3 ms·
And here it is anyway: https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv.
by apo 7y ago
And here it is anyway:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcvsaexposed.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190518135724/http://www.nitvcv...
Looks like a link collection and a video (which doesn't play). That video may hold the key to the judge's decision because ordering a takedown of a link collection seems like overreach.
On the current version of the site it's just an ABC clip from YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsufvxgLf0g
From the video:
ABC: "Has there been a single scientific study that shows that this works?"
"Dr." Charles Humble: "I don't believe that there has been an independent scientific study that shows that this works."
Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC.
This case is more complicated than the article lets on:
> This case involves two competing businesses that sell truth verification technology. NITV is a Florida limited liability company based in Palm Beach County whose members are all Florida citizens [DE 1 ¶ 1]. Dektor is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania [Id. ¶ 2]. Dektor’s President and sole shareholder is Defendant Arthur Herring III, who is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania [Id. ¶¶ 3, 22].
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237.95.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.532237...
Edit: Charles Humble was in fact lying, as the ABC clip shows. The Pentagon conducted an independent investigation and found the device to be no more accurate than flipping a coin.
- wl 7y ago> This character has all the hallmarks of a quack. The judge's decision is questionable at best. This is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. It's not the judge's job to decide the truth of the matter without briefing from both sides. If one side doesn't show up, that side loses by default because otherwise it would be advantageous for a party being sued to just not show up to court.
- lozenge 7y ago"Yet it's been used by police around the country to elicit confessions and convictions, according to ABC." Well, getting somebody to confess by lying to them is legitimate in the US. In this case, the police tell you you're hooked up to an accurate lie detector, and the accused decides to tell (what the court will accept as) the truth. This seems reasonable.
- golem14 7y agoThis same video link is is linked from the archived site.