Return to Home Page

Publication Date:     April 5, 2011           Correction Date:     April 5, 2011
Publication Type:    Editorial                  Title:   Corrupt journalism can be survived, but is rarely.....

Correction:   An editorial oversight was discovered shortly after publication of the above article.  Mr. Joe Neff was improperly quoted as using the words "No, I am sorry this will not work."  In fact, the quoted words were written by Jill Spriggs.  A correction to both the HTML and PDF versions of the articles were made to clarify the language.   

Publication Date:     January 20, 2010    Correction Date:     February 6, 2010
Publication Type:    Editorial                  Title:   Innocence Activism Contaminations Forensic...

Correction:   This editorial announced a study published by editors John Collins and Jay Jarvis that described physical evidence in a case involving the exoneration of Steven Avery in Wisconsin.  Although the language used in the published study was correct, the editorial incorrectly stated that semen was deposited in the sexual assault for which Avery was exonerated.  In fact, the biological evidence was not semen, but rather a pubic hair that was eliminated as having come from Avery.  We regret this error and directly refer our readers to the study published by Collins and Jarvis in the 2009 journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice.

Publication Date:     July 16, 2008          Correction Date:     July 16, 2008
Publication Type:    News link                Title:     Nebraska news link

Correction:   The Nebraska news link titled "Crime lab chief cleared of wrongdoing" was accompanied by the incorrect summary.  This was replaced with the proper summary shortly after publication.

Publication Date:     Feb 7, 2008          Correction Date:     July 16, 2008
Publication Type:     Editorial                Title:     "Innocence politics weighs heavy......"

Correction:   In this editorial, Crime Lab Report inadvertently implied that the Innocence Project (IP) was directly furnished with a series of questions to which they did not respond.  In fact, the questions posed in the September 27, 2007 editorial were directed to journalists and elected officials as a recommended line of questioning when evaluating the IP's public policy agenda.  The IP's decision to not respond to this editorial should not be construed as an avoidance of the questions.