PLEASE, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but his general theory is "how can you expect the results to match your hypothesis unless you give the listener the hypothesis in the first place?"
If that is indeed what he's saying and I didn't just misread or misunderstand his comments - that's so stupid it makes my brain ache.
"But Chief Clancy... how are we supposed to get the witness to identify our accused unless we tell him #4 in the lineup is our suspect?"
That's it... I quit... last one out of civilization, turn out the lights.
Bren R.
