William J. Foristal
Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:00:32 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:12:08 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >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 Hi Jackie, LOL...sometimes the only really suitable reply is "Well, duh!" <BG> Bill _____________________________________________________________________ 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