JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on December 23, 2019, 02:21:07 PM
-
Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) is a tool used by law enforcement, similar to how the polygraph is used. Here is an example:
Florida, Cocoa P.D. – Analyst/Det. Gordon Chase was assigned to review the ‘cold’ homicide cases at his department While reviewing the first case which involved the brutal murder of a young woman six years prior, Det. Chase noticed that both suspects had voluntarily taken and passed polygraph examinations and because of that, were no longer considered suspects. He also discovered that both had given sworn, tape recorded statements in which they had denied any involvement in the murder. Det. Chase analyzed the taped statements utilizing the CVSA and while he was able to clear one suspect, the other suspect displayed deception when she denied committing the murder. Det. Chase located the second suspect and requested that she come in for questioning. When she appeared for questioning, the suspect agreed to take a CVSA exam. The CVSA exam clearly indicated that she was the one that had killed the young woman six years earlier. After forty minutes of interrogation, the suspect admitted to the murder and also how she had disposed of the murder weapon.
Sean R. DeGrilla has published an interesting new book titled “Malcontent - Lee Harvey Oswald’s Confession By Conduct.” In one section of the book CVSA is utilized on several recordings of LHO from 1963. And it demonstrated that LHO was being deceptive regarding the shootings.
An interesting book, definitely recommended!
-
Voice stress analysis is pseudoscientific nonsense.
-
Voice stress analysis is pseudoscientific nonsense.
The CVSA is scientifically proven through lab and field testing to have a greater than 98% accuracy rating, making it the ideal truth verification tool for the pre-employment vetting process.
https://www.cvsa1.com/law-enforcement/using-the-cvsa-to-screen-police-recruits-during-the-pre-employment-interview-process/
-
Says the company trying to sell the equipment. Let’s see the peer-reviewed studies.
-
Says the company trying to sell the equipment. Let’s see the peer-reviewed studies.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ChapmanStathis2012.pdf
-
My reading of this study is that it tested the efficacy of using CVSA in obtaining confessions (much like “lie-detector” tests are used for), not in actually detecting deception.
-
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/193832.pdf (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/193832.pdf)
“CONCLUSION
After reviewing the three technical tests performed, it could be stated that these two VSA units do recognize stress. Although these systems state they detect deception, this was not proven. This study does show, from a number of speech under stress studies, that linear and non-linear features are useful for stress classification. Due to the lack of deceptive stress data available, classification of deceptive stress versus emotional stress or physical stress was not tested. This is a vital role in the detection and classification of stress. Many suspects are under an extreme amount of stress when being interrogated. Do these VSA systems actually differentiate between the different types of stress? This still needs to be proven.“
-
My reading of this study is that it tested the efficacy of using CVSA in obtaining confessions (much like “lie-detector” tests are used for), not in actually detecting deception.
As a key example, in the Grand Larceny case with 20 suspects, 19 of the examinations resulted in No Stress Indicated, and only one resulted in Stress Indicated – which in turn resulted in a confession. The Bernoulli Probability of having had 20 successful evaluations out of 20 examinations was less than 1 in 1,000,000. If VSA were simply a prop to obtain confessions, it would have been virtually impossible to achieve such specific and unerring results.
The deception is determined by the answers to carefully crafted questions which are designed for that purpose. (Hence, Barney Fife might have a little problem using the system.)
-
As a key example, in the Grand Larceny case with 20 suspects, 19 of the examinations resulted in No Stress Indicated, and only one resulted in Stress Indicated – which in turn resulted in a confession. The Bernoulli Probability of having had 20 successful evaluations out of 20 examinations was less than 1 in 1,000,000. If VSA were simply a prop to obtain confessions, it would have been virtually impossible to achieve such specific and unerring results.
That doesn’t follow at all. What “successful evaluation”? They indicated stress in one case and they got a confession, that’s all. That doesn’t prove that there was any deception involved in that case, or no deception in the other 19.
-
That doesn’t follow at all. What “successful evaluation”? They indicated stress in one case and they got a confession, that’s all. That doesn’t prove that there was any deception involved in that case, or no deception in the other 19.
Exerpt from “Malcontent” by Sean R. DeGrilla:
Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) is a computer-based instrument which records the stress in an individual’s voice that is interpreted as deception. Stress associated with both jeopardy and consequences can be detected in the human voice. For this instrument, jeopardy is known as the danger or hazard of being found guilty. The consequence is seen as the unpleasant result.
