NITV Falsely Claims Peer-Reviewed Study Shows CVSA Is Highly Accurate

NITV’s logo (misappropriating the Great Seal of the United States)

The so-named National Institute for Truth Verification (NITV), which markets a putative lie detector called the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), and its associated group, the National Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysts (NACVSA),1 have in recent years claimed that a 2012 independent peer-reviewed study shows that CVSA has an accuracy rate on the order of 97% or higher. This despite the fact that NITV has admitted in court that “the CVSA is not capable of lie detection.”

An investigation by AntiPolygraph.org reveals that:

  1. The study cited by NITV/NACVSA has dubious claim to being peer-reviewed;
  2. The study did not involve NITV’s CVSA, but rather a different voice stress analyzer called the PSE-101 that was marketed by Dektor Counterintelligence and Security, Inc., a company that has been defunct for some three decades;
  3. The study is not “independent” in that its primary author had an undisclosed close and continuing relationship with NITV/NACVSA.

The citation for the study touted by NITV and NACVSA is:

Chapman, James L. and Marigo Stathis. “Field Evaluation of Effectiveness of VSA (Voice Stress Analysis) Technology in a US Criminal Justice Setting,” Criminalistics and Court Expertise, 2012 Annual Edition, Number 57.

However, a search of research libraries returns no publication titled Criminalistics and Court Expertise. As James R. Wygant noted in a 2014 commentary in the American Polygraph Association’s APA Magazine, “no trace of a publication by that name can be found on the Internet, although copies of the article itself are available.”

It turns out that the article appeared in a yearbook of the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice whose Russian title is Криминалистика и судебная экспертиза (Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza). This periodical published Chapman and Stathis’ article in Russian under the title, “Оценка эффективности технологии VSA (Voice Stress Analysis ) на основе практики уголовного судопроизводства в США” (“Otsenka effektivnosti tekhnologii VSA (Voice Stress Analysis ) na osnove praktiki ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva v SSHA”).

James L. Chapman (1942-2012)

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained copies of the Chapman & Stathis study in both English and Russian.

It may seem odd that American researchers would choose to publish in an obscure Ukrainian yearbook in a language that is not their own.

Writer Bob McCarty helps to solve this mystery. In Chapter 22 of a self-published, fawning book about CVSA titled The Clapper Memo2 that is based in part on “dozens of phone calls over a three-year period” with the study’s primary author, James L. Chapman, McCarty reveals that Chapman and Stathis unsuccessfully attempted to have their article published in “a few reputable criminology-oriented, scientific journals in North America” and that it was rejected by at least two such journals.

Marigo J. Stathis

Only after these rejections did Chapman and Stathis resort to submitting their article to the Ukrainian periodical that ultimately published it.

The article, which is referred to by NITV/NACVSA as “the Chapman study,” suffers serious methodological flaws that should have prevented it from being accepted by any peer-reviewed publication worthy of the name. One such flaw is that Chapman put his thumb on the scale by excluding cases where a confession was unlikely to be obtained, noting (at p. 12 of the English version of his study), “Contract criminals were excluded from this particular analysis, as this special type of offender is known to reject confessions, due to organized crime affiliations, etc., regardless of what their VSA results or the evidence indicate.” There is no scientific rationale for such exclusion.

Notably, the Chapman study does not mention CVSA even once. It instead refers only to “voice stress analysis.” This is because the voice stress analysis “tests” that form the basis for this study were performed by Chapman not with NITV’s CVSA device, but rather with Dektor Counterintelligence and Security’s “Psychological Stress Evaluator.”

In The Clapper Memo, McCarty discloses that Chapman “wrote a lengthy white paper” about the results of voice stress analysis “tests” that he conducted over the course of his career. AntiPolygraph.org has obtained portions of this “white paper,” which ran over 100 pages, that Chapman faxed to John J. Palmatier, who was then researching voice stress analysis, in 1993. In that original paper, Chapman writes, at p. 27:

This field study was drawn from the total number of cases processed with a Psychological Stress Evaluator, PSE-101, by James L. Chapman, Criminologist, during the eighteen years between 1971 and 1989. The procedure in each case consisted of briefing by the requesting agency, suspect interviews, questioning, and the processing of requestioning through a PSE-101, manufactured by the [sic] Dektor Counterintelligence and Security, Inc., Savannah, GA.

