Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail (Read 14566 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Sep 13th, 2005 at 2:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mark Cleary, a Michigan man who spent 16 years in jail, has been freed after his daughter recanted a rape allegation she made as a child. Prior to his trial, Cleary had failed a polygraph "test" administered by the Macomb County Sheriff's Office.

Quote:

http://www.freep.com/news/locmac/released13e_20050913.htm

'I'M MISSING 16 YEARS OF MY LIFE:' Prison nightmare ends after daughter recants tale of rape

BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

September 13, 2005

Mark Cleary was no model dad, that's for certain.

He admits he cheated on his girlfriend, Susan, the mother of his two girls, and he came and went as he pleased. He and Susan fought all the time, over money, over whatever. His daughter says he did drugs in front of her.

But when Mark Cleary went to Macomb County Circuit Court in April 1987, he went looking for his kids. Rachael, his oldest, was 7; Kristi was 5. Mark was estranged from Susan, who had kept him from seeing the children for almost a year -- and he was fed up. He had petitioned the court for visitation.

At the courthouse, Mark was arrested, charged with raping Rachael when she was 6.

His daughter said it was so.

It took two more years to bring him to trial, a jury 6 1/2 hours to convict him.

Sixteen years later, he got out of prison, not because he had served all his time or because a parole board found him a model prisoner or because his conviction was overturned on some legal technicality.

It was because Rachael said she had made it all up.

Mark Cleary, now 46, is talking about his past, but hardly anyone else is. Rachael Cleary Patton, now 26 and living in Clinton Township, declined to be interviewed. So did her mother, Susan Giokas, who lives in Roseville. So this story relies on court records, trial testimony, prison documents and interviews with other participants in the case. (Both Rachael and her mother have married and remarried during the events described in this report, so first names are used throughout to prevent confusion.)

Mark says he was the victim of a witch-hunt, based on the uncorroborated testimony of a little girl who got in trouble.

And he says there's plenty of blame to go around -- to his ex-girlfriend, to law enforcement.

"I'm missing 16 years of my life for something I didn't do and I don't think I could ever be repaid for it," he said.

A stormy start

Mark grew up in Roseville, the son of middle-class parents. He said he dropped out of high school in the 10th grade because of boredom, stupidity and an affinity for marijuana. He went back for a semester, but dropped out again.

By then, he was dating Susan Giokas. But her parents didn't like him and gave Susan an ultimatum -- stop dating Mark or move out. She picked her boyfriend. Eventually, Susan became pregnant with Rachael, and the couple struggled to make ends meet. There were lots of arguments.

"Sue and I never had a perfect relationship -- it was never good," Mark said, acknowledging he was a poor mate. There were girlfriends, and he wouldn't be tied down to their house, a mobile home in Macomb Township.

After several separations, Susan left for good in January 1986, with Rachael, 6, and a second daughter, Kristi, 3, in tow. A month later, Susan married another man.

Despite the breakup, Susan agreed to let Mark see his daughters. In late February of that year, they spent the weekend with him.

Pleasant enough, is how Mark remembers it, but uneventful.

But on the way home, the girls were suddenly hostile to Susan, according to court records. They called her a "biker bitch," possibly because of a movie they had seen the night before and because their stepfather owned motorcycles.

Thinking Mark had badmouthed her, she halted all future visits. He was left to petition the Macomb County Friend of the Court for visitation rights. In January 1987, Susan told a court referee that her ex-boyfriend would kidnap the girls if he were granted visitations, according to court records. But the referee called her claim groundless, recommending that a Macomb County Circuit Court judge grant Mark's request.

A month later, that would all change.

A pivotal encounter

In late February 1987, a year after Mark last visited his children, 4-year-old Kristi caught 7-year-old Rachael and a 4-year-old boy under a bed, inappropriately touching each other. Kristi told her mother.

Shocked by her daughter's behavior, Susan paddled and screamed at Rachael, demanding to know where she learned such things.

"Daddy does it all the time," Rachael blurted.

In the weeks that followed, Rachael told social workers that her father had repeatedly raped her and threatened to kill her mother if Rachael ever told anyone. There was no physical evidence of sexual abuse -- just the graphic details she provided social workers with the vocabulary of a child.

