Thoughts on Maurice Possley's visit

There were plenty of interesting comments and ideas put forth by Maurice Possley last Wednesday night during his visit with our class. Truthfully there are too many to list, but some did hit a nerve with me. Those are the things I will focus on.
Early on he mentioned that at some point he had a revelation that DNA not only can help convict a felon, but it can help acquit one as well. I found that to be quite profound. I am not sure at what point it was that he realized this. In the CSI day and age that we are in now, most of us realize that DNA is a huge point of fact in any case that involves murder. Obviously at some point this was not as obvious to everyone as it is to us now.
He talked about a case (David Crowe) that brought a couple of his topics front and center. Not only was it DNA that eventually proved Mr. Crowe’s innocence and saved his life, it was the laws (or lack thereof) of the interrogation room that put Crowe on death row to start with.
Crowe’s interrogation room sessions were on tape and it was clear to see, when Possley got the chance to, that Crowe wasn’t admitting guilt when he supposedly admitted to killing his sister. He was asking the question, “I killed my sister?” instead. Why? Because the interrogators’ method was to break Crowe down so hard that he actually began to believe he had committed the crime he was being held for.
Seeing that session made Possley ask the question, “Why would anyone admit to committing a crime that they didn’t commit?” He easily concluded that the power of the interrogation room yielded the interrogator’s desired results. He stated it apparently is legal for police to lie in the interrogation room.
Seeing these things as clear as he does and being a man who wanted to see change that mattered, Possley obviously used his journalistic abilities to do something others routinely never ever come close to. He decided he wanted to influence change in a good way and knew that, if done right, journalism could do a lot more than just report the news.
His desire was to report on what was happening in courtrooms because that’s where news that matters happened. He likened reporting on courtrooms to going to a play – it’s a different story every day. The little bit I know of the man tells me that he succeeded in his plans and used his journalism to reach far above and beyond what the average journalist can ever reach.
Another interesting topic he discussed was the frailty of our criminal justice system. He showed how when Justices retire and votes are changed that peoples lives can be changed and saved. The Rolando Cruz case was the perfect case in point.
From what I understood, a 4-3 Justice vote had Cruz in line to die. However, when one of those Justices retired, his replacement voted differently and the new 4-3 vote saved Cruz’ life, he was acquitted.
He was an interesting man to listen to. Reading about his work and hearing him speak makes me realize that my direction in the journalism field will certainly not be as noble as his. However, his statement that we are in the “greatest learning time in our country” is most likely true, and I look forward to continuing to learn throughout the rest of my time at OSU and in my future journalism career.