Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Police Voice Analysis Software Shows Cain Truthful, Accuser Lying

Story here.


Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office.

Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.

After listening to Cain's speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.

The same software shows that accuser Sharon Bialik, however, is lying.

23 comments:

balbulican said...

Holy COW! So - a guy who's on the Board of a company that makes a truth detection application says that his software says that Cain is telling the truth!!

That's utterly compelling. Almost as convincing as your photo of Cain's defender snuggling up to Cain and then attacking his attacker.

I LOVE Birthers. They have such astonishingly rigourous evidentiary standards... ;)

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oh?

All of a sudden Blabsy doesn't want to believe experts using proven computer programs that tell us what's going on.

I guess he'll also have to stop believing the IPCC global-warmists, too... ;)

Of course, the IPCC is lying, and their computer programs are coded to cheat according to their agenda...

Ok, don't believe 70 police forces using a 95% accurage voice analysis technology... too inconvenient... must destroy the right-winger and protect the sleezy floozies on the take from the Left...

Canadian Sentinel said...

So the guy's on the board of the company that makes the program.

Well, look at the connections of the accusers! Working for Obama, neighbors with David Axelrod, using Gloria Allred as a lawyer but being unable to pay her (who pays her?)... The list of credibility-destroying things goes on...

Will the accusers take a lie detector test? Cain will. And has already been cleared by a proven-very-reliable, scientific voice-analysis tool used and trusted by dozens of police forces.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Speaking of evidentiary standards... since when are mere accusations considered "evidence", Blabsy?

And don't forget about evidence that destroys credibility in the plaintiffs! ;)

balbulican said...

Let's stick to the core question, and I'll show you how to think it through, just for fun.

At is issue is the reliability of Layered Voice Analysis.

A statement from an owner that his machine worked, with no other corroboration, is useless. But that doesn't mean the technology is bad.

You advance as evidence for the strength of the technology the owner's assertion that nearly seventy law enforcement agencies use the technology. It's not clear from the quote or context whether he's talking about HIS software, or voice analysis generally.

However, the fact that some police departments use a technique doesn't validate the technique: as you know, some police departments consult psychics.

So what do the studies say? That it doesn't work.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673590/Eriksson-Lacerda-2007

∞ ≠ ΓΈ said...

A Clinton-esque quote:

"At is issue is the reliability of Layered Voice Analysis."

Not so quick old boy.

What is at issue here is the credibility of Sharon Bialek.

Readers passing through should be aware that balbulican has, in the past, designed his own, tongue in cheek, Alinsky styled table of dismissals.

Category 3: Diversion Codes

D-1: Burden of Proof Reversal (e.g.; Oh, YEAH? Well, how can you PROVE that their proofs are correct, to MY complete satisfaction?)


And that is exactly what we see here.

The irony of this, not lost on CS, is that blahblah is attempting an argument based on more rigorous scientific standards, the very same logic employed by those who choose to scrutinize the science generated by ideas that climate change is man made and destructive.
Essentially he wants to have his cake and eat it too (a hallmark of the progressive and a stretch mark of babulican).

So, bearing in mind that babbles has evoked Clinton and produced a link to a scientific document let's ..."think it through, just for fun."

"So what do the studies say? That it doesn't work."

Well now that depends on what the meaning of the word it means.
What this article actually says, in an anecdotal format, is that such programs and machines do not reliably distinguish truthful and deceitful answers, but using them does.
In other words, it, does work.
…the effect was substantial. In the Damphouse et al. study only 14% lied about recent drug use compared to 40% in the study where no lie detector was used… lie detectors have also been used with great success by insurance companies…and banks.
“So if U.K. insurance companies claim they cut their costs by millions of pounds by using ‘lie detectors’, or US police officers can say they can make suspects confess by showing them the results of the ‘Voice Stress Analysis’, or social security administrators say they may bring down benefit fraud, we have no reason to question this.”


Cain volunteered to be tested on a lie detector. Bialek has not. See.... They work!

Canadian Sentinel said...

And I note that Blabs refused to answer my question as to how an accusation constitutes evidence.

He knows it doesn't, but for his purposes, he reframes the issue.

Typical dishonest leftist "debating" tactic.

Blabs is on the side of the liars who want The Left to win, no matter what, and The Right to lose, no matter what.

Canadian Sentinel said...

"I LOVE Birthers. They have such astonishingly rigourous evidentiary standards... ;)" -Balbulican


Oh, I see. And so does Balbulican, letting the delusion persist that if there's an unfounded accusation against a right-winger, that accusation constitutes evidence of guilt, whereas if the accusation is issued against a left-winger, such as Obama, it's nothing more than a "Birfer" accusation and is not evidence.

Double standard.

If it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any standards at all. -Ann Coulter

balbulican said...

"I note that Blabs refused to answer my question as to how an accusation constitutes evidence."

Sorry, I thought I had answered that in the other thread.

An accusation DOESN'T constitute evidence. Several accusations have been made and denied, and I haven't seen evidence on either side. Thought I was clear about that.

Canadian Sentinel said...

See why I don't take Blabsy Boy seriously much of the time?

Balbulican has no more credibility than Sharon Bialek or any of the other accusers who proffer zero proof, zero evidence, and whose credibility would be at issue in a court of law, far more so than the credibility of the accused.

In fairness, the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, to prove that the accusation is true, and the accusee cannot ethically, morally be required to disprove an unproven accusation!