-
Exerpt from “Malcontent” by Sean R. DeGrilla:
Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA) is a computer-based instrument which records the stress in an individual’s voice that is interpreted as deception.
Exactly. Which is why it’s not scientific.
-
Exactly. Which is why it’s not scientific.
I have an MRI image that one of my doctors gave me. But it takes someone trained in reading and interpreting it to understand what it depicts and relate that to most people. Do you really believe that makes the process “not scientific”?
-
I have an MRI image that one of my doctors gave me. But it takes someone trained in reading and interpreting it to understand what it depicts and relate that to most people. Do you really believe that makes the process “not scientific”?
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.
-
I have an MRI image that one of my doctors gave me. But it takes someone trained in reading and interpreting it to understand what it depicts and relate that to most people. Do you really believe that makes the process “not scientific”?
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.
-
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.
You think anybody who disagrees with you is unreasonable.
First of all, there is no CVSA that could possibly indicate that Oswald killed JFK. Second of all, there isn’t any fingerprint, handwriting, photographic or eyewitness evidence of anyone killing JFK. I wish there were, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
-
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.
None of those things are infallible. Bias can push a conclusion in any direction.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41NIwODC5OL._SX414_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.
;)
-
There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.
;)
We're human beings not robots or AI. But there is an objective reality that we can struggle to find.
But to argue that all of this evidence pointing at Oswald is wrong - all of it planted or faked or worthless - is a useless exercise. One can make that claim against the evidence for any event. So where does that lead to?
A sort of nihilism. Why even come here and comment day after day after day, thousands of posts, all saying "No, no, no"? Brennan lied and Brewer lied and Mcdonald lied and the fingerprints are faked and the photos are faked or wrong and the handwriting is wrong. That leads to nowhere.
Look, if people want to devote much of their lives to defending Oswald then go for it. But don't pretend to be interested in trying, as best as we can, to determine who shot JFK. Because you're not interested in that; you have some sort of bizarre need to defend this miserable waif Oswald. Waif. That means abandoned: that's how I think Oswald saw his life and his world.
-
There's no getting away from bias. The good news is that LN bias is the correct one in this case.
;)
...which is another example of LN bias.
-
...which is another example of LN bias.
OMG
-
We're human beings not robots or AI. But there is an objective reality that we can struggle to find.
Of course there is. That doesn’t mean you’ve found it.
But to argue that all of this evidence pointing at Oswald is wrong - all of it planted or faked or worthless - is a useless exercise. One can make that claim against the evidence for any event. So where does that lead to?
Simply arguing over and over that there is “all this evidence pointing at Oswald” is itself a useless exercise.
A sort of nihilism. Why even come here and comment day after day after day, thousands of posts, all saying "No, no, no"?
Why come here and comment “Oswald did it” day after day and thousands of posts?
Brennan lied and Brewer lied and Mcdonald lied and the fingerprints are faked and the photos are faked or wrong and the handwriting is wrong. That leads to nowhere.
That’s also a strawman conglomeration that nobody has ever argued. Neither Brennan, Brewer, or McDonald saw anybody kill JFK, nor is there any photos showing who killed JFK, nor is there any fingerprints or handwriting that would show who killed JFK.
Look, if people want to devote much of their lives to defending Oswald then go for it. But don't pretend to be interested in trying, as best as we can, to determine who shot JFK.
You’re not trying to determine anything. You’re arguing a conclusion that was predetermined.
Because you're not interested in that; you have some sort of bizarre need to defend this miserable waif Oswald. Waif. That means abandoned: that's how I think Oswald saw his life and his world.
On the contrary. You’re determined to prosecute a guy you don’t like with weak, tainted, and circumstantial evidence merely because you don’t like him. That’s not how to determine what’s actually true.
-
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.
WHAT 'fingerprint evidence'? This was been lied about from the very first day.
Henry Wade--- "We have his fingerprints on the rifle" That was a lie. Clue #1- Oswald = Patsy
Handwriting ---Does not prove Oswald shot Kennedy or anyone else.
Photographic evidence---A bit too much photographic...does not prove Oswald shot Kennedy or anyone else
Circumstantial evidence is just that...circumstantial