Re: L&I Supreme Court-Polygraphs/additional info

[Jackie Fellows]

Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:




William J. Foristal wrote:

> Hi Jackie,
>
> You are 100% correct.  Even Judge Stevens in his dissenting opinion did
> not offer any statements about the validity of the lie detector results.
> His concern was in denying a defendant the right to present all evidence
> that a jury may deem to be exculpatory.
>
> NONE of the justices bought the rigged results of the study cited in the
> amicus brief that suggested a lie detector test produced results that
> were correct in excess of 90% of the time.  In fact, not many people
> discussing this issue bought this information.
>
> Bill
>

But Bill

It is the study by Iacono and Rykken that is fraudulent, because it did not
support the Honts' study that found 90%.  <VBG>.  It is called "Hello,
Wall."

jackief

> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues



--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective

I toss and turn all night.    Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"



Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues