Voice Stress Analysis is a Fraud
Greegor
to 18 hours of interrogation and LIED TO in order for the
police to obtain false confessions. The footage of cops
yelling, screaming, telling lies etc. was pretty disgusting
and these crappy tactics are not illegal.
In one case they even broke a cardinal rule of interrogation
and showed the suspect a map of a crime scene.
One of the props used in these scams is the Voice Stress
Analysis, machines made and sold ($10 K each) by
NITV. They discovered that the Voice Stress machines
sold at $10,000 a pop to Police and military were banned
by the military because they are unreliable, and that's
putting it mildly.
Their website is loaded with all kinds of big names and
they seem to have big money, but their gadgets look
more like fraud than science.
http://www.cvsa1.com/images/staff%20photos/humble.jpg
""Doctor"" Charles Humble - Chairman & CEO
A former Indianapolis police officer, Charles Humble was certified as a
voice stress examiner in 1974 and as a polygraph examiner in 1986.
While conducting research in 1980, he discovered 'delayed stress
reaction' (DSR) in voice stress analysis. After redesigning the testing
protocols, considering DSR, the accuracy rate dramatically increased.
During his research Charles Humble was able to, for the first time,
quantify voice patterns. This also dramatically increased the accuracy
of the process and he has now become known as the father of modern
voice stress analysis. He has conducted more than 14,000 examinations
which were the basis from which he developed his widely acclaimed
training program. In 1986, Charles Humble began designing the Computer
Voice Stress Analyzer and the NITV debuted the CVSA in 1988. The CVSA
has replaced the polygraph and is now the truth verification device of
choice for the United States law enforcement community. Charles Humble
is a Graduate of Indiana University and holds an Honorary Doctorate
from Indiana Christian University.
Director of NITV Federal Services
http://www.cvsa1.com/images/staff%20photos/jim_kane.jpg
James A. Kane
Jim Kane has twenty-eight years experience in Counterintelligence (CI),
Human Intelligence (HUMINT), military special operations, counter
terrorism, and combat arms. Jim retired from the United States Army as
a Chief Warrant Officer 5 - the highest technical grade in the U.S.
Military. He served in a variety of leadership assignments, to include
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) positions in Europe and in the U.S. Jim
graduated from Boston University, and is a graduate of numerous
military intelligence professional courses, the FBI National Academy,
and is a CVSA Certified Examiner.
0:->
...nothing that has the least to do with the topic if this newsgroup...
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Jim Richardson
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143779968.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Oh please.............. 20/20 and about every other investigation for the
last 15 years shows the same thing - prosecutors behaving criminally,
falseifying evidence, hiding evidence, coaching witnessess , and on and on.
Look at Mr. Scheck and the Innocence Project gets so many innocent folks OFF
DEATH ROW?? Cause as many as 1/3 of death row inmates are INNOCENT - put
there by scumsucking criminal prosecutors yearning to be politicians.
Another sad story of the beautiful people rendering poor folk for fun and
profit. It won't be long now.
Greegor
Now that the DOD has FIGURED OUT that the stuff is a
scam, the scammers are posturing that by banning it, they
are denying the troops an important tool!
Golly, Kane, Do you think the scammers with
a vested interest in maintaining their scam will
ever admit that their stuff is a scam?
It's interesting to see these SAME people who have
been sucking up to DOD and Law Enforcement in order
to sell their product are now accusing the DOD of
a CONSPIRACY !!
Kane, I was interrogated by a CPS caseworker
who told LIES hoping to gain a false confession.
The connection between CPS and these
of improper/sleazy interrogations is obvious.
Since these interrogation scams are used by
Police far and wide, does the term EPIDEMIC
even apply? It seems more like ENDEMIC, since
it's in place with very few exceptions, in some
places where the garbage got beat down by a Judge.
It's a SYSTEMIC problem that corrupts our justice system
and, taken for granted, it is rarely questioned.
The emperor is wearing no clothes.
Newsflash! DoD Conspiracy Exposed
"From the Polygraph Institute to the undersecretary of defense for
intelligence, Stephen A. Cambone, the Department of Defense is denying
our very best the equipment they want to pursue the War on Terror. Is a
Pentagon turf war preventing troops from being better prepared?" ...
Read more! <link followed>
Special Report
Nothing But The Truth By David Holman Published 12/15/2005 12:07:30
AM
There is a little known device used in interrogations in police
departments throughout the country. The examiner attaches to the
subject a microphone, which is connected to a laptop computer with
special software. During the interrogation, the examiner charts on the
computer the voice pattern of each answer. By the analyzing the
patterns, the examiner can learn on which answers the subject was
likely deceptive.
Seeking greater versatility in the field than the polygraph, retired
Army officers developed voice stress analysis technology in the 1960s
and 1970s. Like the polygraph, the newer Computer Voice Stress Analyzer
(CVSA) is based on the theory that a subject will exhibit stress when
he's deceptive. But proponents of the CVSA claim that it's a more
reliable truth verification system. With the cost of purchase and
training at thousands of dollars less than the polygraph, it's used by
more than 1,000 domestic law enforcement agencies.
With the onset of the War on Terror and the high demand for quality
intelligence and frequent interrogations, some military units desire
access to this tool that their civilian counterparts so widely tout.
The manufacturer of the CVSA, the National Institute for Truth
Verification, is only too happy to oblige as it aggressively seeks new
federal and military markets. A demand and a supply -- simple enough,
right?
Not in the bureaucratic world of military procurement. The United
States Special Operations Command has pursued voice stress analysis
technology over the last two years. Finding promise in the CVSA, SOCOM
initiated research and development into a device that would miniaturize
it into a handheld Field Interrogation Support Tool. SOCOM budgeted for
the program and was ready to go, until the Pentagon halted it.
While it's tarred as scientifically unproven and opposed by the
Pentagon bureaucracy, two things are clear: cops stateside love it, and
troops want it. From the Polygraph Institute to the undersecretary of
defense for intelligence, Stephen A. Cambone, the Department of Defense
is denying our very best the equipment they want to pursue the War on
Terror. Is a Pentagon turf war preventing troops from being better
prepared?
THE EQUIPMENT'S UTILITY is self-evident, and its potential implications
substantial: troops require quality intelligence in times of war.
Defeating terrorists in Iraq and preventing future domestic attacks
will require information from detainees at American facilities
worldwide and at Guantanamo Bay.
A July 2003 Washington Times story detailed the perils of inadequate
interrogation equipment, reporting that Saddam Hussein loyalists were
thwarting polygraphs. In one reported case, the polygraph did not catch
a detainee blatantly lying to interrogators about his involvement in
weapons programs because he had been trained in countermeasures by the
old Special Security Organization.
While the Pentagon has officially declared the CVSA off-limits and thus
discouraged most units from using it, those who have tried it like what
they see. After-action reviews and interviews with interrogation
personnel show that special operations forces and counterintelligence
units are eager to use it.
Three unclassified after-action reviews from the War on Terror,
provided to TAS by the National Institute for Truth Verification
(NITV), strongly recommend using the CVSA in detainee interrogations.
The assessment by a Qatar counterintelligence staff sergeant found that
the CVSA "can be a virtually irreplaceable tool at the field operator
level....This is a system that can be integrated into operations at all
echelons and will prove to be an invaluable addition to the Army
inventory." Similar test periods at Guantanamo Bay in 2003 and at
Bagram Collection Point, Afghanistan, in June 2004 were also
successful, deeming the CVSA an "invaluable tool" with "outstanding
results."
A military supervisor of interrogations at Guantanamo, who spoke with
TAS on the condition of anonymity, called the CVSA "a useful tool in
the interrogation of detainees." Because it is more flexible, more
precise, and less invasive, he said, "It was more useful than the
polygraph." As a result of using it, the supervisor said that
interrogators obtained actionable intelligence from detainees, and now
believes strongly that military personnel should have access to the
CVSA. "We've got a global war on terrorism going on here, and the guys
need all the tools they can get. There aren't enough polygraphers to go
around, and the system's cumbersome," he said. A contract CVSA examiner
told TAS that the Southern Command has halted use of the devise at
Guantanamo, but such reports could not be verified.
Bill Endler, a civilian CVSA examiner who was on contract with the
military in Iraq through NITV, ran about 50 examinations from October
2003 to January 2004 at Camp Slayer, Abu Ghraib prison, and the Green
Zone. When he first arrived, interrogators were reluctant to use
Endler, "but once I showed them how much I could help," they came
around. Detainees came to call Endler "the truth man," he said.
Among his interrogations, Endler noted two interviews with high value
detainees. Taha Yasin Ramadan, Iraqi vice president and the "Ten of
Diamonds" in the coalition's deck of most wanted officials, broke down
after Endler began the interview. He admitted plotting attacks on
coalition forces. The CVSA succeeded, Endler said, "once I proved to
him that it worked." Endler said the only unsuccessful CVSA
interrogation was of Tariq Aziz, who proved uncooperative. Endler has
not been called back to Iraq. Since his August interview with TAS,
Endler has become NITV's director.
While military experience with the CVSA is limited, those who use it
say it works. NITV exhibited dozens of letters of appreciation for the
equipment from hundreds of law enforcement agencies. Agencies contacted
by TAS shared this enthusiasm, touting the CVSA as a valuable tool.
Detective Peter Rago, of the Schaumburg Police Department in Illinois,
said the CVSA has been "extremely valuable." Rago pointed to
difficulties with the polygraph, including its high rate of
inconclusive results and a lack of certified examiners in Illinois law
enforcement. Detective Corporal Jeanne Landis of the Flathead County
(Montana) Sheriff's Office and Detective Bill Case, of the Reading
(Pennsylvania) Police Department, echoed Rago's success. Case mentioned
its value in eliciting a recent confession from a man who raped his own
stepdaughter. "I haven't had anything where a person showed deceptive
and then was exonerated or was found to be innocent," Case said.
DESPITE THESE SUCCESSES domestically and abroad, there is skepticism in
the scientific community concerning the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer.
Critics, including those within the Department of Defense, dismiss the
CVSA as scientifically unproven. Undersecretary of Defense for
Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone justified his decision to bar DoD use
of the equipment in a letter last year to Sen. George Allen (R-Va.),
citing studies that "...concluded there was little or no evidence,
scientific or otherwise, for the applications of voice stress
analysis...."
However, scientific studies of the CVSA are inconclusive. Various
studies have confirmed the existence of voice stress. Whether the CVSA
can accurately measure that stress and discern deception is another
question. The National Institute for Truth Verification argues that no
study has been performed using manufacturers' protocols: the CVSA can
only be accurately tested using real world scenarios and "known
conclusion" cases. Without the stress of actual deception, study
participants don't fear the consequences of lying.
Dr. John Morgan, assistant director for science and technology at the
National Institute of Justice, agrees that the CVSA has not been
subjected to a thorough scientific evaluation. "There is no objective
data to provide the basis for voice stress or polygraph as a reliable
method for detecting deception or stress," Morgan told TAS.
The most rigorous studies on the CVSA, such as Victor L. Cestaro's for
the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute and the Air Force
Research Laboratory's for the National Institute of Justice, have not
thoroughly tested the device. The Cestaro study relied on a mock crime
scenario "in the absence of jeopardy." The National Institute of
Justice study had one real world component which found that the CVSA
accurately detected stress in 45 out of 45 cases. Both studies found
that while it detects stress, they could not confirm the detection of
deception.
To the strict empiricists, the lack of scientific verification of the
CVSA is a sufficient case against its use. John Palmatier, a Fort
Lauderdale, Florida polygraph examiner and critic of the new
technology, argues that without scientific backing, the CVSA could be a
gimmick. While it may well elicit confessions, that "does not mean that
the device itself discriminates between what is true and what is
deceptive," Palmatier wrote in an article for an American Bar
Association journal.
Still, Palmatier admits in the article "there is as yet no definitive
answer" whether the CVSA is "a modern technological innovation or 'the
Emperor's New Clothes.'" Palmatier's primary concern is that the CVSA
could be a mere prop used to browbeat confessions from interviewees. He
wrote, "Almost anything can be portrayed as a magic device that will
enable its user to see what is true." While Palmatier depends on the
polygraph for his livelihood, he told TAS that "if the CVSA worked I'd
be using it." Could the CVSA ever be a proper tool? "Given the proper
research and the proper development, maybe someday, but not right now,"
he said.
Even if the CVSA is a scam, its devoted users find it worth spending
thousands on training and multiple machines. "If it's a prop, it's an
expensive prop," Humble said. The aforementioned Guantanamo supervisor
pointed to its utility, "If it's a prop, and it works, oh well."
Schaumburg Detective Rago said of the prop accusation, "For me, it
works, so I might as well use it." Though critics are dismissive of the
CVSA, the conflict over the device boils down to very different
perspectives: utility versus scientific reliability.
WHILE CRITICS DISMISS voice stress as scientifically unreliable, the
polygraph -- the Pentagon's equipment of choice -- offers little or no
advantages. The polygraph is known for its unreliability, from the
countermeasures which can render exams inconclusive to its failures to
catch notorious interviewees, such as Aldrich Ames.
In the case proscribing polygraph exams as admissible evidence, Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote, "To this day, the scientific community remains
extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph
techniques....[T]here is simply no way to know in a particular case
whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate, because certain
doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."
Compounding widespread scientific doubt of the polygraph is the
National Academy of Sciences findings on the polygraph's use for
security screening. Commissioned by the Department of Energy, the 2003
study found evidence for the polygraph's validity "scanty and
scientifically weak."
The Academy found that most government polygraph research is conducted
by those invested in the polygraph's success. Pointing specifically to
the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DoDPI), the study
reported that
U.S. agencies charged with initiating and sponsoring polygraph
research...are also charged with the mission of training polygraph
examiners and developing new polygraph applications. The dual mission
of acting as a sponsor for polygraph research and as a sponsor for
polygraph practice creates an obvious conflict of interest. Any
reasonable investigator would anticipate that certain research
questions...or certain patterns of results...will be less welcome by
such research sponsors than empirical demonstrations that the polygraph
"works."
These pointed questions about the polygraph's scientific validity are
nearly identical to the Pentagon's arguments against the CVSA.
DoD personnel may help explain this inconsistency in DoD policy.
DoDPI's chief of special studies, Frank Horvath, is the former
president of the American Polygraph Association, the professional
organization of polygraph examiners. The office upon which the DoD
relies most for its scientific studies on the polygraph and the CVSA is
a steadfast defender of the polygraph. And other federal agencies cite
DoDPI studies in rejecting the CVSA.
Humble and others interviewed by TAS believe most polygraph examiners
are biased in favor of the polygraph even after their careers wind
down, as most law enforcement and military polygraphers open private
practices after retirement. If CVSA gains in use and credibility, many
examiners like Palmatier could be out of business. "You're talking
about guys who are attached to this as a retirement bonus program,"
said the Guantanamo supervisor, "You're immediately in a rice bowl
issue and fur starts to fly. DoDPI's going to protect itself there and
they have a monopoly."
While the CVSA has its skeptics, the former executive director of the
National Institute for Truth Verification is still a believer. David
Hughes, a former police captain who is no longer with NITV as when TAS
began reporting on the story, continues his support for CVSA, despite
being engaged in a legal dispute with Humble.
THE PENTAGON HAS THWARTED military attempts to expand CVSA use. The
United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) showed a particular
interest in developing the CVSA for the field, receiving an NITV
briefing August 24, 2004. SOCOM requested and received funding to
miniaturize the equipment into a handheld Field Interrogation Support
Tool. This program is listed in the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP), and was reported by
Special Operations Technology magazine and as recently as October 15 in
the St. Petersburg Times.
Sensing DoD opposition in the early months of 2005, SOCOM commissioned
a survey of domestic law enforcement agencies utilizing the CVSA. In
March 2005, independent researchers contacted agencies across eight
states. The researchers reported to SOCOM that domestic agencies warmly
recommend the CVSA as an investigative tool. A researcher familiar with
the survey said that, based on this research, "Without this tool, it
slows down criminal investigations, and somebody's kid is not going to
come home, that's domestically and internationally." On average, those
surveyed perceived the CVSA as more than 91% reliable.
Despite SOCOM's apparent interest in the CVSA, the Pentagon cancelled
the project. After researchers briefed SOCOM on April 4, SOCOM officers
attempted to brief Carol Haave, deputy undersecretary of defense for
counterintelligence and security. She delayed two meetings and
cancelled a third in May and June. Humble says he learned in June that
Haave terminated the project. Lt. Commander Steven Mavica, a SOCOM
media relations officer, confirmed for TAS that at Haave's request
SOCOM suspended the project in the third quarter of fiscal year 2005.
Undersecretary Cambone is telling Congress a different story. He wrote
in an August 26, 2005 letter to Sen. Rick Santorum that "USSOCOM
reviewed the proposal and ultimately declined to fund the initiative."
Pentagon officials did not respond to questions about this
inconsistency or its decision to terminate the project.
The Pentagon is also actively halting use of the CVSA in the field.
When interrogators attended a training class for the CVSA this fall at
Qatar's Camp As-Sayliyah, they were required to sign an August 28,
2005, memorandum acknowledging DoD's policy barring use of the CVSA.
IN THE FUTURE, the Pentagon may authorize use of the CVSA. But some
Senate military aides believe the DoD is dragging its feet. Through
Humble's contacts with Senate Republicans as a member of the Senatorial
Trust (the membership price tag is $15,000), he has rallied political
backing. A handful of Republican Senators have repeatedly written DoD
and other federal departments in support of the CVSA receiving a fair
examination. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is aware of their
inquiries, but has referred the issue to Undersecretary Cambone.