Mark knew nothing about it until he went to court in April 1987, when he was arrested on a first-degree criminal sexual conduct charge. Six weeks later, a Sterling Heights District Court judge ordered Mark to stand trial. Under gentle coaxing from the prosecutor, Rachael told the judge her father had "touched me in the wrong places," saying it had happened as many as eight times.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office gave Mark two polygraph tests. The first, officials said, was inconclusive. He failed the second. Mark decided to take his chances with a jury.

A 4-day trial got under way in January 1989, featuring testimony from 10 witnesses. Rachael, then 9 1/2 , timidly described what happened to her and social workers testified about what she had told them. They said the nightmares, anxiety and other emotional problems she had experienced were consistent with sexual abuse.

They also said they considered, but discounted, that she had made up the charges because of parental strife.

Against the advice of his lawyer, Mark took the stand.

"I don't know where Rachael gets her stories from," he testified. "I don't know if she has been molested by somebody else, but I know I didn't do it."

During closing arguments, Macomb County Assistant Prosecutor Kathleen Beard told jurors: "These are details that one would not expect of a young child unless she actually had been there and experienced this type of behavior. ... We have no reason to believe that Rachael is telling anything other than the truth."

Ronald Marsh, Mark's lawyer, countered that Rachael had been programmed by her mother and grandmother to lie about her father, claiming that Susan had talked to Rachael almost daily about the charges and played mock court with her to prepare her for trial.

Susan denied the accusation. But Marsh also pointed to the testimony of a social worker who was surprised that Rachael was familiar with the word "semen" and knew how to spell it. If there was any sexual abuse, Marsh said, it didn't involve his client.

The jury convicted Mark in short order.

After that, he spent several days on suicide watch in the County Jail before being moved to a psychological ward.

"I told my mother that it would have been a lot easier for her had I died rather than going to prison because I was going to be a burden for the next 20 years," Mark recalled. He said she begged him not to kill himself.

Two months later, in March 1989, Mark returned to court. After denying his request to set aside the verdict, Macomb County Circuit Judge Robert Chrzanowski asked him whether he had anything to say.

"Just that I'm innocent," Mark said.

He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

A difficult existence

Prisoner A199815 spent 4 1/2 years at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson, 9 1/2 years at Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven and 2 years at the Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis.

During that time, he worked as a dishwasher, forklift driver and janitor. Eventually, he enrolled in a building trades program and learned how to use a computer to create building plans for houses that prisoners made for Habitat for Humanity. Twice-weekly visits from his mother and stepfather, Fred Melin, who owns a Rochester Hills executive recruiting company, kept him sane.

"After a few years in prison, you start taking it day to day," Mark said. "But you still lose a lot. Besides your liberty, you lose the companionship and hugs from your family. I realized how much I had taken Sue and the kids for granted."

In 1990, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered Chrzanowski to review Mark's appellate claims, including his contention that he was poorly represented by his trial lawyer. Chrzanowski, who later retired, denied the request. In 1994, the state Supreme Court declined to review the case and Mark said he was beginning to think he might have to serve the whole term because he refused to admit to a crime he didn't commit and, because of that, was denied sex-offender therapy, a requirement for parole.

The years were equally unkind to his accuser.

Rachael would later tell authorities that she and her mother had frequent clashes. She said her mom repeatedly had her committed to mental institutions.

She said she twice attempted suicide at age 13.

At 15, she eloped with her boyfriend, Randy Hollifield, to Tennessee. They eventually had three children.

When she returned to Michigan two years later, Rachael, who had two children at the time, confided to her mother-in-law, Susan Singleton, that she had lied at her father's trial.

During a weekend visit to Susan Singleton's home in August 1997, Rachael sobbed uncontrollably, saying that she had sent her innocent father to prison, Singleton said. Rachael was so upset, the woman said, she decided to find Mark and send him a letter.

"You don't know me yet, but you will," Singleton wrote him. "I'm Rachael's mother-in-law. She told me about you and it's not true why you are in there. ... Rachael has felt bad about this for years. She just didn't know what to do. ... She told me her mom made her say it about you, and it is not true."

"My son Randy is married to Rachael and guess what, you have two little boys, Matt and Nickie, out there that need their grampa."

Mark asked his lawyer to depose Rachael, making no contact with Singleton or his daughter. He wanted no one to accuse him of coaching her.

During 25 minutes of sworn testimony a couple of days later, Rachael denied her father had raped her, saying the details of her court testimony came from questions her mother asked her and dirty magazines that her father and stepfather had kept in their homes. She also said the father of the little boy she had been caught with also had dirty magazines and that they looked at them before crawling under the bed.