Yet the Progressive Liberal Left-Wing Social Justice Mob wants us to believe that Herman Cain is guilty, period, and that it's irrelevant whether the women are telling the truth... the mere ACCUSATION is deemed to be true, simply because the Left thusly deems, as if the Left were some sort of Pythagorean mortal deity...

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oh, sorry, old boy. Must have missed where you said that on the other thread.

So you see no evidence on either side.

Then what?

Cain is to be presumed guilty, and should be harassed and harangued by the media et al until his chances of going to the White House are destroyed?

That is, of course, the purpose of the allegations and the carrying-on, the rehashing of said allegations, as if rehashing makes them any more true.

It's nasty. This is what the Left does. And since the Left does this, then guess what? We The Right will return the disfavor with maximum force. The Left doesn't want this, so they beseech and implore us to "be civil". What a laugh. So we therefore shall punch back, this time without missing on purpose. The Left is going to be beaten up big time from now on and defeated. And it brought it onto itself.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Perhaps the Left just doesn't want to see a black man in the White House. Perhaps the Left is racist. After all, it was the Leftist Democrat Party who wanted to keep slavery, and went to war with the Republicans to attempt to do so. The Democrats also begat the KKK as their terrorist wing (which seems to be alive and well somehow, and giving Herman Cain, the Uppity Black Man who escaped from the Democrat Plantation and is going around being free, thinking freely, succeeding independently and appears set to become President, a high-tech lynching).

Obviously the DemoKKKrats can't tolerate Herman Cain. Must take him down, obviously. Especially since he trod upon the White Supremacist Abortion Cartel's toes, which launched the accusation attacks upon Cain mere hours after Cain dare spake the inconvenient, horrible, racist, genocidal truth about Planned Parenthood and swore to end their million-dollar-a-day taxpayer bailout...

balbulican said...

"Perhaps the Left just doesn't want to see a black man in the White House."

Umm...Sentinel? Don't look now, but...

"Cain is to be presumed guilty."

If you're asking me, the answer is no. Cain is to be presumed accused. As for the "left", I'm afraid your dear friend and staunch right winger Dodo can spell is already spouting some mildly offensive assumptions about black guys being attracted to blondes. You might want to correct her.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Gimme a link, so I can tell whether it was sarcasm or not. Sarcasm matters, y'know...

Canadian Sentinel said...

So you are changing the fundamental principle from presumed innocent to presumed accused.

Not surprised. It's your way. If it was a black leftist, he'd be presumed innocent, and a black right winger is to be presumed accused, which is like "guilty" in the minds of those who hate right-wingers, men, and/or blacks...

Just sayin' how leftists think.

Canadian Sentinel said...

And the blogger to whom you refer didn't make any offensive comments about black men and blondes, except in your peculiar prog mind, my good man. You interpreted it in the worst way, but that's expected.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I believe her sarcasm was actually a reference to David Axelrod's picks for accusers. Why blonde? Just musin', she be... You make me laugh, Blabs, seeing racism where it isn't evident, except in the mind of a prog.

Oh, look! I see racism in the Left and the media's treatment of Herman Cain! Just my interpretation, just like yours wrt Dodo's very vague sarcasm that can only be interpreted and nothing more.

balbulican said...

"Gimme a link, so I can tell whether it was sarcasm or not. Sarcasm matters, y'know..."

Yep. http://dodocanspell.blogspot.com/2011/11/blondes-have-more-fun-with-herman-cain.html

I think you'll have to admit that Dodo is a bit weird, even by right wing blogging standards. She's the conservative who referred to Mayor Bloomberg as a "money-grubbing Jew".

balbulican said...

"So you are changing the fundamental principle from presumed innocent to presumed accused."

You didn't get my point. Cain IS accused, and he IS to be presumed innocent.

balbulican said...

"Dodo's very vague sarcasm..."

ROTFLMAO. Sure, Sentinel. Whatever you say.

And "Girl on the Right" was just kidding when she accused First Nations dads of "fucking their daughters" every day of the year except for National Aboriginal Day. That wasn't prejudice, just humour.

And Kathy Shaidle is just teasing when she refers to Arabs as "fucking violent retards". No prejudice there...just a little kidding, right?

Sorry about the language, by the way. I'm quoting the original conservative sources. :)

balbulican said...

Let me be clear. I don't think all right wingers, or most right wingers, are bigots: and bigotry is just as prevalent at the extremes of the ideological left as the right.

There is a racist strain inherent in the some of the response to Cain, as there was a racist strain inherent in some of the response to Obama. I don't think either represented a majority; there are plenty of good reasons to oppose both mean on purely political and policy grounds.

Canuckguy said...

"....she refers to Arabs as "fucking violent retards.."
I am sure she does not mean most Arabs are thus, just 49% of them.

balbulican said...

Heh. Do you remember poor old "Raging Tory" - the nut case Blogging Tory who announced that he was going to join the Israeli army on a Monday, that he was going to enlist in the Canadian army instead on a Wednesday, and finally that he was had been turned down by recruiters because of the antipsychotics he was taking?

He once get very irate when I used that quote to illustrate Shaidle's bigotry, and actually wrote an email to her begging her to clarify what she meant. She tore him three new assholes and went off on a long tirade about pseudo-conservative "men" without the balls to push their beliefs to the limit.