Behind the scenes, their military aides have actively examined DoD
policy, especially after Cambone's June 8, 2004 memorandum barring the
use of any "credibility assessment instrument" other than the
polygraph. He also promised that his staff will research technologies
beyond the polygraph but, until accuracy can be independently
determined, "the polygraph will remain the sole instrument." Upset with
the memo, aides held a July 13 2004, meeting with DoD
counterintelligence and polygraph officials. A Senate aide in the
meeting says they were told by Toby Sullivan, DoD director of
counterintelligence, to expect a memo clarifying that other
interrogation devices may be used, but that only the polygraph may be
used for truth verification. Congressional aides haven't seen such a
memo.
While aides emphasize their desire to ensure all available technology
receives a fair review, some are growing impatient with the DoD. They
were promised at the July 13 meeting that the DoD would commission an
independent study of the CVSA.
The DoD study is being performed by Dr. Harry Hollein at the University
of Florida. Hollein declined to discuss the study with TAS until it is
complete. Pentagon officials confirmed that Dr. John Capps, brother of
former DoDPI director Michael Capps, is overseeing the Florida study.
One Senate military liaison is unimpressed with the CVSA and his
colleagues' efforts on its behalf. "I personally doubt the War on
Terror is going to be won or lost based on this product. If you're
going to pick multiple dark arts, why spend thousands of dollars on a
machine that doesn't work as it's supposed to work?"
Another Senate military aide said he has confirmed the CVSA's success
with interrogators and officers in the field. "If it actually proves to
be a truth telling device, we'll have missed an opportunity," one
Senate military aide said. "If it's useful, we'll have denied these
people a useful tool. Commanders in the field ought to make these
decisions....[DoD officials] don't trust their commanders in the
field."
David Holman is a reporter for The American Spectator.
0:->
> Attached is a very recent addition to the NITV web site!
> Now that the DOD has FIGURED OUT that the stuff is a
> scam, the scammers are posturing that by banning it, they
> are denying the troops an important tool!
>
> Golly, Kane, Do you think the scammers with
> a vested interest in maintaining their scam will
> ever admit that their stuff is a scam?
>
> It's interesting to see these SAME people who have
> been sucking up to DOD and Law Enforcement in order
> to sell their product are now accusing the DOD of
> a CONSPIRACY !!
>
> Kane, I was interrogated by a CPS caseworker
> who told LIES hoping to gain a false confession.
> The connection between CPS and these
> of improper/sleazy interrogations is obvious.
>
> Since these interrogation scams are used by
> Police far and wide, does the term EPIDEMIC
> even apply? It seems more like ENDEMIC, since
> it's in place with very few exceptions, in some
> places where the garbage got beat down by a Judge.
>
> It's a SYSTEMIC problem that corrupts our justice system
> and, taken for granted, it is rarely questioned.
>
> The emperor is wearing no clothes.
In other words you'd like this newsgroup to change its name and purpose
from alt.support.child-protective-services to
alt.support.allantigovernmentranting?
Sorry, there are so many of those sites now you'd be lost in the static.
You have run from every challenge to your nonsense all the years you've
been here, Greg. You REFUSE to answer reasonable questions though it's
YOU making claims of how you were so mistreated by the state.
You ARE NOT LOOKING for solutions, obviously. You simply want to blame
the state for YOUR misbehavior and selfish self-serving destruction of
what was probably a pretty nice little family of mother and daughter.
You and your kind of "man" are a plague to single women with children.
You were the cause of the child being removed.
You refused to comply with simple requests ... NOT EVEN ASKING YOU TO
LEAVE THE HOME ... but simply to get your shitty possessions in order
and out of the way in the home. Classic clutter bullshit YOU refuse to
fix unless the STATE paid for storage. YOU WERE AN INTRUDER, YOU DUMB SHIT.
You refused to marry, you refused to adopt the child. You were NOBODY
BUT A BOYFRIEND.
You refused a psych eval.
You badgered and deliberately sabotaged a trainer.
You hassled and frightened workers with your badgering and false claims.
And you ghost authored that piece of destructive lying wad of pig shit
you called a petition to the court..
But of course it was all the state's fault for interfering in your
little shower room attendant games with the daughter. Towel boy, and
shampoo girl attendant.
And you STILL don't get it and delusionaly blame OTHERS for what YOU did
to the child and mother.
0:->
Greegor
Is this one of those stress interviews where
you lie your tail off hoping for a false confession?
An anonymous liar demanding truthful answers
to sensitive and direct cross examination without
any authority?
Having the delusion you're Torquemada again eh?
0:->
Your projection is not my reality.
I asked you a simple question. It had to do with what this subject had
to do with the subject of this newsgroup.
If you don't want to answer, and you wish to post off topic try being
honest and admitting your head is in your drawers.
You have been out of touch with reality for years. We promise not to be
shocked.
I see you have found a home and friends again though. Lovely people.
Either mentally ill, or lying like a pig.
Just your kind.
Enjoy.
0:->
Greegor
> Kane: Is this one of those stress interviews where
> you lie your tail off hoping for a false confession?
> An anonymous liar demanding truthful answers
> to sensitive and direct cross examination without
> any authority?
> Having the delusion you're Torquemada again eh?
K:
> Your projection is not my reality.
Your projection is your reality.
> I asked you a simple question. It had to do with what this
> subject had to do with the subject of this newsgroup.
Two people have already answered you about what the
breakdown of the FRAUD about Voice Stress Analysis
has to do with Child Protection investigations and interviews.
> If you don't want to answer, and you wish to post off topic
> try being honest and admitting your head is in your drawers.
It's definately on topic, even though that bothers you.
> You have been out of touch with reality for years.
> We promise not to be shocked.
Always with this multiple personality "We" thing.
Of course you aren't insane, all of your personalities say so!
> I see you have found a home and friends again though.
Please explain. Pretending to be a stalker?
> Lovely people. Either mentally ill, or lying like a pig.
Ah ah! Your attorney won't like that!
> Just your kind.
Did you look up a guy with a different middle initial again?
> Enjoy.
What's the matter Kane? Did you look me up and
get some news that doesn't fit your world view?
Date: Fri, Mar 31 2006 10:35 pm "0:->" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com>
G:
> Kane:
> Is this one of those stress interviews where
> you lie your tail off hoping for a false confession?
