Results of Online Public Voting for the Hearing of Dr. Richard Wollert v. The Seattle Times

Please see also the Comments from the Online Public Ballot, which was submitted along with votes on the online ballot, summarized below. All other information about this hearing can be found here.

1. Was The Times accurate in its Jan. 21, 2012, article stating that Dr. Richard Wollert has been “pushing his own science and theories” and “often finds himself under attack for his changing theories of recidivism and his self-made assessment tools”?
Yes 9 18%
No 42 82%
2. Did The Times contact, or attempt to contact, and utilize sufficiently diverse sources who may have had a point of view about Dr. Wollert different from that generally expressed by prosecutors and assistant attorneys general?
Yes 6 12%
No 45 88%
3. Did The Times fully and fairly portray Dr. Wollert in two videos when it quoted one critic [Brooke Burbank] saying that he is an “outlier” who comes up with “his own methodologies that are simply not sound science,” and another [David Hackett] saying that he “makes his living offering one opinion” and is “essentially a symphony with one note”?
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
4. Did The Times fully and fairly portray Dr. Wollert in its Jan. 21, 2012, article when it quoted a critic [Amy Phenix] saying “Wollert almost always finds a reason why an offender doesn’t meet criteria for commitment” and “His reports are a gross misrepresentation of risk – it’s mumbo-jumbo.”
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
5. Was the Jan. 21, 2012, “Price of Protection” series headline, “State Wastes Millions Helping Sex Predators Avoid Lock-up” accurate and fair?
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
6. Was The Times’ account of Dr. Wollert’s testimony in the trial of Jack Leck accurate in stating that “Wollert was relying on Leck’s words, even though he knew Leck was a habitual liar and had even been deceptive during the psychological evaluation”?
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
7. Was The Times accurate in stating that Dr. Wollert “removed key questions” from the “Static 99” test to assess the likelihood that SVPs will reoffend?
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
8. Did The Times’ reporter’s approach to Dr. Wollert, which he perceived as so agenda-driven that he refused to grant an interview, contribute to any lack of balance in the series?
Yes 37 73%
No 14 27%
9. Did The Times’ Investigations Editor, James Neff, provide an adequate explanation in his May 25, 2012, letter to Dr. Wollert regarding the newspaper’s decision not to make any corrections in 2012?
Yes 7 14%
No 44 86%
10. Was The Times accurate in its Jan 21, 2012, story stating that: “In 2001 the county [Multnomah] criticized Wollert for incomplete assessments, inadequate treatment guidelines, and poor record keeping, and later cancelled his contract”?
Yes 12 24%
No 39 76%
11. Was The Times’ correction and clarification on March 22, 2013, stating that “[Multnomah] county and Wollert agreed to end the contract” and “In fact, the contract was cancelled by mutual agreement of the parties” adequate?
Yes 14 27%
No 37 73%
12. Overall, did The Times’ “Price of Protection” series portray Dr. Wollert, including his academic background, research history, scientific methodologies and past testimony, in an accurate, fair, complete and balanced way?
Yes 6 12%
No 45 88%
Share