweek that "Latino voters are frustrated that their economic priorities are being ignored and that a key promise made by President Trump during the election is not being kept." As a result, "Sixty percent of Latino voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 70 percent hold President Trump and his administration responsible," she said, citing an April UnidosUS poll. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Civiqs May 17-20 57 43 YouGov/Economist May 23-26 31 61 HarrisX May 14-15 39 52 Echelon Insights May 8-12 32 67 Quantus May 18-20 40 53 YouGov April 25-May 2 33 61 Insider Advantage/Trafalgar May 17-19 59 40 ActiVote April 1-April 30 55 43 Lord Ashcroft Politics April 9-30 40 58 Navigator Research May 15-18 41 55 Emerson College April 25-28 41 44 YouGov/Yahoo May 22-27 26 63 Decision Desk/News Nation April 23-27 40 60 YouGov/CBS April 23-25 40 60 NYT/Sienna April 21-24 36 59 Marist/NPR/PBS April 21-23 32 57 YouGov/Times April 21-23 32 64 Ipsos/ABC/Post April 18-22 32 63 Fox News April 18-21 41 59 McLaughlin April 16-19 36 64 Remington March 15-April 18 55 45 AtlasIntel April 10-14 49 51 Pew April 7-13 27 72 University of Massachusetts/YouGov April 4-9 37 59 Cygnal April 1-3 46 51 Marquette May 5-15 37 63 Janet Murguía, president and CEO of UnidosUS, emphasized that economic discontent played a significant role in Trump's earlier gains but is now undermining his support. "Over half of Hispanic voters feel the economy is worse now than a year ago, and nearly as many believe it will be worse a year from now," she said. "Economic discontent was the most potent driver of increased Latino support for Trump in 2024." Martínez De Castro added, "For many Latinos, inflation, wages, and housing affordability remain top concerns. Sixty percent believe the President and Republicans are not focusing enough on lowering prices, and over half think the economy has worsened and will continue to decline under Trump's policies. The president owns the economy now, and Hispanic voters are not seeing the quick turnaround he promised." Immigration has further dented Trump's standing among Hispanic voters. His aggressive policies, including expanded ICE enforcement and National Guard involvement, have targeted not just criminals but also long-residing undocumented immigrants without criminal records. From his inauguration on January 20 through February, over 40 percent of deportees had no criminal history. Pew Research Center polling shows that only about one-third of Americans support mass deportations, with most preferring to prioritize violent criminals and showing far less support for deporting those with family ties or brought to the U.S. as children. President Donald Trump is losing support among Hispanic and Latino voters, according to polling. President Donald Trump is losing support among Hispanic and Latino voters, according to polling. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva This sentiment is also shared by Hispanic voters, Martínez De Castro said. She warned: "Eight in ten Hispanic voters support deporting dangerous criminals, but President Trump and congressional Republicans should not target long-residing undocumented immigrants without criminal records. Latino voters want policies that are firm, fair, and free of cruelty, but that is not what they are witnessing in their communities." Frankie Miranda, president and CEO of the Hispanic Federation, echoed these concerns, saying Trump's policies have "vilified our communities and disregarded people's rights." He highlighted the rise in hate crimes, family separations, and the targeting of law-abiding immigrants as consequences of the administration's approach. "Many immigrants who worked hard to secure legal protections, such as TPS and work permits, are having those protections stripped away," he said. Recent polls have shown a broader trend of voters becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Trump's performance on the economy and immigration, which were previously his strongest. His "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2 rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery. But public sentiment did not rebound as quickly as the Dow. Polls throughout April showed sliding approval ratings. The president has also seen kinks in the rollout of his aggressive immigration agenda, which has attracted legal scrutiny. One high-profile case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported from Maryland in what the Department of Justice called an "administrative error." The Trump administration labeled Garcia a member of MS-13, now designated a terrorist group, but his family and lawyers deny any connection. Trump's mass deportation plan seeks to remove millions of undocumented immigrants through expanded ICE enforcement and National Guard involvement, focusing not only on criminals but also on many without criminal records. Early in his presidency, ICE arrested over 32,000 people, nearly half with no criminal history, and by February, over 40 percent of deportees had no criminal record. Despite this aggressive approach, public support is limited. An April Pew Research Center poll found only about one-third of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, with most favoring deportation primarily for violent criminals and much less support for deporting those with family ties or who came to the U.S. as children. And