I have been reading the posts on this thread and for the most part it has been most enjoyable -- Downright hilarious at some points.  

The first point I would like to make (though somewhat delayed) is that I in no way share Batman's view that jurors are idiots.  Juries are diverse in all ways to include intellectual ability.  However, potential jurors with expertise in areas of law and investigation are excluded from juries for obvious reasons.  Therefore, jurors are sometimes susceptible to defense attorney pleas to ignore solid evidence.  This is what often inflames LE types into making such comments.  This fact about jurors also plays into the discussion of if suspect interviews should be taped and used as evidence.  There are also issues of admissibility of things said, since the interviewer might imply existence of evidence in the interview. Thus portions of a taped interview might cause the jurors hearing the interview to believe the evidence exists (though it may or may not) and be prejudicial to the defense.  

Also, to Beech:

Quote:
My Dad is fond of saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time." That saying applies perfectly with your guilty suspect confessing. And before your broad strokes of epithets reach my father, I will tell you that he is a retired Marine aviator, a Korean war vet, and a lifetime member of the NRA. Quote:


You, know Ted Williams was also a Marine Aviator and war hero -- a man I admired both in sport and for his call to serve his country.  However, his children have done a great job recently of making a public mockery of themselves and their father's memory.  In other words, your father being a hero doesn't lend anymore credibility to you.  Perhaps if you had such credentials of service to your country to share, it would lend a little more credibility (or at least forgiveness) to your rantings.  

When you heard your father use this term, who was the "blind squirrel" he was most often describing?  

Beech,

Take a deep breath and calm down.  All this anger is bad for your health.

Quote:
Fortunately for me, I didn't include several of my dad's demographics in my post for such a purpose. Regardless of my strong feelings of love and respect for my father and his intelligence, his military service and association with the NRA makes him no more qualified than I to criticise the recently-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy. Quote:


I'm not sure what difference further describing your father demographically would make.  I do know that you made reference to military service and NRA because you thought it would win favor and thus prevent any insults directed at your father.  (I personally have great respect for the former quality, but have mixed feelings about the latter). Though some on this site have stooped low, I don't think Mom or Dad jokes would have occurred.  My point was simply: if you want to win favor by irrelevant facts, at least make them about yourself.  You could have quoted the cliche without bringing up your father at all.    

Quote:
Rantings? Oh that's right, I forgot-- everyone who disagrees with you is a ranting lunatic. Quote:


You must have me confused with someone else.  Of course I forgot that you seem to categorize all pro-poly (perhaps even pro-government, pro-law enforcement) types into one lump.  So of course when you say you, it is aimed at the evil monolith that I represent.  If you look back at old threads, you are likely to see you are the only person about whom I have used such descriptions.  Oh, and you said lunatic, not me. 

Quote:
Perhaps you could explain how a military record would make one more knowledgeable about the recently and wholey-discredited pseudoscience of polygraphy? Quote:


It doesn't.  Nor does that of a relative. My point exactly. And for discussion of your use of the term "wholey-discredited", please go to the thread on the NAS report.  You may want to re-read the Executive Summary and also remember I am a specific issue proponent.

I won't touch the blind squirrel thing any further.  I've picked on you enough today.  I just wanted to let you all know that I'm still around, though I have not recently posted.  I usually prefer more constructive posts, but sometimes it's just too fun getting Beech riled up.  Hope you don't take it personally.  As I told George once, maybe someday over a beer...

Beech,

Look around on this site.  It is only you whose buttons I push.  You can't post without an angry tone.  You are a magnet for abuse.   

What the Breeze says has nothing to do with me.  I am my own person, regardless of whether I may agree on some points with certain persons.  Again go back and read my posts throughout this site and you'll see that I am not part of some monolithic polygraph conspiracy.  I have my own ideas not always in line with others of my job.   

You are the first person to ever insinuate I have a low self esteem.  In fact many say just the opposite.  And here's the big news, my self esteem is in no way connected to the rise or fall of polygraph.  I was highly accomplishe in my field before my move into polygraphy, and I will continue to do so when I transition back into supervising criminal investigations. 

Oh and why do you accuse me of knowing very little.  Weren't you recently fending off similar attacks which you belittled in reply.