The fact that Chapman’s field study was based on his use of the PSE-101 and not the CVSA is unjustifiably omitted from the article published in Ukraine.

Chapman had an undisclosed conflict of interest that helps explain why he would obfuscate what specific voice stress analyzer he used.

At the time of his death on 17 April 2012, Chapman was a member of NACVSA’s Board of Executive Directors. His affiliation with NITV/NACVSA is older than that, however. Chapman’s name appears on NITV’s letterhead as a member of its Board of Directors in a letter dated 11 May 1998.3

James L. Chapman clearly had a close and continuing relationship with NITV/NACVSA. Nevertheless, in a 2011 phone call to Vancouver Sun columnist David Baines, Chapman averred that he had “no real connection” to NITV. Baines writes in a column published on 14 March 2011:

Chapman told me he has just completed a 19-year study confirming that the CVSA device is 96.4-per-cent accurate. He also said the study has been peer reviewed, but when I asked for a copy, he said it has not yet been published, and until it is, he could not provide one.

Chapman purposefully misled Baines by claiming that his study confirmed anything about CVSA.

Nine months later, Chapman delivered a presentation about his study at NITV’s 2012 Annual Advanced Continuing Education Course held 16-20 January 2012 at Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On its website, NITV falsely characterized Chapman’s study as a “19-year field study of CVSA”:

NITV’s misrepresentation of the Chapman study has continued and remains ongoing. For instance, a press release dated 11 January 2013 that currently appears on NITV’s web site falsely proclaims:

A newly published research study in the 2012 annual edition of the scientific journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise reports the accuracy rate of the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA®) is greater than 95%, an assertion long made by the system’s manufacturer.

and

Professor Chapman used the CVSA to conduct the research and the results achieved were highly consistent throughout the period the study’s data were collected. The study’s findings revealed the CVSA, when used as an investigative support tool, can accurately predict whether a person under investigation is being truthful or deceptive. The study’s findings are supported by scientifically-accepted statistical models, and by the 96.4% validated confession rate Professor Chapman attained during the course of the 18-year study.

A 3-page synopsis of the Chapman report currently available on the NITV website similarly falsely claims that it “is based upon actual CVSA examinations.”

More recently, NITV repeated its false claims about the Chapman study in federal court in a 2018 lawsuit against Dektor Corporation (not to be confused with Dektor Counterintelligence and Security) and Arthur Herring III when at para. 50 of its Complaint, NITV falsely attested that “a 2012 peer reviewed published study…of the CVSA showed its error rate to be less than 1%….”

And in an announcement for a CVSA training session that was to be held from 10-14 August 2020 (the week that this article is being published), NITV proclaims in bold letters, “With the recently published 18-year study validating the accuracy of the CVSA at 98%, isn’t it time to acquire the latest in truth verification technology?”

In 2020, there is no peer-reviewed research showing that NITV’s CVSA works at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

NITV managing member Charles Humble did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

  1. The close nexus between the NITV and the NACVSA is reflected in the fact that a single entity, Voice Biometrics, LLC, holds the trademarks for “NITV,” “National Institute for Truth Verification,” “CVSA,” “NACVSA,” and “National Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysts.” In addition, at the time of writing, the websites for both the NITV and the NACVSA share a common IP address: 35.209.16.223. []
  2. McCarty received the NACVSA’s 2013 “Professor James L. Chapman Award for Excellence” for writing this book. []
  3. That letter, from then NITV Executive Director David A. Hughes to Michael G. Adsit of the Canastota, New York Police Department, explained that if that department wished to purchase CVSA equipment and training, its chief would have to sign a letter stating that “the Canastota Police Department will not allow anyone outside of their trained examiners, and specifically Rome Lab, to use or have access to the CVSA and all proprietary interest will be protected.” The U.S. Air Force laboratory at Rome, New York, was at the time conducting research into voice stress analysis and published a report in 2002. []

Charlatan v. Charlatan: NITV Sues E. Gary Baker

On Wednesday, 17 June 2020, “Dr.” Charles Humble’s NITV Federal Services, LLC, which markets the scientifically baseless Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) to governmental agencies, filed in a Florida court an amended complaint in litigation against competitor Elwood Gary Baker, who runs Baker Group International, and his associate Michael Savage, who runs Expertos VSA, Inc. The original complaint was filed on 25 May 2015.

