The institution of the “little crown witness” was introduced in the Polish Penal Code in 1997 to enable effective detecting and proving the most dangerous forms of crime. The witness in question is a suspect who may receive a more lenient sentence if he or she testifies about crimes committed by other persons. The institution is misused by the prosecution in Poland, as such witness’s testimony is interpreted as evidence, while it should be treated as information to be confirmed. Criminals abuse the institution to settle scores with rival gangsters and frequently accuse police officers and prosecutors of accepting bribes.
The assessment of physiological parameters of the innocent subjects in the SPOT in the presented cases has its limits, while a comparison of these parameters with the charts of the perpetrators causes doubts as to the methodological soundness (lack of a sufficient number of cases). There are as many as four reasons hindering the assessment. First of all, the number of presented charts of the innocent subjects is small; they are practically isolated cases and with tests featuring mainly names (given names, pseudonyms). Secondly, I did not repeat the SPOT if it did not cause any reaction and at the same time the preliminary assessment of the CQT charts was positive for the subjects. Th is makes it impossible to compare physiological parameters of the subject in at least two SPOT charts in order to assess the evolution of the emotional activation. The parameters recorded during a SPOT were compared with the fi rst CQT chart, but this article does not present them. Another problem results from the fact that the category of the ‘innocent’ includes the charts of two subjects (the witness of the behaviour of the possible perpetrator after the murder and the instigator of a murder). I included them in the groups of the ‘innocent’ only because the version before the examination assumed that they were the murderers, while their reactions to the control questions in the CQT were greater than those to the fundamental relevant question (‘Did you do it?’). As I mentioned above, physiological parameters of the two men in the consecutive CQT charts hinted at intensifi cation of emotions and the subjects themselves also displayed external manifestations of emotions. In principle, their charts should be presented in the group of ‘the perpetrators’. Although the manifestations of emotions were distinct, their assessment was subjective – and it cannot be verifi ed. Both subjects interfered with the examination: one refused to have his blood pressure and pulse recorded and the other interrupted the examination. This behaviour is typical for ‘the perpetrators’. Both subjects were involved in the cases, but not in the way the investigators had originally assumed. Let me add here that this is my opinion and it has not been backed by legal decisions. Physiological parameters of the innocent subjects presented in the SPOT charts can only be assessed visually, because the Lafayette polygraphs which I used did not record them digitally. A visual assessment is not precise and to great extent subjective. Only one parameter – the pulse rate – lends itself to digital assessment, but with the reservations mentioned above.
In cases of human disappearance, sometimes facts appear indicating the possibility of causing his death and hiding the corpse. Such hypotheses are formulated not only by law enforcement authorities, but also by the local community, and the family is slandered in them, sometimes friends of the missing person. The study, based on examples from expert practice, showed the usefulness of the polygraph test to verify such personal versions, including the exclusion of wrongly suspected persons close to the missing person (father and mother). In the course of such a study, several research techniques can be used, which have been shown to increase the accuracy of the results and sometimes allow the killer to be exposed.
5
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
W. Gutekunst began scientific research and teaching in the field of forensic sciences at the Faculty of Law of the University of Wrocław in 1946. Initially the research focused on dactyloscopy and later on handwriting examination, where W. Gutekunst also conducted expert examination. Apart from lecturing on forensic sciences, he wrote a coursebook, published twice (1965, 1974). In 1961 Z. Kegel began his academic research in the field of handwriting examination. The same year the Division of Forensic Science and Forensic Science Lab were established. In 1966 Z. Bożyczko expanded the research into forensic methodology (pickpocketing, burglary). From 1970 the Division of Forensic Science functioned as part of the Institute of Criminology. New research was initiated — traffic safety. In 1975 the Division of Forensic Science acquired new facilities (multimedia room, chemistry lab, darkroom, lecture rooms). A polygraph was bought in 1976 and polygraph expert examination began in 1978 (R. Jaworski). In 1981 the Division changed its status into the independent Department of Forensic Science headed by Prof. Zdzisław Kegel. Since 1983 the Department has organised the Wrocław Symposia of Handwriting Examination (the 16th Symposium took place in 2014). Postgraduate studies in forensic sciences were opened in the 1980s when Head of the Department was prof. dr hab. Z. Kegel. The field of research was expanded to include examination of pathological handwriting, examination of paper and inks, mainly with the use of non-damaging methods (cooperation with the Faculty of Chemistry, University of Wrocław). The Department received a few grants (including two on document examination and two on the use of a polygraph). Currently, in 2015, apart from continuing the ongoing research, the Department of Forensic Science has also undertaken new research: detecting threats of mental cruelty, national security, protection of cultural heritage. Dr. R. Jaworski has been Head of the Department since 2005.
6
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The assessment of physiological parameters of the innocent subjects in the SPOT in the presented cases has its limits, while a comparison of these parameters with the charts of the perpetrators causes doubts as to the methodological soundness (lack of a sufficient number of cases). There are as many as four reasons hindering the assessment. First of all, the number of presented charts of the innocent subjects is small; they are practically isolated cases and with tests featuring mainly names (given names, pseudonyms). Secondly, I did not repeat the SPOT if it did not cause any reaction and at the same time the preliminary assessment of the CQT charts was positive for the subjects. Th is makes it impossible to compare physiological parameters of the subject in at least two SPOT charts in order to assess the evolution of the emotional activation. The parameters recorded during a SPOT were compared with the fi rst CQT chart, but this article does not present them. Another problem results from the fact that the category of the ‘innocent’ includes the charts of two subjects (the witness of the behaviour of the possible perpetrator after the murder and the instigator of a murder). I included them in the groups of the ‘innocent’ only because the version before the examination assumed that they were the murderers, while their reactions to the control questions in the CQT were greater than those to the fundamental relevant question (‘Did you do it?’). As I mentioned above, physiological parameters of the two men in the consecutive CQT charts hinted at intensifi cation of emotions and the subjects themselves also displayed external manifestations of emotions. In principle, their charts should be presented in the group of ‘the perpetrators’. Although the manifestations of emotions were distinct, their assessment was subjective – and it cannot be verifi ed. Both subjects interfered with the examination: one refused to have his blood pressure and pulse recorded and the other interrupted the examination. This behaviour is typical for ‘the perpetrators’. Both subjects were involved in the cases, but not in the way the investigators had originally assumed. Let me add here that this is my opinion and it has not been backed by legal decisions. Physiological parameters of the innocent subjects presented in the SPOT charts can only be assessed visually, because the Lafayette polygraphs which I used did not record them digitally. A visual assessment is not precise and to great extent subjective. Only one parameter – the pulse rate – lends itself to digital assessment, but with the reservations mentioned above.
7
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The project „The evaluation of environment condition in areas vulnerable to nitrogen pollution in Wielkopolska” was implemented within Institute of Plant Protection-National Research Institute and Wielkopolska Agricultural Advisory Centre in Poznań cooperation. The project was subsidized by Regional Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management in Poznań. The aim of the analysis was to evaluate a certain number of environment components such as biodiversity and phytosanitary condition indicators. The analysis was conducted on chosen farms in areas vulnerable to nitrogen pollution in Wielkopolska. The farms area ranged from 10 to over 30 ha. On each farm one or two crops were fully analysed. All biodiversity factors were high or medium. Pests and diseases, which may cause a critical threat to monocultures and simplified rotation, occurrence was examined. It was concluded that infestation level of examined crops was not epidemic. The high quantity of beneficial and predatory insects balanced pests quantity. Different species and groups of weeds were found on each crop.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.