<<You must have missed the other memo, that law enforcement across this country, not to mention some courts even, use this so called "junk science" to
help ascertain truth vs not. >>
No, that is dead wrong, actually,
it is the courts who ascertain the truth and not the police. The police merely
conduct an investigation. If they are doing their job properly, they gather
all the facts that bear on the case. When they think they have a case against someone, they take it to the D.A. or the Crown Attorney. The Crown Attorney's or D.A.'s job is to try to assemble a case, based on evidence, that can be taken to the Court, so that the Court (and not the police) can finally determine if the allegations against the accused are proven beyond any reasonable doubt or not.
If in fact, in the course of their investigation, they find that one witness is or is not telling the truth according to a VSA, this may affect how they conduct their investigation, either focusing on the guy if they think he's lying or focusing on more promising leads if they think he's telling the truth. But in NO CASE (except maybe in New Mexico) can they or the D.A. or Crown have the RESULTS of the test introduced into evidence, to persuade the Court that the guy is lying. The Court won't even hear such evidence and the reason for that is that
the test is unreliable and has been
proven to be unreliable junk science in every credible test of its performance. Were it otherwise, of course the Courts would accept it, just as they accept fingerprint and DNA evidence, where the science is in fact quite reliable.
But from what I understand of how the police use the machines, it's not so much to determine if the guy is lying or not, but more to (a) trick the guy into revealing the significance of other facts in the case or (b) finding out what he really knows about the case or (c) less legitimately, to bluff a suspect into confessing, although there are some real ethical concerns about that. It's a tool of the investigation, not a truth finder or "lie detector."
<<So, until you can demonstrate that these same agencies use such things as psychic readings, outside of hollywood of course, your continued "meaningless" tactic is pure meritless>>
If SOME agencies choose to use tools which have been proven to be unreliable, this can in no way prove the reliability of the machines, unless you trust the judgment of some cop as superior to that of, say, the National Research Council. If some cop were to tell you that some herbal remedy makes his brain sharper or cures his colds faster than any other remedy, and the National Institutes of Health were to tell you that there is no evidence at all that the product in question works at all, and in fact was quite unreliable in providing any kind of benefit whatsoever, who are you going to believe? The dumb cop who persists in using the stuff because HE thinks it works, or the qualified scientific researchers who have tested it throroughly and reported their results?
The courts are in the position of the researchers. They hear all the evidence why VSA should be admitted in evidence and all the arguments against. Presumably with both sides producing the results of tests and studies. Then they hear from experts on both sides, including an analysis of the tests that support the machines and the tests that trash them. Then they hear arguments for and against, based on all the evidence (including expert opinion evidence) before the court. Then they decide. And in every court in the U.S. and Canada (except New Mexico) the decision after all of that evidence, opinion and argument is always the same: the stuff is JUNK, the science is JUNK SCIENCE, and the results of the "tests" don't prove a God-damn thing. Every court. Every time. Everywhere.
Now sirs (and plane) THAT should tell you SOMETHING about how "reliable" such machines are. If it doesn't, if you still want to think, "Well they must be reliable if cops use them," then I give up. It's just not worth my beating my head any longer against this particular wall. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.
<<And Clinton is merely a reference to demonstrating the transparent hypocrisy on display by folks like yourself, as he's given a pass for acts far worse than your "uncle tomming perv", Cain is "accused" of. Your efforts to paint it as a distraction would indicate that the hilighting of that hypocrisy is hitting home>>
Clinton, in the context of Herm the Perv's fitness to serve, is clearly a distraction and if I read you correctly, even you are admitting that the only reason to bring Clinton into the thread is to back up allegations against ME and other liberals, of "hypocrisy" and "double standards."
OK, fair enough. It IS legitimate, IMHO, to ask a liberal who condemns Herm the Perv why the double standard? Not to take the spotlight off The Perv's qualifications and fitnes for office, but as a kind of side issue - - is it really fair to give Clinton a pass for the same thing that The Perv is now being crucified for?
From what I can recall of Clinton, the major affairs that got the most publicity were all about consensual sex, from Gennifer Flowers (who wrote about it in
Penthouse where she confided that "The President eats pussy like a champ,") to Monica, who showed the poor guy her thong and pursued him till he relented and allowed her to give him a BJ in the Oval Office. And others. Paula Jones was the only one I take seriously, the other two (Brodrrik and Kathleen something, both had holes in their stories you could drive a Mack truck through.)
So why didn't I get all upset over Paula Jones? Because I still don't believe her. The trooper said she told him, coming out of the room, that she'd like to be Bill's girlfriend. As for whatever happened IN the room, it's all HSSS. Who the fuck will ever know?
With Cain, it's game over from the first day the story broke. FOUR separate accusers from the same company, two claims settled after his ass was kicked out the door, a third accuser coming forth 12 years later from the same company? A fourth accuser back in the day, who just didn't bother to file a claim, also on the same company payroll? GIMME A FUCKING BREAK. If you want to allege "conspiracy" in a case like that, you'd better have some fucking evidence that goes beyond wishful thinking and pure speculation. Also since when does an honest man change his story four times in a couple of days? He's a fucking liar and everything about the case says that loud and clear.