such sentiment also exists among Hispanic voters. Martínez De Castro highlighted that while economic concerns helped Trump gain Hispanic support in 2024, the optimism has quickly faded. "Sixty percent of Latino voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 70 percent of them hold President Trump and his administration responsible," she told Newsweek, citing an April UnidosUS poll. "Latino voters are frustrated that their economic priorities are being ignored and that a key promise made by President Trump during the election is not being kept. Economic discontent was the most potent driver in the 2024 election, helping President Trump increase support among Latinos. But over half of Hispanic voters feel the economy is worse now than a year ago and nearly as many believe it will be worse a year from now," Janet Murguía, president and CEO of UnidosUS, said at the time. Martínez De Castro added that for many Latinos, economic issues like inflation, wages and housing affordability remain top priorities, yet "60 percent believe the President and Republicans are not focusing enough on lowering prices," and over half think the economy has worsened and will continue to decline under Trump's policies. Martínez De Castro noted bluntly, "The president owns the economy now, and Hispanic voters are not seeing the quick turnaround the President promised." Miranda also criticized the administration for "actively dismantling the asylum system for some of the most vulnerable and deserving applicants escaping violence and persecution from Latin America," while simultaneously easing restrictions for others. He warned that "Such action is only serving to alienate the Latino community from the Trump administration and driving people who want to care for loved ones into the shadows."
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Jeffrey Epstein Video Release: What Footage Shows of His Death
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said on Fox News Wednesday that a video shows that Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender, died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City. Newsweek has contacted the FBI for comment by email. Why It Matters Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on new sex trafficking charges. While officials in the first Trump administration ruled that his death was a suicide, conspiracy theories that he was murdered in custody to protect high-profile individuals, including President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, and Britain's Prince Andrew, who were part of his social circle, have persisted. Jeffrey Epstein is pictured in 2019. Jeffrey Epstein is pictured in 2019. Kypros/Getty Images What To Know Bongino, who previously promoted conspiracies that Epstein may have been killed, sat down with Fox News host Sean Hannity to discuss video footage of Epstein's cell area in the period leading up to his death on August 10, 2019. "The evidence we have in our files clearly indicates that it was, in fact, a suicide. We do have video. It's not the greatest video in the world. I don't want to set expectations on fire," the bureau's deputy director said. Bongino said the footage, which is roughly 12 hours long, shows Epstein making a phone call and being checked on by guards at regular intervals. "However, the video does show in that specific block, that he goes in, made a phone call; you'll see 12 hours of guards going in basically check on him, come back. You'll see nobody really comes out of that bay in that area than him. There's no one in there," he told Hannity. The former pro-Trump podcaster said that the video, when combined with other evidence that will be released by the FBI in the coming weeks, makes things "pretty clear." "However, as I've clearly indicated in some of my tweets on my official account, listen, if new information surfaces in the future on any of these cases we're always open," Bongino said. "I'm just telling you there's nothing there in the file at all that indicates anything other than in fact a suicide," he added. Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino teases the soon-to-be released Epstein video, Says it confirms that he killed himself. He also announces more new information will be coming in the next few weeks: 'The evidence we have in our files clearly indicates that it was in fact a… — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 5, 2025 Bongino has previously questioned official reports on Epstein's death. "Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal, please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this," he told his audience of millions in 2023. And in a podcast episode aired on January 4, 2024, Bongino played an excerpt of a journalist saying she was "100 percent" convinced that the disgraced financier was killed in his jail cell "because he made his whole living blackmailing people." At a later point in the episode, Bongino said: "This is where I get really upset at the media." He said reporters had "done almost like no—maybe because I was an investigator before, it's like, I'm amazed at how few people are putting two and two together." On February 10, days into his tenure as FBI deputy director, Bongino said: "I'm not ever gonna let this story go. I'm not letting it go ever." Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein, said in 2024 he doesn't believe the late financier died by suicide, and called for a new investigation into his death. He speculated that another prisoner could have gained access to his brother's cell and killed him, and claimed he was told not all cell doors were locked on the night of his death. "I would like a full investigation of his death. If you look at all the evidence, including the autopsy, the photographs of his body, the bulls*** DOJ report that is filled with inaccuracies, you would never come up with the conclusion that this was a suicide—but based on what?" he told The Guardian in January 2024. The Trump administration in February declassified and publicly released additional files related to Epstein, but the documents did not offer major revelations. FBI Director Kash Patel said last week the federal government is in no "rush" to release more information about the disgraced financier. What People Are Saying FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino told Fox News' Fox & Friends last week: "There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case—and there is going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly…there is video. That is something the public does not know. There's no one there but him." Bongino said in a May 10 post on X: "We are working with the DOJ on the Epstein case and, as the AG stated, there are voluminous amounts of downloaded child sexual abuse material that we are dealing with. There are also victim's statements that are entitled to specific protections. We need to do this correctly, but I do understand the public's desire to get the information out there." Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement on February 27: "This Department of Justice is following through on President Trump's commitment to transparency and lifting the veil on the disgusting actions of Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. The first phase of files released today sheds light on Epstein's extensive network and begins to provide the public with long overdue accountability." What Happens Next The FBI hasn't provided a timeline for the release of the video. If you or someone you know is considering suicide, contact the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by dialing 988, text "988" to the Crisis Text Line at 741741 or go to
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine
When President Ronald Reagan's White House threatened thousands of government officials with polygraph exams, supposedly to protect classified data (but probably also to control press leaks), his Secretary of State George Shultz threatened to resign. Reagan's White House backed down and agreed to impose the tests only for those suspected of espionage, according to a 1985 New York Times report. In terms of catching spies, polygraph tests failed spectacularly in key moments. More on that in a moment. First, consider the second Trump administration, which is leaning in on polygraphs, presumably to ferret out leakers, but also as an apparent method of intimidation. 'The polygraph has been weaponized and is being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' said Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in representing people who work in national security, after a slew of published reports about polygraph threats throughout the Trump administration. The tests are frequently being used to identify not leaks of classified information but rather 'unclassified conversations regarding policy or embarrassing decisions that have made their way through the rumor mill or directly to the media,' said Zaid, who has previously testified before Congress about the use of polygraphs and sued federal agencies for their practices. ► At the FBI, the New York Times reports, an increased use of polygraphs has 'intensified a culture of intimidation' for agents. ► At the Pentagon, officials publicly threatened to conduct polygraph tests as part of an effort to figure out how the press learned that Elon Musk was scheduled to get a classified briefing about China, which a billionaire with business interests in China probably should not get. It's not clear if polygraph tests were ultimately administered as part of the probe, according to CNN's report. ► At the Department of Homeland Security, according to CNN, polygraph tests have been used on FEMA and FAA officials in addition to those in more traditional national security roles. Administration officials have defended the practice as a way to protect government information. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended the use of polygraph tests during an interview on CBS in March. 'The authorities that I have under the Department of Homeland Security are broad and extensive,' she said. Previously, per Zaid, polygraphs have been used as a sort of 'weeding device,' not unlike a physical fitness test for large pools of applicants to national security and law enforcement roles. After that, some employees — particularly in the intelligence community — may be given exams every five or 10 years, sort of like a random drug test. What's happening now is something different. Polygraph tests are 'being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether for pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' Zaid said. Most Americans have never been subjected to a polygraph, and that's in large part because Congress acted to largely outlaw them from use in the public sector in 1988, a time when millions of Americans were being polygraphed each year and companies were using them to bar people from jobs and conduct coercive internal investigations. For an example of why polygraphs were problematic, look back at an old '60 Minutes' segment in which Diane Sawyer submits to an exam and hidden cameras are used to show how the bias of the examiner affects results. 