Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Mar 16, 2006, 12:31 AM
Quote from: topmillwright on Mar 16, 2006, 12:10 AMWhen I click the following link all I get is "Sorry the page you requested is no longer available"  Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the article?

John Tuohy reports this in an Indianapolis Star article titled, "Voice analyzers draw praise, flak."

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/192715-6852-009.html
Here is the relevant text of the article:
QuotePolice departments across Indiana and the country are spending thousands of dollars apiece on a truth verification device that some scientists say doesn't work.

The Computer Voice Stress Analyzer, designed by a former Indianapolis Police Department officer, claims to help officers assess truthfulness by measuring changes in one's voice.

Eighty-five Indiana police departments, including IPD, use the machines, which start at $10,700 each.

The designer, Charles Humble, now is chairman and CEO of the National Institute for Truth Verification, which makes the machines. In its literature, the Palm Beach, Fla., company touts it as "a very reliable investigative tool for verifying statements of witnesses, denials of suspects and for determining the validity of allegations made against police officers."

But several scientific experiments have shown the machine, which went on the market in 1988, is no more than 50 percent reliable -- in other words, a coin toss.

In addition, the manufacturer conceded in a product liability lawsuit in California that the machine can't measure whether someone is lying.

...

In San Diego, murder charges were dropped against two teenagers after it was determined their confessions were coerced after they flunked voice stress tests.

One of the boys sued the National Institute for Truth Verification, claiming the analyzer was used to get the false confession.

In a court filing, the manufacturer said: "NITV acknowledges that the CVSA is not capable of lie detection and specifically cautions its users regarding the proper use of the device."
Posted by topmillwright
 - Mar 16, 2006, 12:10 AM
When I click the following link all I get is "Sorry the page you requested is no longer available"  Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the article?

John Tuohy reports this in an Indianapolis Star article titled, "Voice analyzers draw praise, flak."

 http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/192715-6852-009.html
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Mar 15, 2006, 10:49 AM
Quote from: spark on Mar 15, 2006, 02:45 AM

If you can actually teach someone to beat this test, does that mean you possibly taught this guy to beat his test?  Isn't that just great?!  Bro, regardless of what George and his goons say, no matter fricken what, my entire professional life (along with the other LE's on this site) is spent attempting to protect your daughter, and those like her..AND not causing further (or potential) harm to her, no matter what my/their motivations are.  Now since the same old song and dance will follow my posting "we are trying to show the lack of "basis" for this test...that police shouldn't trust these "tests" blah blah blah...." what they are really saying is we will sacrifice your daughter for the cause.  Whatever.  What a shame.    
The National Institute of Truth Verification, which markets the Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), has admitted in a court filing that their device "is not capable of lie detection." John Tuohy reports this in an Indianapolis Star article titled, "Voice analyzers draw praise, flak."

If the people who make the device are willing to acknowledge that it is not capable of lie detection, how it is it in any irresponsible for a poster on this board to advise someone not to rely on it?

Since the manufacturer admits the device is incapable of lie detection it would seem that any law enforcement agency that uses it in that capacity would be committing the irresponsible act.

If the device is used solely as an interrogation intimidator then "passing" or "failing" do not enter into the equation.  Only if you are attempting to use the device as a lie detector (which the manufacturer specifically states it is not capable of being used as) would "passing" or "failing" be a concern.
Posted by spark
 - Mar 15, 2006, 02:45 AM
Quote from: topmillwright on Mar 14, 2006, 08:11 AMMy ex wifes new husband attemted to get my 6 year old  daughter to "kiss his pee pee" 3 times while staying at their home. Thankfully she didnt and told someone. Child protection services stepped in and placed her with me last October while they conducted the investigation. The detectives told me that since there was no physical evidence, that if they didnt get a confession they would not be able to press criminal charges. They gave him a cvsa which he passed.
Family court has set trial for custody hearings  March 29 2006.
I cannot afford a lawyer, so I am representing myself. My daughter has an attorney assinged to her by the court.
After researching this site, I was shocked by how easy it is to lie and still pass. I would like to know if anyone can help me with some evidence I can use during the trial. I dont know where else to turn, and I am afraid one day she would have to go back there and be molested again.

If you can actually teach someone to beat this test, does that mean you possibly taught this guy to beat his test?  Isn't that just great?!  Bro, regardless of what George and his goons say, no matter fricken what, my entire professional life (along with the other LE's on this site) is spent attempting to protect your daughter, and those like her..AND not causing further (or potential) harm to her, no matter what my/their motivations are.  Now since the same old song and dance will follow my posting "we are trying to show the lack of "basis" for this test...that police shouldn't trust these "tests" blah blah blah...." what they are really saying is we will sacrifice your daughter for the cause.  Whatever.  What a shame.    
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 14, 2006, 12:01 PM
topmillwright,

I agree with retcopper. You really should have legal representation: the stakes could hardly be higher. Martindale has an on-line Lawyer Locator service that might be helpful in finding a lawyer local lawyer who could represent you:

http://www.martindale.com
Posted by retcopper
 - Mar 14, 2006, 11:57 AM
Topmillwright:

You have to get an attorney!!!!  If I were you I would get a part time job to pay for one because if  the allegations are true you don't want your daughter to go back to that situation. Explain your situation and see if you can get an attorney to represent you for free or for a small fee.   I am not familiar enough with the CVA to comment but that is not important now. Your daughter's health and welfare is the important issue right now.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Mar 14, 2006, 08:55 AM
CVSA has no grounding in the scientific method, and the "National Institute of Truth Verification," which manufactures and markets the device, has admitted in court that it "is not capable of lie detection."

The 2nd edition of Dr. David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (New York: Plenum Trade, 1998) includes an excellent chapter about voice stress analyzers that you could submit in rebuttal of the CVSA "evidence." If you do not have ready access to a public library that has this book, I could make a scanned PDF file to send you.

CVSA, like the polygraph, can be useful for getting admissions/confessions from naive and gullible subjects who can be duped into believing that the machine can read their minds. But the "test" results themselves have no diagnostic value and should not be relied upon for any purpose. If you give me your e-mail address (by private message), I could send you a chapter of the CVSA operator's manual that makes it clear that the CVSA is, in fact, little more than an interrogational prop.
Posted by topmillwright
 - Mar 14, 2006, 08:11 AM
My ex wifes new husband attemted to get my 6 year old  daughter to "kiss his pee pee" 3 times while staying at their home. Thankfully she didnt and told someone. Child protection services stepped in and placed her with me last October while they conducted the investigation. The detectives told me that since there was no physical evidence, that if they didnt get a confession they would not be able to press criminal charges. They gave him a cvsa which he passed.
Family court has set trial for custody hearings  March 29 2006.
I cannot afford a lawyer, so I am representing myself. My daughter has an attorney assinged to her by the court.
After researching this site, I was shocked by how easy it is to lie and still pass. I would like to know if anyone can help me with some evidence I can use during the trial. I dont know where else to turn, and I am afraid one day she would have to go back there and be molested again.