[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>How can I be wrong--
Beats me. You just put the words together that are wrong and there you are.
The court has not banned polygraph tests. They are used in some cases and
will continue to be for now. It claimed that keeping a defendant from using
polygraph tests in his defense did not deprive him of evidence in his
defense. Some might see there is an obvious fallacy here.
>Thomas wrote the decision in which the majority agreed that
>not introducing the polygraph did not deny Schffler of his constitutional
>rights because it is of such a controversial nature. The lie detector is a
>polygraph, it is the Keller polygraph--so why does Thomas writing polygraph
>instead of lie detector mean anything at all??
Thomas is a perjurer who refused to take a polygraph, refused even to
discuss the case against him. His lying got him to the Supreme Court. It
is ironic that he wrote the decision.
>And just because Hill took a polygraph and passed has absolutely no bearing on
>this case or on Thomas writing the majority position. Seems like you are
>saying that because he wrote the majority opinion, it must be biased and the
>dissenting *minority* opinion of one is more valid.
Your spin is your own.
>And if you consider that your dissenting judge says the courts are very
>selective in their willingness to use the polygraph, IMO, that means that most
>courts do not feel it is reliable enough to be admissible--that is what I have
>been saying from the beginning. If polygraphs were so all fired reliable
>outside the laboratory protocols that ensure validity and reliability, the
>majority of courts would not be so selective in their willingness to use it.
>They would find it a godsend as it would help clear up the current backlog of
>cases. And a lot more states would be using it, not just the one state you
>continually mention, New Mexico. As far as military courts using it, this was
>a military court that did not allow it and the Supreme Court sided with the
>military court.
>
>jackief
Courts have little use for truth or justice. Drama and theater are their
thing. If they cared a whit about truth they would ban cross-examination.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