During the deposition, Rachael said that after she was caught with the boy, her mother and her mother's girlfriend paddled her, demanding an explanation.

"They kept asking me, you know, why I did this," Rachael said. "And I was telling them, you know, why, that we had seen the magazines. And they just kept hitting me with the paddle. And then I said, 'My daddy did it,' and that is all I said."

"I wasn't a stupid kid, you know. I knew what to say," said Rachael, who has since remarried.

According to the deposition, Rachael said her mother never questioned her carefully about what happened, instead asking her "Did he do this?" or "Did he do that?" Rachael said she simply said yes and, having lied, couldn't back out of it.

"He wasn't the best father or nothing. He did drugs in front of us, but he never did anything that would hurt us," Rachael said. "He didn't need to be locked up for something he didn't do."

The night of the deposition, Singleton helped Rachael find Mark's parents, whom she hadn't seen since childhood. Mark called home and talked to his daughter for the first time since 1986.

"She kept wanting to apologize and I kept telling her she had nothing to apologize for," Mark said.

He had been in prison for eight years.

It would be eight more before he won his freedom.

A long road back

Rachael's deposition was no magic bullet. Mark's parents spent the next four years trying to find and pay for a lawyer willing to put the deposition before a judge.

Eventually, Stephen Rabaut, a St. Clair Shores criminal lawyer, agreed to take the case for $20,000. But he warned the family not to get its hopes up, saying a judge might regard Rachael's deposition as an act of compassion for a guilty father. She took two polygraph examinations -- and both were inconclusive.

In August 2003, Rabaut asked the Macomb County Circuit Court to give Mark a new trial. It didn't come. So, in February 2004, Rachael wrote to Judge James Biernat Sr., who drew Rabaut's appeal. "My father does not belong in prison and I can't bear the weight on my shoulders anymore," she wrote.

Two months later, Rachael recanted her trial testimony a second time for prosecutors.

Finally, in December 2004, Biernat granted a new trial over the objections of the prosecutor's office, and ordered Mark released on bond. The judge said he was troubled that Rachael was the only witness, that there had been no physical evidence of sexual abuse and that her parents were in the middle of a bitter visitation battle. He also was concerned that Rachael may have been interviewed in a way that may have planted false allegations in her mind.

On Feb. 2, 2005, the prosecutor's office asked Biernat to dismiss the case even though it felt Mark was guilty.

"We simply cannot proceed in a case where we have a recanting victim," James Langtry, chief of operations for the prosecutor's office, said last month. "We don't know her motive for changing her story. Only she can answer that."

He said Rachael won't be prosecuted: She was a child when she testified.

The turn of events stunned some of the jurors who convicted Mark.

"She was so convincing," one juror said of Rachael, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's horrible to have spent so many years in prison for something he didn't do."

"I don't think I could ever sit on a jury again," another said.

Manipulation claimed

Gordon Blush, a forensic psychologist who ran the Family Services Clinic of Macomb County Circuit Court for 19 years, said he wasn't surprised by what happened to Mark. He said it happens more often than most people realize, though no one has definitively researched the problem.

Blush said his research in Macomb County Circuit Court in the 1970s and '80s found that children could be manipulated, sometimes inadvertently, into falsely accusing feuding parents of sexual abuse. He called the phenomenon the Sexual Allegations in Divorce Syndrome.

"Once the allegation is made, forces are set in motion that take on a life of their own," Blush said, adding that parents are still being prosecuted and convicted for crimes they didn't commit.

Mark says his ex-girlfriend and police share in the blame.

Last month in U.S. District Court in Detroit, he accused retired Macomb County Sheriff's Detective Warren Lamb of botching the investigation by failing to interview him to determine whether the allegations were true. The lawsuit seeks more than $75,000 plus punitive damages.

"Mark Cleary lost 16 years of his life because the detective didn't do his job," said Mark's lawyer, Ben Gonek of Detroit. He said Lamb never attempted to interview Mark.

Had he done so, Mark would have told him about the motivation for the false allegations which could have prevented the charges from being filed. "The whole situation is sickening."

Lamb and the sheriff's department declined to comment.

Gonek said he may sue the ex-girlfriend later.

But one person Mark doesn't blame is his daughter.

"She was just a kid," he said, "and she was doing what the adults around her wanted her to do."

Mark said he has gotten a job at a steel stamping plant, is dating and enjoying his freedom. He's getting on with his life. But it's not without pain.

