|
He states that he can say this man is innocent definitively, yet it says that SOME tests were 100% accurate.
Not all.
So how can he be so sure?
Also I can think of a bunch of cases where this wouldn't apply... for instance a man who comes home to find his wife murdered. He's seen her; showing him pictures his brain would give a positive reaction to that scene. Or a man who has seen pictures of a crime scene in the paper or in an earlier part of the trial. Positive response.
And how can they tell *what* the brain is responding to? Perhaps he's seen the person before so there's a positive result coming through, but he simply hasn't seen the person in their "final state" laying in a pool of blood on the floor.
The whole thing seems too "iffy" to me.
|