|
Calling your attention to our special report
|
If you haven't already, I hope you'll take some time to read Leslie Wilber's special report Sunday on the use of scent lineups in criminal cases.
Around her other duties, Leslie worked about three months digging into this little-understood issue. We think her work should be considered by courts, prosecutors and defense lawyers across the country. As far as we know, no other media have examined scent lineups in this depth.
When Leslie first started working on the story, I kept asking this question, "Why are scent lineups allowed as evidence when something more scientific like a polygraph test is not?" You'll find our attempt at answering this question in the four-page special report.
I may be biased toward ink on paper, but I think you'll get the full impact of the story through the print version in Sunday's Advocate. There, you'll see better the outstanding graphics created by multimedia editor Robert Zavala and the various photos and other elements that accompany Leslie's stories.
The online bonuses are the videos of suspect Calvin Miller and of the scent trail used in the Sally Blackwell case.
We hope you'll digest all of this material and let us know what you think. We consider such investigative work to be one of the ways newspapers remain relevant in the digital age.
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
11 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow ChrisCobler
Comments
Polygraphs are scientifically based and have research to back up their validity. However, they are not reliable for large groups of people who are naturally anxious, are practiced liars, or sociopaths.
July 20, 2009 at 9:17 a.m.Riverboat,
I agree polygraphs shouldn't be allowed in court. My question was how did it become that polygraphs weren't permitted but scent lineups were. They both seem like weak ways to convict someone of a crime.
July 19, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.I strongly disagree with the notion that polygraph tests are scientific. They appear scientific because a lot of wires are hooked up between man and machine, with a sheet of paper recording heart and respiration rates. They are excellent tools for a physician, but scrupulously honest people fall under suspicion as well as the rest.
The polygraph exam is make-believe science supporting make-believe security.
July 19, 2009 at 12:08 p.m.Alton, Rusty and Mike,
Thanks for reading and for the kind words. I'll share them with Leslie.
July 14, 2009 at 6:29 p.m.Read ever word, even backed up a few times to make sure I did not misread something. I never even knew sure a thing existed.
July 13, 2009 at 11:03 p.m.Thanks for the learning experience.
#1. As some folk would say, "Ya done good Leslie." #2. Her story might get that super sleuth a new source of business, paranoid parents requesting sniffs of the backseats of their teenager's cars.
July 13, 2009 at 4:20 p.m.#3. The story is another example of unscrupulous LE using any evidence, true or not, to "solve" a case. An instructor at the Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy stated, "The only thing worse than a cop killer, is a killer cop." The same applies to implicating and/or prosecuting innocent people, even though you may not actually throw the switch on the electric chair, you've basically "killed" their life to some extent.
Polygraphs should not be accepted as evidence either. Its pure pseudo-science. Where is the DNA evidence? That seems like it would settle the case rather quickly.
July 12, 2009 at 3:04 p.m.I did post this morning but it disappeared..
July 12, 2009 at 2:06 p.m.She did a great job....
July 12, 2009 at 2:03 p.m.