Charles Wayne Humble in “Heartbeat of America” promotional video

It should be noted that no voice stress analysis technique has any scientific basis, be it NITV’s CVSA, Baker Group International’s Digital Voice Stress Analyzer (DVSA), Dektor’s Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), or Nemesysco’s Layered Voice Analysis (LVA).

In the lawsuit, brought before the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach, NITV alleges that Baker and Savage have been marketing their competing voice-based lie detector in violation of U.S. export regulations and seeks as much as $1,000,000 (or potentially more) in damages.

NITV’s amended complaint includes the following two counts:

COUNT I
Economic Damages Against Defendants due to Violation of Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

  1. Plaintiff hereby restates the allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
  2. Both BAKER and SAVAGE, individually and by and through EXPERTOS INC and EXPERTOS SA, have exported from the United States or re-exported VSA technologies either to or between various foreign locations including Mexico, Central America, South America and South Africa.
  3. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants named herein have received such US Government approved Export Licenses for the multiple sales they have made from the US to foreign countries and/or between foreign countries, and are knowingly and actively engaged in the commerce of selling US Government Export Controlled commodities to various foreign governments, foreign commercial entities, and foreign national end users who have not been properly scrutinized to be granted an Export License.
  4. The Defendants are in violation of Federal export laws, under the EAR, as well as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq.
  5. The failure to comply with Federal Export Law and violation of the EAR, constitute an unfair and deceptive act and unfair practice under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Act.
  6. Defendants’ [sic] BAKER and SAVAGE, individually and by and through EXPERTOS INC and EXPERTOS SA, deliberate and knowing efforts to export, distribute and sell the DVSA/FVAS outside of the United States without a United States Government approved Export License, constitutes a violation of 15 CFR § 730-774 under the EAR, and constitutes a criminal conspiracy to violate federally promulgated export laws, regulations and directives.
    Due to Defendants’ unfair and deceptive actions in circumventing export licensing requirements, Defendants have been able to expeditiously enter foreign markets to the competitive disadvantage and economic damage of NFS.
  7. Due to Defendants’ unfair and deceptive actions in circumventing export licensing requirements, NFS has lost numerous sales to BAKER and/or SAVAGE by and through EXPERTOS INC/EXPERTOS SA.
  8. NFS’s damages are directly proximate to Defendants’ violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute 501.201 et seq., and specifically 501.211 of the Florida Statutes.
  9. NFS is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs associated with the bringing of this action pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and Section 501.2105 of the Florida Statutes.

WHEREFORE, NFS respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A. Enter a money judgment of $1,000,000 against Defendants or an amount equal to the actual damages suffered by Plaintiff by reason of the violations alleged above, pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and Section 501.211 of the Florida Statutes;
B. Enter an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and Section 501.2105 of the Florida Statutes; and
C. Direct any and all further relief this court deems just and equitable.


COUNT II
Injunctive and Equitable Relief Against All Defendants

  1. Plaintiff restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 46 and further states:
  2. As alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in a continuous course of violation of 15 CFR § 730-774 under the EAR and Federal Trade Commission Regulations.
  3. Defendants will continue to violate 15 CFR § 730-774 under the EAR and Federal Trade Commission Regulations causing irreparable harm to Plaintiff, the public, United States national security, and efforts by various foreign governments to combat criminal enterprises by supplying unscreened end users with technology that can be used to thwart law enforcement, military and/or national security efforts unless enjoined.
  4. Plaintiff does not possess an adequate remedy at law to prevent Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein from continuing.
  5. Plaintiff has a clear right to its request for injunctive relief and the public interest will be served as Plaintiff seeks to prevent continuing violations [sic] 15 CFR § 730-774 under the EAR and of the Federal Trade Commission Export Regulations which directly damage Plaintiff, the public and others.
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
    A. Grant a temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants BAKER, EXPERTOS INC, EXPERTOS SA, and SAVAGE, enjoining the Defendants from exporting, demonstrating or selling its DVSA/FVAS product to foreign customers or potential customers both inside and outside the United States without a United States Government approved export license;
    B. Enter an Order awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and Section 501.2105 of the Florida Statutes;
    C. Order Dissolution of EXPERTOS VSA, INC.;
    D. Order Disgorgement of any and all monies received by Defendants’ [sic] in connection [sic] their violations of Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq., and Section 501.201 of the Florida Statutes; and
    F. Direct any and all further relief this Court deems just and equitable.

