Quote:


Interesting... and 100% true: exactly what happened... down to their actual names. 

First...I'm not concerned with 'redditor'.

I initially made the mistake of thinking that redditor actually had made some type of valid point. When one is only a layman in the (sic) science of the polygraph (as I am) it can be difficult to ascertain another's level of expertise. It was only after reading his posts several times that I came to realize that he was totally unaware that his own statement contradicted itself. 

Redittor could write his statement in martian... and it wouldn't matter: his (sic) arguments are nonsensical.

The reason I checked back was to see if one of them(Carey, Facemyre, Gerber, etc) had the decency to admit that what they had done was wrong, and at the very least, apologize.

One would think that their behavior(s) would weigh on their consciences, and they might wish to make amends.

But lost on these bastion's of truth are a simple truism known to man centuries ago:

To thine own self ... be true.

It's ironic how people like Carey, Facemyre, and Gerber can have such high standards for others, while having such an elastic sense of right and wrong for themselves.

Interesting story Longfellow. Please excuse the other redditor(s) who happen to stumble across this thread - some of us happen to be asshole idiots. Do not waste your time on them, just continue on your business and they will be gone soon.

redditor said:

"But anyone who administers these tests would be able to tell you that those questions you summed up are not relevant at all. Your name, city of birth, the hospital you were born in, your parents' names, they're all questions to check the pattern you're showing by telling the truth."

You might want to try reading your own post. I underlined the relevant part, to help you.

Detective Carey told me that it was "complete and total deception"... that means the entire thing.... even those questions he asks to check the pattern, to use your term.

But rather than be honest, and admit that some physiological or psychological thing prevented him from being able to test me, HE claimed that the entire test... everything, was deception.


A few years later, I was diagnosed with very high blood pressure 190/100.

To this day... I have to take 2 diovan HCT tablets and control my weight.

The deception Carey saw... was high blood pressure and spikes from someone who was frightened.

Can you understand this... or do I need to type slower?

Lastly, using a proxy server to start can make it appear that you're posting from Mars.

I knew you'd be unable to control yourself. Are you sure your name isn't Doug?

@Longfellow

First I thought you recollected the events wrong, especially the part about the guy who administers the test 'badly wincing', because that simply can not be true, but I couldn't blame you because hell, it was 30 freaking years ago. After your last comment though I think you're just a douchebag looking for some attention. Ask a moderator to check my IP address and see to which country it leads to, you crappity smacking dumbass. Have a nice life.

George W. Maschke wrote on Feb 16^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:


George,

There is no need to worry about making a reply in kind to redditor or his other identity: idiots.

All you'll get is more of the same, and in truth, anyone can post something using FreeTranslation.com

People like redditor seldom realize that his statements about others reveal more about himself than others.

Watch... he will not be able to stop himself from revealing even more.

redditor,

Thank you for taking the time to explain control questions to me in Dutch. Forgive me for not replying in kind. I'm an American working in The Hague. Although I can more or less read Dutch, I'm not fluent in it. I do, however, understand what you've written above.

I'm afraid you have a misapprehension with regard to control questions in polygraphy. As I mentioned earlier, questions like one's full name, place of birth, parents' name, etc. are only used as unscored irrelevant questions in polygraphy.

"Control" questions, by contrast, are not those to which a known truthful answer is given, but rather those which are designed to produce an untruthful answer. For example, a commonly used "control" question is, "Did you ever lie to a person in a postion of authority?" The polygraph interrogator will try to get the subject to answer this question "no" by suggesting that the kind of person who would lie to an authority figure is the same kind of person who would commit the crime under investigation and then lie about it to the police. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone has lied to a person in a position of authority, be it a parent, a teacher, an employer, etc. at some point in their life.

In control question test (CQT) polygraphy, reactions to such control questions are compared to reactions to the relevant questions (questions directly about the incident under investigation, for example, "Did you take that money?"). If the subject reacts more strongly to the control questions than to the relevant questions, it is inferred that the answers to the relevant questions are truthful. If, by contrast, the subject exhibits stronger reactions to the relevant questions, then deception is inferred.

You'll find CQT polygraphy explained at length, with references to primary sources you can check for yourself, in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (which I co-authored).

George W. Maschke wrote on Feb 16^th, 2013 at 7:53am:


I see that you're from the Netherlands like me, I'll try to explain in dutch, maybe you'll understand then.

