I'm not even going to get into it with you about your other statement. If the shoe would have been on the opposite foot you would be claiming how they should have just listened to the polygraph when he failed it. If you deny that, I would have to say you're the dumbest excuse for a human i've ever met.
Actually, I will go ahead and get into this with you. You claim it's a "pseudoscience" at best. But after it being tested multiple thousands, if not millions of times, with very favorable results indicating that it is able to be used to distinguish between truth and lies.. It would seem like it's quite a bit more than just something that has no proof to back it up.
There's a reason polygraphs aren't widely used anymore. Because, buddy, it's dated. News flash, it's not 1950 anymore. And it's very, very far from being a perfected science. It may be able to deduce deception to a degree, but not perfectly. That's a fact.
So no, if the shoe was 'on the other foot', I would not be basing the crux of my argument around a 90 year old lie detection method. Something modern and more fool-proof, like DNA, perhaps.