The claim is Case No. 50-2015-CA-005885-XXXX-MB in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. Other notable filings in the case include the transcripts of video depositions of Elwood Gary Baker and Michael Savage.

It should be noted that in 2009, the same court awarded Elwood Gary Baker $575,000 in a defamation suit he brought against NITV, LLC. NITV to date has shirked payment of this judgment, and Baker’s efforts to collect continue. That action is Case No. 50-2005-CA-001771-XXXX-MB.

In addition, NITV is the defendant in a federal fraud suit, Fletcher v. NITV LLC, filed on 18 May 2020.

Update 24 June 2020: In 2006, NITV was ordered to pay $77,000 in penalties for export violations similar to those that NITV now alleges E. Gary Baker et al. to have committed. Documentation of this action is available on Archive.org’s mirror of NITVCVSAExposed.com, a website that in May 2019 was ordered taken down pursuant to a federal lawsuit brought by NITV against Arthur Herring III and Dektor Corporation.

CVSA Marketer NITV Sued for Fraud

NITV Federal Services logo (misappropriating the Great Seal of the United States)

Bianca Fletcher, a former Arkansas Department of Corrections employee who alleges that she “was fired, purportedly for being deceptive” on a Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) “test,” has filed a federal lawsuit against NITV, LLC, NITV Federal Services, LLC, their founder, Charles Humble, NITV employee Gene Shook, and two “John Does.”

Fletcher claims damages for “libel, slander, false light, illegal exaction, negligence, and products liability, in an amount exceeding that required for diversity jurisdiction.”

Fletcher’s 6-page Complaint, filed on 18 May 2020, alleges the following general facts:

  1. Plaintiff worked for the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC), starting in 2016.
  2. Plaintiff was terminated on May 16, 2019, at which time she was a Correctional Officer II.
  3. Plaintiff had come to work, and an Adani body scanning device, known to be faulty, purported to detect contraband on Plaintiff’s person.
  4. Plaintiff did not have contraband on her person.
  5. From the point of the purported detection of contraband, Plaintiff was at all times accompanied or watched by ADC personnel until such time as she was strip searched.
  6. For most of the time, up until she was strip searched, Plaintiff was videoed.
  7. No person ever saw Plaintiff, Fletcher, get rid of or hand off any contraband.
  8. No recording device ever showed her get rid of or hand off any contraband.
  9. When Plaintiff was strip searched, no contraband was found.
  10. This was because Plaintiff had no contraband.
  11. Plaintiff was given a voice stress analyzer test, which she passed.
  12. Plaintiff was given a second voice stress analyzer (VSA) test, in which it was claimed Plaintiff was deceptive and lying when asked about the purported contraband.
  13. The voice stress analyzer test result, purporting to show that Plaintiff was deceptive, was false. Plaintiff was not lying or being deceptive. She answered all questions honestly.
  14. Plaintiff was fired, purportedly for being deceptive, based on the second VSA result.
  15. The NITV sold the VSA that gave the test to Plaintiff to the ADC.
  16. The NITV sells VSA devices to government agencies and private companies all over the United States.
  17. The NITV claims that the VSA devices it sells can detect falsehoods and lies in advertisements and marketing materials. These devices are marketed to law enforcement agencies, such as the ADC, and private corporations, under the premise that these agencies and businesses can use these devices to determine when employees are lying for purposes of carrying out discipline.
  18. This is false, and it is known to be false by the NITV. Studies have shown that VSA devices are about as likely to catch deception and lies as tossing a coin. An observant witch doctor would almost certainly do better. NITV has never subjected its devices to peer review. NITV has never conducted double blind tests to establish the effectiveness of its devices. NITV did not develop these devices using the scientific method.
  19. NITV trains people working for agencies and companies to operate these devices. It tells them how to determine falsehoods and deceptive statements, but of course, this is bogus.
  20. NITV’s trainers frequently consult on cold calls from the agencies they sell these materials to.
  21. Shook consulted with an ADC employee who gave Plaintiff, Fletcher, the VSA test and claimed that Plaintiff was deceptive on that test.
  22. As a result of NITV’s and Shook’s conduct Plaintiff’s reputation was harmed, and she was fired.

