[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
