I think this whole software thing detected lies through audio is bogus in this instance. Not bogus as in Cain is really guilty, bogus as in inconclusive and meaningless. Too many variables, in an uncontrolled setting, with a pre-recorded audio track. More of a stunt than any sort of evidence.
First off, it's a press conference. Anyone is going to talk different in front of a bank of reporters and/or television cameras. Especially hostile reporters. And public speaking is different than question/answer sessions in a small controlled setting. No matter what the test showed, that throws the results out of the window. Lie detectors work on having the subject in a calm controlled setting, answering questions or simply talking, and detecting the lies through involuntary physical and audible stressors in voice and physiology.
Secondly, it's a pre-recorded track. All sorts of things get manipulated on broadcast audio (yes, in real time) to make them sound better. I have some experience in that area, so it's hard for me to believe that such digital manipulation would not have some effect on the veracity of the results.
Thirdly, from what I understand a test subject has to go through a series of true/false tests with the facilitator to for the machines and audio equipment to get a baseline to be able to determine if the test subject is lying.