"When I went to prison, I had children 9 and 6," he said. "When I got out, I had grandchildren that age."

Mark said he and Rachael have had some contact, though it's been nearly six months since they have talked.

She recanted, he figures, to clear her conscience -- not for them to have a warm father-daughter relationship.

But he's hopeful.

"I'm patient," Mark said. "I'm waiting for her to come around if she chooses."

Contact DAVID ASHENFELTER at 313-223-4490 or ashenf@freepress.com.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #1 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 3:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George:

You forgot to write that a jury convicted him.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #2 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 4:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Retcopper, 
 
The fact that a jury previously convicted an individual who is serving time in prison is not particularly noteworthy.  In fact, it is not only the norm but also the law in this country.  What is noteworthy is the fact that amongst any other error, this wrongful conviction was apparently preceded by an erroneous polygraph result. Is this confusing to you?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Johnn
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 116
Joined: Aug 29th, 2005
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #3 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 6:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Retcopper, 
 
The fact that a jury previously convicted an individual who is serving time in prison is not particularly noteworthy.  In fact, it is not only the norm but also the law in this country.  What is noteworthy is the fact that amongst any other error, this wrongful conviction was apparently preceded by an erroneous polygraph result. Is this confusing to you?


Not only is it confusing, but it is also annoying.  They should put the polygrapher behind bars or at least sue them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #4 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 6:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
retcopper wrote on Sep 13th, 2005 at 3:48pm:
George:

You forgot to write that a jury convicted him.


Retcopper,

My point is that this is yet another example where the polygraph got it wrong. To the extent that the polygraph may have influenced the prosecutor to file charges in this case, it contributed to a grave injustice.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #5 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 7:13pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The vast majority of people (most likely including those that sat on this person’s jury) get their information on the polygraph from movies and television.  They believe that if someone fails a polygraph that means they are guilty and/or lying.

I don’t know if the jury heard evidence of the polygraph test in this incident.  However, even if they didn’t, the police officers investigating this case surely knew of the subject’s “failure” in the polygraph examination.  Most police officers I have spoken with have no idea that the polygraph is so wildly inconsistent and inaccurate; therefore the subject’s failure of a polygraph in all likelihood focused investigators’ attention upon him.  Such attention was inappropriate, as it turns out.

Most police officers I have spoken with don’t trust the polygraph regardless of what else they think of it.  Police officers generally have the best built-in bullshit detectors in the universe, so it makes sense to me that they don’t trust a machine that is purported to detect what a person is thinking.

The most ardent supporters of the polygraph among police officers are generally those cops who took one or more while applying for a job and passed them all.  Based on their experience (i.e. – telling the truth and passing the test) they arrogantly assume that anyone who doesn’t like polygraphs must be trying to hide something.  In my opinion, that way of thinking is as senseless as someone who walks into a casino, plays one spin on the slot machine and wins, and then concludes that anyone who doesn’t make money in the casino must be a bad gambler.  I’m convinced that all it would take to change their mind would be a single false-positive.

How fast would retcopper and others like him change their minds about the polygraph if they took one and failed despite telling the truth?  Perhaps then they would believe that truthfulness or deception has nothing to do with passing a polygraph test.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #6 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 8:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Drew:
It is not newsworthy but George tried to make it newsworthy by posting it here.  I think it onlyy confused you and some other  peole here who think the polygraph exam convicted him.  Am I missing something here or did Gerrge's post state that the girl testified against her father and the jury  beleived her. How did the inconclusive polygraph help convict this man? 
John:

What culpabulity dos the polygrah eaminer have in this case?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #7 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 8:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant:
You write that because the test was inconclusive the investigators focused on the suspect but then in the next paragraph you write that most cops know the poly is bs.  So, I can conclude from that that you think most cops do things against their better judgment?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #8 - Sep 13th, 2005 at 8:59pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Retcopper,

I think you need to go back and read George’s original posting and pay attention to details.  It is not the polygraph exam of the state’s presumed star witness and one time self-alleged victim, but the polygraph exam of the defendant with accompanying false positive result that played a part in the process which ultimately led to a wrongful conviction.  As George and sergeant1107 have said, at the very least, through the influence on investigating officers and prosecution staff, the polygraph results may have led to a very great injustice in this matter.  I draw this conclusion without assuming the erroneous polygraph results were presented to the jury.  If the jury was actually presented with these results (i.e., he lied when he said he didn't do that for which he is being tried), the damage caused would be both substantial and horrendous.
« Last Edit: Sep 14th, 2005 at 4:50am by Drew Richardson »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #9 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 6:50am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
darkcobra2005,

