CVSA and LHO

[Charles Collins]

Nobody is trained to interpret whether a stress response is due to a lie being told. It’s why polygraphs and CVSA are generally not admissible in court.

More exerpts from “Malcontent”:

The CVSA detects and records stress-related frequency changes in the human voice. It has been scientifically proven to be greater than 98% accurate in a peer to peer review. It is currently being used by over 2,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. One of the many capabilities of the CVSA is to capture statements being made by an individual from a pre-recorded interview and then being able to analyze those statements for deception. Unlike a polygraph, the CVSA has no inconclusive results. It does not have any known countermeasures and it is not affected by drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, and most medical issues. Crotty Investigations has been recognized by the National Association of Computer Voice Stress Analysis as an Expert Examiner...

We have attended over 400 + hours of specialized training in Interviews and Interrogation, Kinesics, Written Statement Analysis, John Reid Technique of Interviewing, Defense Barrier Removal Technique, and CVSA Examiner. Jerry Crotty has developed the technique for analyzing pre-recorded statements for deception. This technique, is currently being used by the National Institute for Truth Verification and has now been implemented in their Advanced Training.

[Charles Collins]

If it indicates Oswald killed JFK then he'll reject it. He rejects fingerprint evidence, handwriting evidence, photographic evidence. He rejects eyewitness accounts, circumstantial evidence and anything else.

You're trying to use reason with a person who is unreasonable.

Yep, one of the most skeptical people I have encountered. I am also skeptical. And every once in a while he brings up a point that will prod me to dig a little deeper. That is when I tend to learn new things. So far the new things I have learned from digging deeper have only reinforced my opinion that LHO was guilty.

[Jerry Freeman]

This book including well documented studies reveals a different conclusion ....

This 1975 book was so controversial on its release that its author (a former employee of the CIA) could not find an establishment publisher who would touch it. Instead, Bob Guccione and his Penthouse Publications, which specialized in men's magazines and erotica, offered to publish the book. Aside from its startling conclusions, much of the dispute over this work centered on use of the Psychological Stress Evaluator, a tool of voice stress analysis which functions somewhat similarly to a traditional lie detector.

The results of the author's exhaustive study was that Lee Harvey Oswald told the truth when he stated publicly that he had not killed anyone, and that there was considerable deception in the statements made by members of the Dallas Police and the FBI about the evidence implicating LHO as the lone assassin. O'Toole also seeks out Buell Wesley Frazier, who gave LHO the ride to the School Book Depository, to try and get to the bottom of Frazier's testimony about the bag that Oswald brought to work.



The book is well-written and is highly recommended to all persons interested in learning more about the U.S. government's cover up which clearly occurred after JFK's assassination. This work, along with the first public showing of the Zapruder film, also in 1975, led directly to the formation of the House Select Committee to investigate the assassination and thus was a significant step forward toward the public finding out the truth about what happened on 11/22/63 in Dallas.

I have it somewhere in paperback.
 

[Charles Collins]

This book including well documented studies reveals a different conclusion ....I have it somewhere in paperback.

Thanks Jerry, I was aware of this. It was performed in 1973 when the technology was in its infancy. O’Toole was clearly biased. His methods and results are thoroughly (as possible) examined in the book “Malcontent” by Sean R. DeGrilla and Jerry Crotty. They demonstrate several reasons why O’Toole’s work is not valid.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

None of those things are infallible. Bias can push a conclusion in any direction.

True. The evidence can be wrong. The photographic analysis, the handwriting analysis, the fingerprints. Certainly the eyewitnesses, something we all know can be terribly wrong. But one must show where they are wrong. Simply dismissing them out of hand is not how one reasons.

And to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald? Every single piece? Unless, again, the goal is to defend Oswald at any cost.

At some point - it's been more than fifty years - judgments have to be made. We sift the evidence, weigh it, consider alternative explanations and come to conclusions. This incessant "No, no, no" is not how reasonable people consider things.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yep, one of the most skeptical people I have encountered. I am also skeptical. And every once in a while he brings up a point that will prod me to dig a little deeper. That is when I tend to learn new things. So far the new things I have learned from digging deeper have only reinforced my opinion that LHO was guilty.

Skepticism is good. This sort of nihilism is not. Just rejecting things out of hand - and not showing where they are wrong - is not how one thinks. Where does this take us? It's not asking or raising questions; it's just Oswald defending at any cost. Rejecting EVERY piece of evidence - however small - against Oswald is simply absurd.

As the late Robert Oswald said, asking questions is good, the right thing to do. But after the tenth time, the twentieth, the fiftieth, it's enough.

[John Iacoletti]

True. The evidence can be wrong. The photographic analysis, the handwriting analysis, the fingerprints. Certainly the eyewitnesses, something we all know can be terribly wrong. But one must show where they are wrong. Simply dismissing them out of hand is not how one reasons.

You have that exactly backwards. The time to accept a truth claim is when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald? Every single piece? Unless, again, the goal is to defend Oswald at any cost.

Simply calling something “evidence against Oswald” doesn’t make it so.

[John Iacoletti]

Skepticism is good. This sort of nihilism is not. Just rejecting things out of hand - and not showing where they are wrong - is not how one thinks.

I’ve repeatedly shown where they are wrong. Or tainted. Or questionable. Or contradictory. Or don’t actually support the stated conclusion.

You just reject all of that out of hand because you are attached to your conclusion.

That is not rational.