Cain passes lie detector test

[sirs]

In what court did Bialek submit her fraudulent accusations?

D'oh       

[Plane]

  Do we need a junk science advisory board?

   I understand the principals if voice stress analisis, but I have no idea how thouroughly it has been tested.

[BSB]

If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue.


BSB

[Michael Tee]

<< I understand the principals if voice stress analisis, but I have no idea how thouroughly it has been tested.>>



Shouldn't be hard to find out - - sirs is out looking for the test results as we speak.    Should be back anytime now.   BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Michael Tee]

<<If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue. >>

Gloria Allred is making them do it.

[Plane]

If I was a Cain supporter, and thought he was getting a raw deal, the last thing I'd do is post thread after thread to reremind everyone of the issue.


BSB

Are you kidding?

Think about it , the more the attack looks vicious and unwarranted and untrue the more the Cain campaign gets good from it.

[sirs]

Bingo

[Plane]

http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm


This article downplays a low dependability score.

What Is VSA?
VSA software programs are designed to measure changes in voice patterns caused by the stress, or the physical effort, of trying to hide deceptive responses.[4] VSA programs interpret changes in vocal patterns and indicate on a graph whether the subject is being "deceptive" or "truthful."

Most VSA developers and manufacturers do not claim that their devices detect lies; rather, they claim that VSA detects microtremors, which are caused by the stress of trying to conceal or deceive.

VSA proponents often compare the technology to polygraph testing, which attempts to measure changes in respiration, heart rate, and galvanic skin response.

Even advocates of polygraph testing, however, acknowledge its limitations, including that it is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law; requires a large investment of resources; and takes several hours to perform, with the subject connected to a machine. Furthermore, a polygraph cannot test audio or video recordings, or statements made either over a telephone or in a remote setting (that is, away from a formal interrogation room), such as at an airport ticket counter. Such limitations of the polygraph—along with technological advances—prompted the development of VSA software.

........................
This led some researchers to suggest that if there is no jeopardy, there is no stress—and that if there is no stress, the VSA technology may not have been tested appropriately.[7]

The NIJ-funded study was designed to address these criticisms by testing VSA in a setting where police interviews commonly occur (a jail) and asking arrestees about relevant criminal behavior (drug use) that they would likely hide.[8]

Our research team interviewed a random sample of 319 recent arrestees in the Oklahoma County jail. The interviews were conducted in a relatively private room adjacent to the booking facility with male arrestees who had been in the detention facility for less than 24 hours. During separate testing periods, data were collected using CVSA®and LVA.

The arrestees were asked to respond to questions about marijuana use during the previous 30 days, and cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP use within the previous 72 hours. The questions and test formats were approved by officials from CVSA® and LVA. The VSA data were independently interpreted by the research team and by certified examiners from both companies.

Following each interview, the arrestee provided a urine sample that was later tested for the presence of the five drugs. The results of the urinalysis were compared to the responses about recent drug use to determine whether the arrestee was being truthful or deceptive. This determination was then compared to the VSA output results to see whether the VSA gave the same result of truthfulness or deceptiveness.

Can VSA Accurately Detect Deception?
Our findings suggest that these VSA software programs were no better in determining deception about recent drug use among arrestees than flipping a coin.

   
 http://www.cvsa1.com/ This one is almost a sales pitch.

The NITV® is the manufacturer and sole source for the patented Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® II with the Final Analysis Confirmation Tool® (FACT®) scoring algorithm, U.S. Patent Numbers 7,321,855 and 7,571,101. The FACT was tested by major metropolitan law enforcement agencies and found to be 98% accurate.  The CVSA® II is used by 1,800 local, state and federal agencies, as well as by US Military Special Operations and Intelligence units. The CVSA® is the only voice stress analyzer with Voice Imaging™ Technology, Report Auto-Write, and a Patented scoring algorithm.

And there is an ap for that.

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/19/no-lie-voice-stress-analysis-on-iphone/

[sirs]

Boy, they have an ap for everything, now adays     

[Michael Tee]

Wow, really have to thank R.R. for the New Mexican case in which polygraph evidence WAS admitted in court.  I was totally unaware until now of ANY U.S. jurisdiction in which polygraph evidence was admissible.  The Wikipedia article on admissibility of polygraph evidence is clear that this evidence is barred from any Canadian courtroom by virtue of a Supreme Court of Canada decision, also that whereas the Supreme Court of Australia has not yet ruled on the issue, the highest State court to rule on the issue (New South Wales) has barred the use of polygraph evidence and in Europe generally the use of the polygraph is not even common in police forces.  In Germany, no court can use polygraph evidence.