'If you're trying to find one leaker in an organization of 100 people, you could end up falsely accusing dozens of people,' according to Amit Katwala, author of the polygraph history Tremors in the Blood: Murder, Obsession and the Birth of the Lie Detector. 'And you might not even catch the culprit — there's no evidence to suggest that an actual lie detector is even scientifically possible,' he told me in an email. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act was signed into law in 1988 by Reagan, years after his showdown with Shultz. But the law kept polygraphs for the public sector, particularly for national security and law enforcement. In the national security world, the principle of protecting the innocent is 'flipped on its head,' according to Zaid. 'We would rather ruin 99 innocent people's careers than let the one new Ed Snowden, Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen get through,' he said. If polygraphs have a spotty record in detecting lies, they have a horrible record in detecting spies. A Senate Intelligence Committee report from 1994 explores how the CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who spied for the KGB, evaded detection for years in part because he passed multiple polygraph exams. At the same time, the same report describes how another CIA employee who aided the KGB, Edward Lee Howard, did so in part because he felt jilted by the CIA after he was fired for failing a polygraph exam. Then there was the shocking trial of FBI official and Russian spy Robert Hanssen, who had never been given a polygraph in his career, there was an uptick in their use at some agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Energy. At the turn of the 21st century, the US government commissioned a large-scale report on the efficacy of the polygraph undertaken by a special committee at the National Research Council. They found the scientific evidence on polygraphs to be more than lacking. 'As a nation, we should not allow ourselves to continue to be blinded by the aura of the polygraph,' Stephen Feinberg, the Carnegie Mellon professor who led the study, testified before Congress. Ames offered his assessment of the polygraph machine in a letter from prison published in 2000, calling the polygraph 'junk science that just won't die' and saying it is most useful as an instrument of coercion. 'It depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting — you'll be fired, you won't get the job, you'll be prosecuted, you'll go to prison — and the credulous fear the device inspires,' he wrote. Polygraphs are frequently used in criminal investigations, but rarely used in court. The idea behind the polygraph, which was first developed in the '20s, is that lying causes stress. The examiner hooks a person up to monitors that gauge things like blood pressure and fingertip sweat. A pre-interview helps formulate common questions that create a baseline and reactions to more probing questions are compared to that baseline. But it's not a scientific process, and it can be beaten, or misled, since at its core the machine is simply measuring physiological responses. Frequently, incriminating information is offered by nervous exam-takers who don't understand exactly how the process works. Pop culture often suggests that when a person is hooked up to a polygraph machine, their lies will be detected. But that is not exactly true. 'The polygraph works because we think it works. It's a tool of psychological coercion in an already intimidating environment—particularly when it has the weight of the federal government behind it,' Katwala told me. But the intimidation is probably the point. 'Using the polygraph may not help you catch the leakers, but the idea of it could well scare any potential future leakers into keeping their mouths shut,' Katwala said. The man credited with fully developing the polygraph, a Berkeley police officer named John Larson, who also had a PhD in psychology, would later turn on his invention as unreliable, according to Katwala. Larson was inspired by the truth-telling machine of William Marston, himself a psychologist, but one with an active imagination and a flair for the theatrical. Zaid described him as the PT Barnum of polygraphy. Here's a video of Marston using a polygraph-like machine and claiming to identify the varying emotions of blonde, brunette and redheaded women. His conclusion was that redheads like to gamble, brunettes are looking for love and blondes are easiest to scare. Okay. Marston also invented the comic book hero Wonder Woman, with her Lasso of Truth. Katwala warns that there are new technologies being developed with the help of AI or revolving around brain waves, but he argues they should be viewed just with the same skepticism as the polygraph machine. 'None of them get past the Pinocchio's nose problem — everyone's different, and something that works for one person might not work for everyone,' he said. But they could all be used in the same coercive way as the polygraph machine.