Als je een paar vragen voorlegt waarvan je de antwoorden van tevoren al weet, dan weet je hoe mensen reageren op vragen als ze de waarheid zeggen. "Hoe weet je dan of diegene de waarheid vertelt?" Bij een achtergrondcheck is het heel makkelijk om een paar feiten van iemand te achterhalen. Met alleen het geboortecertificaat kan je al achter de volgende dingen komen: volledige naam, plaats van geboorte, geboortedatum, naam van ziekenhuis waarin je bent geboren en de volledige namen van je ouders. Met je CV kan men vervolgens bellen naar de referentie nummers om vast te stellen waar je hebt gewerkt en voor hoe lang, en ook waar je op school hebt gezeten en of je een diploma hebt of niet. 

Met die kennis wordt er vervolgens een 'polygraph' afgelegd. Natuurlijk waren het controle vragen, want waarom zou men een polygraaf gebruiken om antwoorden op die vragen te krijgen als ze dat ook kunnen door een belletje naar het burgerregister van de gemeente? Het is niet logisch.

Tijdens de polygraph worden deze vragen voorgelegd aan de persoon (ook al weten ze de antwoorden daarop al, dat is het punt) om te zien hoe je reageert op de vragen als je de waarheid vertelt. Ze kunnen immers zeker weten dat je de waarheid hebt vertelt dus is er geen sprake van giswerk. Vervolgens kijken ze hoe je reageert op de relevante vragen: "Waar was je rond deze tijd? Heb je dit of dat gedaan?". Als je hetzelfde reageert als op de controle vragen dan is het in orde; je spreekt waarschijnlijk de waarheid omdat je ook zo reageerde op de controle vragen. Reageer je ineens heel zenuwachtig en gaat je hart sneller knoppen en begin je te zweten? Dan lieg je waarschijnlijk omdat je anders reageert. Tenzij je hart tijdens de controle vragen al snel aan het kloppen was en je toen al aan het zweten was. Dan denkt de machine dat als je hart nog steeds snel klopt tijdens de relevante vragen dat je de waarheid vertelt.

If you still don't get it you'll lose every last bit of credibility you once may had.

You obviously have no clue as to polygraphs are supposed to work.   
Read back redditors comment until you undertand what he is saying.   
The questions about one's name, place of birth, and parents' names are control, that's the whole point.   
You ask them questions that you know for sure that they aren't lying about, now if you ask a question and they react differently, you "know" that they are lying.   
Get it? You didn't "out" shit....

redditor,

The questions about one's name, place of birth, and parents' names are not "control" questions but rather irrelevant questions. They're not scored, and they don't establish a "pattern for truth-telling."

It's not clear from Longfellow's narrative, but it seems possible that Det. Carey employed the relevant/irrelevant technique, which you'll find described at pp. 117-20 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).

Longfellow wrote on Feb 14^th, 2013 at 4:30pm:


I find this hard to believe. Those questions that you apparently 'outed' him on were just control questions. You look at the pattern that shows up when you ask people these questions of which you know for a fact they're telling the truth, and then you ask them the questions that matter and see whether the pattern stays the same (subject is still telling the truth) or spikes (subject is probably lying). Your heart could skip a beat, you could suddenly breathe heavier, start sweating a little, all those things would be monitored and show when a person is lying..although all they probably did was check your pulse because it was 30 years ago...

But anyone who administers these tests would be able to tell you that those questions you summed up are not relevant at all. Your name, city of birth, the hospital you were born in, your parents' names, they're all questions to check the pattern you're showing by telling the truth. Afterwards you'd get questions like "were you at this location around that time?" "did you commit this crime?", and if the pattern stays the same you'd be in the clear, but if the pattern suddenly changes you'd be lying. Nobody who administers these tests would 'wince badly' when a subject tells him that he was telling the truth for the control questions...that's what they're for...so yeah..I call bullshit 

George W. Maschke wrote on Feb 15^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:


Hi George,

I cannot tell you much about Mr. Carey's career... other than the 3-4 hours I spent with him, and how he ties into the ridiculous case they presented.

Now, I don't want to give you too many bits and pieces before I present the entire debacle of a tale, but I'll give you this much now.

All of these people I've mentioned are all real people. The things they did in pursuing a case they knew to be false, as officers of the court, will make the reader wonder why they're not in prison themselves for obstruction of justice, at the very least.

During the case, one of the 2 girls I was dating at that time testified that she had taken me to dinner on the night they claimed I had committed this crime. 

I was easily able to prove my whereabouts via her credit card statement. 
Gary Gerber (the prosecutor) turned a lovely shade of red when he found out that of all the other 364 nights of the year he could have chose, he chose the night of my 28th birthday... a night I was easily able to detail my exact whereabouts.

But during the questioning of my (then) girlfriend, Gerber was able to ascertain that I was dating another girl in addition to the one who was testifying, and that I had told her about the other girl.