Absent a corroborated confession following a DI result, what makes you think any of your DI calls should be trusted any more than the one we have been discussing should have been trusted, i.e., not at all?  As former CIA polygrapher, John Sullivan, has said (quoted from the left column of the home page), ""Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG)."  I would largely agree with Mr. Sullivan.  I would only qualify that the art is really really ugly.  This is hardly the kind of stuff that  should be given unfiltered to polygraph-naïve and trusting decision makers...investigating law enforcement officers who must decide the direction of an investigation, prosecutors who must use the information before them to decide if there is probable cause to bring a matter to trial, and jury members who must decide issues of guilt and innocence. No sir--if the facts as presented are accurate in this matter, polygraphy may well have played a very shameful and blameworthy role in this man's wrongful conviction.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Brandon Hall
Ex Member


Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #10 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 7:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Like many, if not all, I do not know all of the facts of this case.  However, if I am to take what I have learned about polygraphy and its use in criminal investigation, I would understand this story to mean that after all other leads were exahausted, polygraph was suggested.  Most likely with the promise that a NDI would relieve the defendant of any charges but that a DI would bring the prosecutor to level charges.  Therefore, the polygraph examination would indeed play a crucial part in this person's conviction as no charges would have been filed without a DI.  Without the DI this case likely would never have been heard by a jury, much less seen the light of day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #11 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 8:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
darkcobra2005 wrote on Sep 14th, 2005 at 8:13am:
We can make WAG'S (wild ass guesses) on this case all day.  It does not deminish the value of polygraph if used properly.


Please explain why your DI results should be trusted any more than the DI result in this case.

Quote:
I have seen cases filed even with a NDI call having been made by a polygraph examiner.  Not one time but many.  Prosecutors don't rely on polygraph, they look at all the case facts and determine if charges should be filed.


While prosecutors may not always rely on polygraph results, they often do, despite your unsupported blanket assertion to the contrary. AntiPolygraph.org frequently hears from individuals accused of crimes who have been offered a deal by prosecutors: take a police-administered polygraph, and if you pass, no charges will be filed. One recent case that comes to mind involved a person from Michigan. He took the proffered polygraph, passed (using countermeasures that somehow went undetected), and the prosecutor subsequently declined to press charges.

Quote:
With a six or seven year old victim giving testimony, Polygraph becomes irrelevant.  As a Doctor would you expect a child of that age to make up a story such as this and testify in court.  Children generally do not make false accusations without prompting from others and generally get discovered if they do.  Not in all cases but in many. 


I don't see how the age of the alleged victim makes the polygraph results irrelevant.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #12 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 6:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
darkcobra2005,

You write in part in your last post to me:

Quote:


...We don't have all the facts in this case.  How then can we condemn the "POLYGRAPH DI"...


We appear to have more than a sufficient basis for condemning these polygraph results as erroneous independent of whether we have knowledge of the extent to which these results caused damage in the adjudication of the matter.  Hopefully this is a sufficient basis for condemnation on your part as well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6220
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #13 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 7:29pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I contacted David Ashenfelter at the Detroit Free Press and inquired whether he knew more about the circumstances surrounding Mark Cleary's polygraph examinations. He wrote back that while he did not know whether the prosecutor's decision to file charges was based on polygraph results, "failing on the second one prompted the judge to deny his request to have his daughter, ex-girlfriend and her mother undergo a defense-administered psychological exam."

So, while the jury may not have heard testimony regarding Mr. Cleary's polygraph results, it appears they directly -- and wrongly -- influenced the judge's procedural decision-making in his case.
  

George W. Maschke
I am generally available in the chat room from 3 AM to 3 PM Eastern time.
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Bill Crider
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 213
Joined: Mar 26th, 2004
Re: False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail
Reply #14 - Sep 14th, 2005 at 7:42pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
cobra, do you not understand yet that the people that post on this board are very serious individuals making very serious arguments about a process that is routinely causing havoc in people's lives. 

This is not just idle banter on an internet board. as for how the poly affected this case, its clear it affected the judge, it may have affected the DA decision to bring the case and you can bet that had he passed the poly his attorney wouuld have presented the evidence, so his bogus failure hurt him in many ways. Years in jail for nothing and your magic box had a hand in it.  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
False Positive Freed After 16 Years in Jail

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X