> An anonymous liar demanding truthful answers
> to sensitive and direct cross examination without
> any authority?
> Having the delusion you're Torquemada again eh?
K:
0:->
> G:
>> Kane: Is this one of those stress interviews where
>> you lie your tail off hoping for a false confession?
>
>> An anonymous liar demanding truthful answers
>> to sensitive and direct cross examination without
>> any authority?
>
>> Having the delusion you're Torquemada again eh?
>
> K:
>> Your projection is not my reality.
>
> Your projection is your reality.
I did not make the Torquemada remark, you did.
>> I asked you a simple question. It had to do with what this
>> subject had to do with the subject of this newsgroup.
>
> Two people have already answered you about what the
> breakdown of the FRAUD about Voice Stress Analysis
> has to do with Child Protection investigations and interviews.
Let me know when the VSA is used in a child protection case.
>> If you don't want to answer, and you wish to post off topic
>> try being honest and admitting your head is in your drawers.
>
> It's definately on topic, even though that bothers you.
Let me know when it's used in a CPS case.
>> You have been out of touch with reality for years.
>> We promise not to be shocked.
>
> Always with this multiple personality "We" thing.
> Of course you aren't insane, all of your personalities say so!
No, I'm talking about other posters as well as myself. Or do you think
just you and I are here all alone, no other readers or posters?
>
>> I see you have found a home and friends again though.
>
> Please explain. Pretending to be a stalker?
You? I didn't mention stalker. But now that you mention it.....
Had you bothered to read on, and you found the answer below to lazy to
go back and change your error in asking me to explain, which I did
below, well, you might have retained some credibility.
Each post you post proves to anyone new here what you are.
>
>> Lovely people. Either mentally ill, or lying like a pig.
>
> Ah ah! Your attorney won't like that!
That some of the posters have discussed them being infected with a
disease that they themselves identify as creating brain changes that
amount to mental illness?
As for lying...well, you couldn't tell about that because you believe
the same delusional rantings from your own posts.
>
>> Just your kind.
>
> Did you look up a guy with a different middle initial again?
See what I mean?
>
>> Enjoy.
>
> What's the matter Kane?
Nothing. Why would you insinuate there is?
> Did you look me up and
> get some news that doesn't fit your world view?
Nope. Why would I look you up?
Something about you that doesn't fit my world view?
Now what could that possibly be. I know there are people like you in the
world.
Are you going to start claiming you aren't how you say you are.
0:->
>
> Date: Fri, Mar 31 2006 10:35 pm "0:->" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com>
> G:
>> Kane:
>> Is this one of those stress interviews where
>> you lie your tail off hoping for a false confession?
>
>> An anonymous liar demanding truthful answers
>> to sensitive and direct cross examination without
>> any authority?
>
>> Having the delusion you're Torquemada again eh?
>
> K:
>> Your projection is not my reality.
>>
>> I asked you a simple question. It had to do with what this
>> subject had to do with the subject of this newsgroup.
>>
>> If you don't want to answer, and you wish to post off topic
>> try being honest and admitting your head is in your drawers.
>>
>> You have been out of touch with reality for years. We promise
>> not to be shocked.
>>
>> I see you have found a home and friends again though.
>> Lovely people. Either mentally ill, or lying like a pig.
>>
>> Just your kind.
>>
>> Enjoy.
>
Greegor
Here is just one item where KIDS were conned using bogus VSA.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20050524-9999-1m24crowe.html
By Onell R. Soto UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER May 24, 2005
The maker of a machine police used while interrogating the brother of
slain Escondido girl Stephanie Crowe agreed to settle a lawsuit that
accused it of making a faulty device that falsely led to murder
charges, lawyers said in court yesterday.
Michael Crowe and two friends, Joshua Treadway and Aaron Houser, were
initially accused in 12-year-old Stephanie Crowe's stabbing death in
1998. Their lawyers said police falsely obtained confessions using the
machine.
Murder charges were dropped after Stephanie's blood was found on a
transient's sweat shirt as the boys headed to trial in 1999. The
transient, Richard Tuite, was convicted of manslaughter in the slaying
last year and is in prison.
After the charges against the three boys were dropped, their families
sued police officers, prosecutors, the government agencies that
employed them and the makers of the machine.
U.S. District Judge John S. Rhoades dismissed the majority of the case;
attorneys for the families said they will appeal his rulings.
The settlement means there will be no trial for the National Institute
for Truth Verification, makers of the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer.
Rhoades had ordered a trial six weeks ago.
Lawyers for both sides said they can't spell out how much the company
will pay the families because of a confidentiality agreement.
"It's not an admission of liability," Kimberly Oberrecht, who
represents the company, said of the settlement.
Crowe family lawyer Milton Silverman called the company's machine "a
fraud and a sham" in court papers and said its use coerced two of the
three boys to wrongly tell police they took part in the stabbing death
of Stephanie.
Rhoades said he didn't believe he could approve keeping the settlement
amount secret, but the lawyers said later they will arrange for the
suit to be settled out of court.
The National Institute's West Palm Beach, Fla., offices were closed
yesterday evening. The company describes the $9,995 machine on its Web
site as being "effective in all investigative situations."
It lists 158 police agencies in California, including several in San
Diego County, as clients and says the machine is more effective than a
polygraph in determining whether someone is lying.
Michael Crowe and Treadway both denied involvement in Stephanie's
stabbing, but they said they began doubting themselves after an
Oceanside police officer working with Escondido investigators told them
the machine was highly accurate and indicated they were lying, lawyers
said.
Greegor
General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division Magazine
The Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer
Modern Technological Innovation or "The Emperor's New Clothes"?
By John J. Palmatier
In a story by Hans Christian Andersen, an emperor is told by two
tailors that they can make him a set of remarkable new clothes that
will be invisible to anyone who is either incompetent or stupid. When
the emperor goes to see his new clothes, he sees nothing at all, for
the tailors are swindlers; there aren't any clothes. Afraid of being
judged incompetent or stupid, he pretends to be delighted with the new
clothes and "wears" them in a grand parade through the town. Everyone
else also pretends to see them, until a child yells out, "He hasn't
got any clothes on!"
Voice Stress Analysis: Introduction and History
Knowing whether a client is truthful or not permits many decisions to
be made regarding an appropriate course of action prior to any formal
proceeding. To this end it is not uncommon for many practitioners to
subject clients to some form of credibility test, to assess their
veracity. Law enforcement too has long used such tests to ferret out
the truthful, eliminating them from suspicion and at the same time
identifying and targeting those who are deceptive. Additionally, many
businesses and law enforcement agencies have increasingly relied upon
these tests to screen potential candidates for behaviors or
characteristics that would be incompatible with their roles as defined
by that organization. For years, the polygraph was the primary
instrument used for this purpose. However, in the last two to three
decades, a new technology has appeared, with its proponents espousing
claims of increased accuracy and simplicity compared with older
polygraph technology. This innovative technology is Voice Stress
Analysis (VSA).
In the late 1960s, the United States Army conducted extensive research
to explore the feasibility of detecting deception by measuring the
amount of stress present in a person's voice. Although no
documentation detailing that research was found within the literature,
it is known that the military did not adopt the VSA technology for
credibility assessment purposes. Nevertheless, in 1970, two Army
officers associated with the VSA research, Charles McQuiston and Allen
Bell, retired from the military and established the Dektor
Counterintelligence and Security Company, Inc., in Virginia. Dektor's
primary product was a device called the Psychological Stress Evaluator
(PSE), the first commercially available voice stress analyzer. For
those who purchased the PSE, Dektor offered a five-day training that,
upon completion, certified them as voice stress analysts.
The premise on which voice stress analysis is based is that all speech
is comprised of two components. The first are fundamental frequencies
determined mainly by laryngeal structures. The second are formant
frequencies that are produced by occur when air is passed through the
vocal tract. Voice stress analysts believe speech also produces an
inaudible FM signal, or micro-tremor, of 8 to 14 Hz. The belief is that
this signal's presence is greatest during normal speech and dampened
when a person is placed under stress. A voice stress instrument is
designed to monitor and display the variance in microtremors as a
person responds to specific questions. This hypothesis, however, is
somewhat tentative, as research has not yet definitively established
the existence of a micro-tremor in the muscles associated with speech;
other studies question the relationship between vocal stress and
deception.
PSE research examining the validity and reliability of the instrument
itself has also produced mixed results. A review of the relevant
literature shows that when the PSE was used to detect deception, a
large percentage of the studies concluded that the PSE's results were
no better than chance. However, a few studies were found that suggest
that the PSE may in fact measure stress in the human voice in some
settings. For instance, in one study conducted in England, the PSE
displayed "an exceedingly high level of stress" in a terrorist's
voice just prior to his killing a hostage, compared to the level of
stress present in his voice following the incident. Although some
results appear promising, many questions have not yet been asked;
answers will be found only through additional research.
The Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer
The Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) first appeared in 1988
and is based on the same technology as the PSE. The CVSA is marketed by
the National Institute for Truth Verification (NITV), located in West
Palm Beach, Florida. The NITV was founded by Charles Humble, who
continues to control the organization as Chairman of it's Board of
Directors. When the first CVSA was introduced, it was offered to the
general public; later, as its popularity grew, it was offered only to
law enforcement agencies.
Information provided by the NITV claims that over 700 law enforcement
agencies across the country now use the CVSA instrument in one of two
configurations. The first CVSA instruments were analog in nature. They
used EKG chart paper to record voice patterns produced either by
talking directly into a microphone attached to the instrument, or by
holding a microphone near the speaker of a tape recorder as a cassette
recording was played. Later, a cassette player/recorder was modified by
the subcontractor who manufactured the analog CVSA for the NITV,
allowing direct input from a cassette tape into the CVSA instrument.
In 1996, the second and current CVSA instrument was developed after
Humble learned that a competitor had produced the first notebook
computer voice stress analyzer, the Diogenes Lantern. Humble, acting as
the NITV, contracted with a Florida-based software development company
to create a program to capture voice data, using a notebook computer
equipped with a built-in sound card. It was approximately a year later
that the NITV began marketing the software, packaged in an inexpensive
notebook computer.
Okay, but Does the CVSA Work?
One cannot argue the success many law enforcement agencies have had
using a CVSA instrument to elicit confessions from possible
suspects-if someone confessed to a crime, other suspects would then
be eliminated. NITV's literature is filled with a great deal of
anecdotal evidence in which these types of cases are highlighted.
However, it appears that Humble and his Executive Director, David
Hughes, a retired West Palm Beach police department captain, believe
the evidence is sufficient to prove both validity and reliability, when
in fact it proves little.
It is doubtful that anyone working within the criminal justice system
for some period has not heard stories of inventive police officers,
eliciting confessions from gullible suspects by using a Xerox machine
to print out copies of "He's Lying," or by placing a vegetable
strainer with wires attached to it on the person's head to monitor
his brain waves! Almost anything can be portrayed as a magic device
that will enable its user to see what is true. However, because a
resultant confession does not mean that the device itself discriminates
between what is true and what is deceptive. Unfortunately, this point
is missed by those at the NITV and an even larger number of law
enforcement officers and administrators.
Questions regarding the CVSA's validity (does it allow a user to
discriminate accurately between truthful and deceptive people) and
reliability (are the CVSA's results consistent from one test to
another) are scientific issues that cannot be answered by anecdotal
evidence. In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the
matter of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, and held in part that
scientific knowledge is that which can be tested and which has
undergone the scrutiny of the scientific community. To date, only four
studies have examined the CVSA instrument. Each study was conducted by
Dr. Victor Cestaro, a scientist with the Department of Defense, using a
laboratory environment for his research. This fact was seized upon by
the NITV in what appears to be an attempt to weaken the study's
findings. Other documents suggest that not only is the NITV
disinterested in subjecting the CVSA to additional study, but the
organization has attempted to thwart research conducted in a field, or
real world, setting.
About two years ago the Canastota, New York, police department
established a collaborative relationship with the United States Air
Force Laboratory in Rome, New York. The ARome Laboratory@ conducts a
wide range of research on new technology and obtained a sizable grant
to support research examining the validity of both the Diogenes Lantern
and CVSA voice stress instruments in the same setting. Michael Adsit, a
criminal investigator with the Canastota police, wrote the NITV to
inquire about training and the purchase of a CVSA instrument. In reply,
David Hughes, NITV's executive director, wrote in part that:
The NITV is very concerned that the Canastota Police Department will
participate in research by the ROME LAB. Therefore, the NITV must
request a letter from the Chief of Police clearly stating the Canastota
Police Department is purchasing the CVSA for their departmental
investigative services; criminal and preemployment. That the Canastota
Police Department will not allow anyone outside of their trained
examiners, and specifically the Rome Lab, to use or have access to the
CVSA and all proprietary interest will be protected. Additionally, the
Chief of Police and the City Attorney will have to sign our (EULA) end
user license agreement before purchase or training can be considered.
(May 11, 1998, correspondence from David Hughes to Michael Adsit.
The NITV's rationale in making such a demand is left to the
reader's imagination. However, some insight may be gained from
reading a reply from Humble to Dr. David Lykken, an outspoken critic of
lie detection, who asked about the existence of CVSA validity studies.
Humble wrote:
Insofar as "research" that has been conducted on the CVSA, we decided
very early on not to follow in the same footsteps as the polygraph only
to find ourselves in the same position the polygraph finds itself in
today. The CVSA is sold as an investigative tool and nothing more. Our
students are taught that it is not to be used in court, to obtain
warrants, or to in any way persecute anyone. This system was design to
identify innocent individuals and help remove them as suspects. All of
our instructors teach that if a person is not able to "pass" the exam,
it simply means that they are not eliminated as suspects. (Lykken, D.
T., 1998, A Tremor in the Blood, Plenum Press: New York, p. 172).
Lykken interpreted this statement to mean that CVSA users, now limited
to law enforcement officers, are encouraged to use the instrument
simply as an interrogation tool and not to conduct a test per se.
Litigation on the Horizon?
Some members of the bar have already questioned the ethics of using the
CVSA to elicit confessions. There are currently suits in Nevada and San
Diego, California, seeking damages for confessions elicited using the
CVSA instrument. The merits of each case are unknown. In an effort to
thwart this type of litigation, the NITV provides all CVSA examiners
with a release form for each person administered a CVSA examination to
sign. The importance of the release form is evidenced by an
admonishment from Hughes to all certified CVSA examiners, prompted by
the Nevada lawsuit, stating in part that:
The release form that was included in your CEC [certified examiner
course] manual contained a release form that was prepared especially to
minimize exposure to frivolous litigation. If you have removed the
phrase 'do hereby release, absolve and for ever hold harmless the
NITV and (your agency's name), its servants, agents, and anyone
acting in its behalf, from any and all claims, demands, or other
damages from any matter, act, or thing arising out of aforesaid
examination' from your release form, you have re-exposed you and your
agency unnecessarily to this type of frivolous litigation and we
recommend that you modify that situation immediately.
(August 25, 1998, correspondence from David Hughes.)
Whether this release would be binding in all jurisdictions is unknown,
and it's application might require a case-by-case analysis.
Although issues regarding the CVSA's use as an investigative tool
merit discussion, these matters are viewed as minor when compared to
the potential liability law enforcement agencies incur by using the
CVSA for preemployment testing. A large number of law enforcement
agencies are governed by state or local Civil Service rules or acts.
Consequently, these agencies are also subject to the promulgated rules
of the government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
specifically 29 CFR 1607, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures (July 1, 1998). These guidelines mandate that any test or
other selection procedure used to make employment decisions must be
valid (§1607.2). The guidelines state that users may establish
validity using either criterion-related validity studies or construct
validity studies (§1607.5) and that these studies must adhere to the
technical standards outlined in §1607.14. A review of the NITV's
literature would lead one to believe that the CVSA instrument has been
validated. The truth, however, is that when asked for the name of just
one person with whom construct, criterion and content validity issues
could be discussed, Humble replied "there is no one like that."
(November 1, 1995, telephone conversation with Charles Humble.).
Consequently, if a law enforcement agency should find itself facing a
suit by a rejected police officer applicant, challenging the CVSA's
use as a part of the selection process, the agency may well find itself
in an indefensible position. Surprisingly, at least some law
enforcement agencies choose to ignore this liability and admit that
their agency uses the CVSA only to facilitate the selection and
screening process by eliciting admissions from potential employees.
For instance, a law enforcement official employed by an agency in the
state of California was recently asked if his agency would participate
in a research study to examine the CVSA's validity in a field
setting. After some thought the official replied that his agency liked
the CVSA because it was easy and they had spent a lot of money
procuring the instruments and requisite training. He said that they
didn't care if the instrument was only perhaps 60 percent accurate,
because they used it to scare applicants into making admissions that
which background investigators could then follow up. Continuing, he
said, "I would hate to participate in a study, because if I
participated in a study and the study says it's not valid [the CVSA]
then I would have to stop using it. I couldn't even objectify the
study, I'd just have to stop using it." (March 16, 1999, telephone
conversation, name withheld.) Given increased scrutiny by the media and
concerns regarding law enforcement ethics, this type of reasoning is
not only foolish but potentially dangerous. Even though some applicants
may make admissions, one cannot know, or even estimate, how often an
applicant who lied about a criminal indiscretion or other disqualifying
characteristic is called truthful. Absent a complete analysis of the
CVSA and cooperation by its manufacturer, claims of validity or
accuracy are nothing more than conjecture, and potentially a burgeoning
area for litigation.
Conclusion
Is the CVSA a modern technological innovation or "the Emperor's New
Clothes"? As much as we would like to know, there is as yet no
definitive answer. At the same time, however, I would not to be overly
surprised should the next advertisement for the CVSA include as a part
of the deal an offer for a new pair of slacks. n
John J. Palmatier, Ph.D., is a scientist, certified CVSA examiner,
polygraph researcher and law enforcement officer. He can be reached at
palm...@pilot.msu.edu.