In his summation to the jury at the end of the case after every piece of evidence he presented had been objectively disproven, the prosecutor, Gerber, struggling for anything to degrade me, told the jury that they should convict me "because I had 2 girlfriends."

I kid you not. He actually told the jury they should convict me because I had 2 girlfriends.

The court officer came over and talked to my attorney and me and told us that it was THE most ridiculous thing he had ever heard in the 20some years he had been the officer in that court. He predicted: not guilty in 30 minutes.

He was wrong: it took just 10 minutes.

Quote:


Mark,

I don't know what "reddit" is. Can you please explain?

It looks like Paul Carey has had a long career as a polygraph operator. He's listed as a current member of the Michigan Association of Polygraph Examiners:

http://www.michiganpolygraph.org/members.asp

It's on Reddit....

To the reader:

At the time I initially posted the 1st post, I had a mere 12 views. Opening it up this evening, I see nearly 900 views have taken place today. One wonders if the word has gotten out by those who know or remember Detective Carey, or have experienced other shenanigans by the Sterling Heights Police?

I have been told, and have often thought myself, that this incident and the related occurrences  is/are quite interesting, even though it has been nearly 30 years since they happened

The individuals in question surrounding the story, Prosecutor Gary Gerber,  Detective Facemyre, Judge Duquette, Detective Carey,  all behave in a manner that will surprise those expecting those in law enforcement to be straight, fair, and generally follow the rule of law.

Give me a day or 2, and I'll type up the story of what happened in 1985 that you'll find eye-opening.

Stay tuned!

In 1985, while working in a Michigan City named Sterling Heights Michigan as an electronic technician, I was falsely accused of committing a crime. I plead not-guilty, and hired a lawyer and prepared to go to court. At one point, the police requested that I agree to take a polygraph examination.  Knowing that I hadn't done anything illegal, I agreed, and went in to take the test.

I was met by an officer who introduced himself to me as Detective Paul Carey, and explained to me that he would be administering the test to me. He began by asking me a few basic questions: did I know what a polygraph machine was? What was my opinion of polygraph tests?  Would I agree to answer the questions that he would ask me honestly, etc.? I agreed to do so, and gave him a very frank answer as to what my opinion was as to polygraph examinations: there is no machine in the world that can measure one's veracity; it was junk science. But I would cooperate fully and answer all of his questions fully and truthfully.

He began by explaining that his first few questions would be basic questions that would allow him to calibrate his machine. Common things like "what is your name? Where do you live? Etc. These were all things that he had full knowledge of, as I had filled out a questionnaire when I had arrived.

After a few minutes of "where do you live, is your name... etc.", we began other questions, in tune with the subject.

When we had completed the examination, he asked:

"So, how do you think you did?"

I replied: "Well, I imagine that it'll turn out exactly as you want it to. I told you that when I walked in here.  I could take you back to my shop right now and hook you into my oscilloscope and ask you questions. And, you would see the frequency and voltage will change visibly right before your very eyes. But it would be meaningless: you cannot hook up someone to a machine and gauge whether or not he/she is telling the truth."

I could tell immediately that he didn't like what I had said at all.

I imagine that I'd get the same reaction if I had told him that he had just spilled mustard on his shirt.

So I took the initiative and asked him:

"Okay, so tell me, how did I do?"

Carey: "B^^^ (insert my first name here), the entire test shows a pattern of complete and total deception."

Me: "Complete and total deception?"

Carey: "Yes"

When I walked in there, I knew that I'd most likely would never be able to prove it, but the results of my test had already been decided before I'd even taken the test. But he had just proven it for me. So I replied:

Me: "It's complete and total deception, you say. So I guess my name isn't B^^^ ^^^^^^^, and I wasn't born in ^^^^^^^ hospital in the city of ^^^^^^^, and my parents weren't ^^^^^^^ and ^^^^^^^^, eh?

It was as if I had punched him in the gut... he visibly winced... and did so badly.

He started to reply, but the words wouldn't come out. You could almost see the file cards shuffling in his head as he tried to come up with something to counter this sudden attack of common sense and logic that I had unleashed on him.

Finally, he admitted (and I could tell that he didn't like admitting this): "Well, it might just mean that you were nervous. But I don't know why someone would be nervous."

Gee, I thought. You accuse me of a crime I didn't commit, charge me, and pretty much force me into taking a polygraph examination. And you wonder why someone would be nervous? Common sense really isn't common.

When we went to trial, I had proof, and the husband and wife were exposed as the liars that they were. I was found not guilty in something like 10 minutes.

But the polygraph test, and Detective Paul Carey were both something I remember to this day. I wonder how many times he's gotten away with stunt he tried to pull on me?