According to Wikipedia, the picture in the U.S.A. is less clear.  New Mexico seems to be the only state to allow polygraph evidence before juries; however it seems that 19 states (roughly 40%) will allow polygraph evidence by stipulation, which I imagine means if both parties are willing to admit it.  If I'm correct in this, it's certainly an indication that even the 19 states that admit polygraph evidence by stipulation don't think very highly of the technique - - can you imagine any court today that is willing to admit, say, fingerprint, or DNA, or ballistics or Breathalyzer evidence by stipulation only?

So instead of polygraph evidence being barred in EVERY court, it's basically barred in MOST courts.  Whether police use it or not is ridiculously irrelevant, unless you believe that it's OK to let the police determine anyone's guilt or innocence and courts aren't really necessary.  Well, actually, since I am dealing with hard-core conservatives here, maybe that is exactly how they DO feel.

I think the overall picture on polygraphs is generally as I originally stated it, only instead of NO courts admitting polygraph evidence, it turns out that one state (New Mexico) will admit it, and 19 others will do so by stipulation, which still indicates an extremely low opinion of the quality of that evidence.  Polygraphs are still regarded as junk science by the majority of jurisdictions in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia.  Also, it seems (from the same article) that the High Court of Israel has ruled that the polygraph has not been recognized as a reliable device.

The Wikipedia article referred to is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States

And of course the National Research Council's extensive study of the polygraph from 2002 still stands as further evidence that the polygraph is still what the courts of most jurisdictions consider it to be, i.e., junk science.

The voice stress analysis ("VSA") is, IMHO, of even lower reliability than the polygraph, so the so-called "lie detector" test which The Perv purportedly passed and one of his victims purportedly failed, is junk science even lower than polygraph junk science.  Thanks to plane for the VSA evaluations he had dug up, which I haven't had time to review yet, but will get around to very soon. 

[sirs]

So instead of polygraph evidence being barred in EVERY court, it's basically barred in MOST courts.  Whether police use it or not is ridiculously irrelevant, unless you believe that it's OK to let the police determine anyone's guilt or innocence and courts aren't really necessary. 

No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not.  Putting aside another FACT, that U.S. courts have allowed it as admissable, Cain isn't on trial, nor is his accuser

[Michael Tee]

<<No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not.>>

BINGO!  and yet again the man misses the same point.  Well you're at least consistent.  Why is it so hard to get such a simple point?  Willful blindness?  Willful ignorance?

I'll try one more time.  The courts do not accept or reject different kinds of evidence capriciously, waking up one morning and deciding, for no good reason, "Hey!!!  Today, let's ban all fingerprint evidence."  Or, "Hey!!!  Today let's ban polygraph evidence!"

Polygraph evidence only gets banned in a court when one party before the court asks the court to accept it.  The other party objects.  Each party calls witnesses, and produces evidence, on the one side trying to prove that the polygraph is a reliable detector of truth and falsehood and therefore should be accepted as evidence, and the other side trying to prove exactly the reverse.  In each case, the judge or judges of the court listen to ALL the evidence for and against the polygraph and then come to a decision on its scientific reliability.  IN AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICAN COURTS, FOR ALL CANADIAN COURTS, ALL EUROPEAN COURTS AND ALL AUSTRALIAN COURTS AND THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, the conclusion of all those judges after hearing all that evidence is very plain:  POLYGRAPHS ARE JUNK AND POLYGRAPH SCIENCE IS JUNK SCIENCE.  Period.  End of story.  Get it now?

So the "news" that The Perv "passed a lie detector test" is basically meaningless.  VSA tests, which is what The Perv actually DID pass, are even less proven than polygraphs.  Therefore his "passing" of a junk science test is virtually meaningless.  It's like saying that his tea leaves were read by an expert who was able to determine from them that he never lies.

<< Putting aside another FACT, that U.S. courts have allowed it as admissable . . . >>

A distinct MINORITY of US Courts have accepted polygraph evidence, all but one on stipulation only, which means that even those states consider it to be of very low probative value.

<<Cain isn't on trial, nor is his accuser>>

The point, once again, is not that anyone's on trial, but that the VSA test which The Perv "passed" and one of his victims "failed" is pure junk science  and means about as much as a tea-leaf reader's opinion.

[sirs]

<<No, actually, the irrelevent part is to keep bringing up whether a lie detector test is admissibale in a court or not.>>

BINGO!  and yet again the man misses the same point.  Well you're at least consistent.  Why is it so hard to get such a simple point?  Willful blindness?  Willful ignorance?

No, just factually, Cain passed one, and your girl didn't.  Sorry

[Michael Tee]

<<No, just factually, Cain passed one, and your girl didn't. >>

Sure, but "passed one" WHAT?  Passed one junk science test?  THAT'S his defence, that he passed a junk science test??  If the test is junk science, then it's absolutely meaningless whether he passed or failed it.

Is that point really so difficult for you to understand? ? ?

[sirs]

Passed a test, used by law enforcement thru-out the country, to help ascertain if one is telling the truth or not, and now we know also admissbale in a court of law, though as we've already referenced, is irrelevent

THAT "what"