The complaint goes on to enumerate five counts against the defendants and demands a jury trial. The third count includes the allegation that “NITV has committed a fraud on the state of Arkansas, selling it devices that do not work, which it knows do not work, and also selling bogus training on these devices” (emphasis added). Fletcher seeks compensatory damages in excess of $1,000,000 and punitive damages in excess of $1,000,000.

In a 12-page Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, also filed on 18 May 2020, defendants NITV Federal Services, LLC, Charles Humble, and Gene Shook deny any liability and request that the complaint be dismissed.

On 19 May 2020, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s courtroom deputy filed a Proposed Final Scheduling Order including a trial date during the week of 2 August 2021.

The civil suit is case number 4:20-CV-00521-LPR in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

NITV Federal Services Court Filing Shows Flat Revenue, Declining CVSA Sales

NITV logo, misappropriating the Great Seal of the United States

Financial data disclosed in federal court by NITV Federal Services, LLC, which markets the scientifically baseless Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) to law enforcement agencies, reflect flat revenue and a multi-year sales slump.

The financial data was divulged in NITV v. Dektor (Case No. 9:18-cv-80994 in the Southern District of Florida) to support a claimed loss of more than $2 million in revenue.

Financial figures for the privately held NITV, which was founded by pseudoscientist Charles W. Humble to market his CVSA device and operator training, is not generally publicly available. A declaration prepared on behalf of NITV by certified public accountant Kevin R. Foyteck includes (at Appendix B) quantitative historical data on NITV’s revenue and customer base. Using Foyteck’s data, AntiPolygraph.org has prepared charts of NITV’s revenue and sales.

The data show that between 2015 and 2018, NITV’s revenue remained flat at an average of U.S. $1,710,251 per annum:

NITV revenue per annum, in dollars, 2006-2018

The data also show that NITV has had difficulty finding new customers, with the number of new customers per year steadily declining since 2011. It would appear that the market for bogus voice-based lie detectors is approaching its saturation point:

NITV new customers per annum, 2006-2018

As previously reported on AntiPolygraph.org, the court awarded NITV a total of $849,347.92 in damages in its suit against Dektor, an amount that it appears, based on a recent court filing, NITV has thus far been unable to collect.

At this time, Dektor’s website (www.dektorpse.com) is offline, and Dektor and its sole proprietor, Arthur Herring III, remain under a permanent injunction essentially enjoining them from communicating any information critical of NITV, its CVSA product, or its founder, Charles Humble, to anyone.

It is worth noting that in 2009, a federal jury awarded competitor Elwood Gary Baker $575,000 in a defamation lawsuit against NITV. To our knowledge, Baker never succeeded in collecting this amount.

Federal Judge Awards CVSA Marketer NITV $849,347.92 in Lawsuit Against Rival Dektor Corporation

On 27 July 2018, the so-named National Institute of Truth Verification (NITV) of West Palm Beach, Florida, which markets a scientifically baseless “lie detector” called the Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) filed a federal lawsuit against the marketer of a rival pseudoscientific voice based lie detector, Dektor Corporation, and its sole proprietor, Arthur Herring III of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania.

NITV alleged “false advertisement, unfair competition, and product disparagement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)” and “deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act” and originally sought a total of $4,080,000 in claimed damages. NITV later increased its total claim to $17,871,977.36.