Contact information:
ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL, 60610
phone: 312.988.5648
fax: 312.988.5711
genpr...@abanet.org
Greegor
the amount and documents are confidential.
When the ""Doctor"" made campaign contributions, the
titles he claimed were interesting.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Humble&first=Charles
(second page) "The Humble Foundation/Criminologist"
http://www.gacriminallawblog.com/
03.31.06 Police Interrogation Techniques & False Confessions
On ABC "Primetime" tonight was a special titled "Inside the
Box."
It was about false confessions induced by police interview tactics.
In the first story, the police fed one a young man the details of a
murder and rape during a gruelilng 18 hour interrogation. He was kept
in a room until he told them what they wanted to hear. Those details
were repeated to them in the form of a a very calm videotaped
confession. The 18 hours preceding the confession were not recorded.
Based on that confession, three men were convicted of murder and were
sentenced to 33 years to life in prison. After 18 years, they were
released from prison after DNA proved them to be innocent.
The show cited a study that found that 23% of people that were released
from prison had actually confessed to the crime that they were
convicted of. The reporter/host, Chris Cuomo, asked, "If you still
think you would never confess to a crime you didn't commit, listen to
this."
The next case is from right here in Georgia. Cherokee County to be
exact. Roberto Rocha, 20 years old, voluntarily comes in for
questioning about the murder of a classmate. At first, he is accused
and vehemently denies any involvment and volunteers to take a lie
detector test when the detectives don't believe him. Over the course
of the interview, police lie to Roberto numerous times. They shout and
scream and get in his face. They provide details about the crime to
him.
ABC brought in Stephen Drizzen, an expert on false confessions. He
examines the video tape and concludes that the confession is false
based on their techniques and because Roberto could not even provide
the most basic details of the crime. He would tell them something that
was totally wrong and then the police interrogators would provide him
with the real details which he would go back and insert where the error
was. He finally told them what they wanted to hear and when he stood
up to leave, he was placed under arrest.
Good thing he has a stamped passport, dental records, photographs,
plane tickets, postcards and witnesses that prove he was out of the
country when the killing happened. Brian Steel, Roberto's lawyer,
said this was the best alibi he had ever seen. I have to agree and now
apparantly, so does Captian Ron Hunton, who was one of the officers
questioning Roberto. Here is Hunton's quote, "You can't take a
confession and just lock that guy up and let a jury decide his guilt or
innocence... I am not willing to take that chance." He testified in
favor of releasing Roberto from jail after 15 months.
ABC encourages the taping of the entire interrogation because it is the
only way to protect against a false confession leading to a conviction.
They point out that taping is only a requirement in 7 states.
The next several cases are all about computer voice stress analysis
tests and the "doctor" that developed the technology for his
company NITV (National Institute for Truth Verification). His name,
Dr. Charles Humble. He is anything but humble and thinks his machine
is great. He is not a medical doctor or even a PHD. He was awarded
an Honorary Diploma for taking a few bible courses at a non-accredited
school run out of a strip mall. This hack has been selling these
machines to police departments and the military for $10,000 per unit.
1500 police departments have purchased the machine accoding to the
interview. Several have stopped using it and the Pentagon has banned
its use finding it to be unreliable. The machine had been used in
Iraq, Afganistan and in Gitmo to interrogate, hold and release terror
suspects.
The Crowe case. A 14 year old boy, Michael Crowe, was brought in for
questioning about his sister's death in the middle of the night and
was hooked up to the CVSA. The boy denied the allegations. He was
then told that he failed a VSA test. He was further told that it could
pick up his subconscious. He was told the machine was very accurate.
He then began to doubt his own memory. He ended up confessing to get
out of the interrogation room feeling it was his only option. One week
before his trial was suppose to begin, he was released after the real
killer was identified by DNA evidence. The judge that released him
said the machine was "no more reliable at truth detection than a
Singer sewing machine." The makers of the machine were sued by the
family. The case was settled out of court. In the civil case, it was
admitted by an executive in the company that the machine can only
detect stress and can not detect a lie. On NITV's website, they
still say their machine was right and that the case was settled because
their insurance company didn't give them a chance to go to court.
OK, so now the viewer is sitting there thinking that these folks that
confess are just idiots and that it couldn't happen to them or
someone that was smarter. Wrong. Next, they conduct experiments on
some very bright college students. They set up a lab to look like an
interrogation room. The students are brought in to see how fast they
can type and are told whatever you do, don't hit the "alt" key
because it will cause the program to crash and computers to be damaged.
If damaged the test taker will have to pay for that damage. The
testers then set out to see if they can get them to confess to hitting
the key, when they didn't. One after another the students confess.
The study found that the introduction of the false evidence
(corroboration) increased the chances of a false confession.
Experts say there are two keys to false confessions. 1) an authority
figure insisting on guilt; 2) providing false information to the
suspect.
I think this is good information to get out to the public. Potential
jurors come into court and give testimonial evidence so much weight
when it is probably the least reliable evidence. Confessions are
probably given more weight than any single piece of evidence by a jury.
ABC seems to get it. This is the same network that is responsible for
the show "Injustice." I'm not convinced that show will make it
much longer, but that's not the point. While most networks are busy
bringing us Law and Order type shows, this is refreshing.
On a side note, ABC ended the show with an update from another show
that aired a few weeks ago. It's another Georgia case (Genarlow
Wilson) that apparently (and rightfully) caused outrage to veiwers.
The defendant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 10 years for
consentual oral sex with a girl that was two years younger than he was.
The story got a half million hits on their website after it aired.
They reported that just today, the legislature passed the "Romeo &
Juliet" provision that GACDL has been working hard to get. It is now
a misdemeanor and not a felony and does not require registration as a
sex offender. However, it is not retroactive and Mr. Wilson is stuck
in jail with all his hopes on an appeal. Good luck to B.J. Bernstein
on that appeal.
By Rob Leonard