Dektor and Herring, who ultimately proceeded pro se, failed to timely file responses to pleadings in the lawsuit, and the court, which also found that Herring committed “substantial discovery violations,” ultimately entered default judgments against both Dektor and Herring personally.

On Monday, 16 December 2019, the court issued its final judgment, ordering Dektor and Herring to pay NITV $424,673.96 in base damages, which was doubled to $849,347.92 “in light of Defendants’ willful violation of the Lanham Act, misuse of the internet to convey materially disparaging information about Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s product, and discovery misconduct leading to an additional unknown amount of actual damages.”

The final order includes a permanent injunction essentially prohibiting Dektor and Herring from communicating any information critical of NITV, its CVSA product, or its founder, Charles Humble, to anyone.

As previously reported on AntiPolygraph.org, an earlier default judgment in the case ordered, among other things, that Herring remove from the internet a website with content critical of NITV that Herring had created. Much of the content of that website was nonetheless substantially true, and a mirror of the banned website remains available online via Archive.org’s Wayback Machine.

In the course of NITV’s litigation against Dektor, NITV also threatened a federal lawsuit against Dektor’s computer consultant and, without legal basis, attempted to compel AntiPolygraph.org to remove all content mentioning NITV and CVSA.

Pseudoscientist “Dr.” Charles Humble Attempts to Censor AntiPolygraph.org

Charles Wayne Humble in “Heartbeat of America” promotional video

AntiPolygraph.org has received a rather unpleasant letter from James D’Loughy, a lawyer representing NITV Federal Services, LLC (NITV), which markets a scientifically baseless voice-based lie detector called the “Computer Voice Stress Analyzer,” and its president, self-described “Renaissance Man” “Dr.” Charles Humble (who has not received a doctoral degree from any accredited institute of higher education).

In his letter, D’Loughy, of the law firm Advisorlaw, which specializes in helping clients protect their assets from creditors, demands that AntiPolygraph.org remove twelve URLs that comprise a substantial portion of the website.

NITV’s offices at 11400 Fortune Circle, West Palm Beach, Florida (Google Street View)

AntiPolygraph.org is a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with polygraphs and other pseudoscientific “lie detectors,” including voice stress analyzers.

D’Loughy avers that a default judgment in a lawsuit NITV filed against its competitor, Dektor PSE, and which, among other things, compelled Dektor to remove a website with content critical of NITV, also compels AntiPolygraph.org—which was not a party to this litigation and which has no privity with Dektor—to remove the twelve links.

NITV’s contention that its judgment against Dektor binds AntiPolygraph.org is absurd. Through our counsel, noted attorney (and former Westchester County, New York police commissioner) George N. Longworth of the law firm Grant & Longworth, we have declined NITV’s demand to remove the twelve links.

While NITV’s demand is without merit, it does serve to highlight the content on AntiPolygraph.org that most upsets NITV and “Dr.” Charles Humble, so it’s worth examining these links here:

  1. A recent blog post titled Federal Judge Orders Immediate Removal of Website Critical of Computer Voice Stress Analysis;
  2. A blog post from 2018 titled NITV Hires Disgraced Ex-Cop Jerry W. Crotty II as Director of Law Enforcement Operations;
  3. A message board thread titled Jury Returns $575,000 Award Against NITV for Defamation;
  4. Every post on the AntiPolygraph.org News blog tagged “CVSA”;
  5. The entire AntiPolygraph.org News blog (yes, really);
  6. A blog post about a presentation on polygraph pre-test interviews (we are uncertain why this is of concern to NITV and Humble, who are not mentioned in the post);
  7. All blog posts in the category “voice stress” (the demand at #5 that we delete the entire blog should have covered this);
  8. A message board thread dating to 2011 titled Canadian police and press believe in CVSA;
  9. A blog post from 2009 titled Baker DVSA Loses a Customer;
  10. The RSS feed for our message board forum on “CVSA and other Voice Stress Analysis Applications;”
  11. Search results for “cvsa” on our blog;
  12. A recent blog post titled NITV Threatens Competitor’s IT Consultant with Federal Lawsuit

For background on NITV and Charles Humble, see ABC Primetime’s 2006 investigative report on the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer: