Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsWednesday, May 7, 2008 5:16 PM CDT
Comments Comments (16) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Groomer accused of poisoning dogs wants polygraph test used
By Edith Brady-Lunny
eblunny@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- Attorneys for Bloomington dog groomer Denise Read want a jury to hear the results of a polygraph test taken by Read in connection with accusations that she tried to poison a competitor’s dogs. | Defense motion: Tainted meat as evidence (PDF) | Defense motion: Lie detector (PDF)

Read was charged in October with intimidation, criminal damage to property over $300 and cruel treatment to animals. Read, 45, is owner of Deenie’s Bed and Biscuit in Bloomington.

Tim Bowling told police in September that Read was seen throwing a bag over the fence of an exercise yard outside his business, Canine Design, on South Bunn Street. Court records indicate that meat found in the yard tested positive for a substance contained in anti-freeze.

Two of Bowling’s dogs became ill the day after eating the meat and were treated by a veterinarian.

The defense contends that Bowling is responsible for poisoning the dogs because he wants to financially ruin a competitor.

In a motion filed Tuesday, the defense asks that results of a polygraph taken by Read on April 28 be allowed as evidence at Read’s trial. Defense lawyer Jason Cannell states in his motion that Read agreed to a Bloomington police request to take a lie detector test but the test was never scheduled.

The defense arranged for Decatur polygraph examiner Mark J. Cheviron to administer two tests that included 14 questions related to the criminal case. Read denied harming Bowling’s dogs, a position she has held since charges were filed.

Cheviron’s opinion is that Read was truthful during the examination.

“It’s not a common issue that comes up where a defendant actually passes the polygraph,” Cannell said of the effort to bring the test results into the trial.

If the judge does not allow the polygraph, Cannell has asked that the state be barred from making any references to the invitation they made to conduct a test with Read.

Bowling said Tuesday that he is willing to take a polygraph test, if asked.

Not allowing the tainted meat?

In a separate motion filed by the defense, Cannell has asked that prosecutors be barred from introducing the tainted meat as evidence. He said Bloomington police failed to secure the meat and allowed Bowling to keep it, making the evidence subject to tampering.

The meat was taken to a local veterinarian and later submitted to a lab at the University of Michigan.

A 911 call made by Bowling after the Sept. 18 incident provided Bowling with an opportunity to lace the meat with anti-freeze, Cannell argues.

The dispatcher asked Bowling if he thought anti-freeze was in the meat, said Cannell.

“Then lo and behold, after police leave the bag and its contents with Bowling—antifreeze turns up in the hamburger. Things that make you go Hmmmm. Of all the potential contaminants, the odds are astronomical that the operator happened to guess exactly what was in the meat. It is obvious that Bowling later added anti-freeze to the meat—matching up what was prompted by the 911 operator,” Cannell alleges in court documents.

A hearing is set for Thursday in Read’s case. Cannell said he plans to tell the judge that the defense has finished its investigation and is ready for trial.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 16 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

knowing is half the battle wrote on May 7, 2008 2:11 PM:

" No way on this one. The poisoned dogs can't use a polygraph to tell their side of the story. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on May 7, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Dwarf: Actually, you may be surprised to hear that I agree with you - in that polygraph tests should never be admissible in someone's trial - and they shouldn't be used in an investigations either; there's just too much room for error, and they are far from accurate. However, I think that if a jury pool is allowed to be tainted with the knowledge (via media) that the defendant failed a polygraph test, then it should be allowed to be tainted with the knowledge that a person passed it as well. That's the double standard I'm talking about. Also, it's completely unfair what is implied when a person refuses to take a polygraph. Polygraph doesn't really measure truth or fiction. It measures how comfortable a person is. I'm guessing the idea behind the poly, is that if a person is uncomfortable answering a question, they must be lying. But really, if you were suddenly yanked downtown to answer questions for police, you are going to be uncomfortable whether you're telling the truth or not. "

Truth wrote on May 7, 2008 10:20 AM:

" I hate to think of anyone doing this; especially someone that's in the field of taking care of your animals. People are/were quick to condemn Deenie for whatever reasons but all-in-all, I really hope that the right decisions are made and the real truth comes out. I think ALL avenues and people need to be looked at very closely through this whole thing... If Deenie is innocent, she & her attorney are going to have to get very smart at proving it. Lots of innocent people go to jail, etc. for things they didn't do... It's a scarey thought but it does happen... "

summerh2o wrote on May 7, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Deenie should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. And when that doesn't happen - will people turn on Tim and treat him as accusingly as they have treated her these past months? All the bloggers should sit in the courtroom and learn the FACTS of this case. You can't judge a book by it's cover, and no one wants to be constantly reminded of their PAST mistakes. Do you? "

dwarf wrote on May 7, 2008 9:11 AM:

" HRPuff - No, my argument is that polygraphs should simply never be used - to charge people with crimes, in the workplace, or as evidence in court - whether they pass or fail.

There's no double standard in my position. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on May 7, 2008 8:29 AM:

" If polygraph tests are so unreliable - and they pretty much are - why do police use them as a reason to charge a person with a crime? Why are polygraphs only important when someone fails one, but not when a person passes one? Double standard. Obviously though, pass or fail, it cannot be used in court. However, if the prosecution is allowed to taint a jury pool by making it public when a defendant fails a polygraph, then the defense should be allowed to do the same when their client passes one. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on May 7, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Sharky: If you were being accused of something you didn't do, I'm sure you would do everything in your power to be vindicated. Interesting how everyone only wants to believe polygraph tests when a person fails one, but when someone passes TWO polygraphs, everyone still considers them guilty. Sounds like there is more than one side to this story, and it wouldn't be the first time that the "victim" was actually the perpetrator. I don't know either person in this case, and I've never used either one of their services - but I've seen enough to know that the "victim" isn't always really a "victim". At the very least, there is more than one side to this story, and it's not fair to consider a person guilty based only the the word of the so-called victim. "

ex-earlybird wrote on May 7, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Both take a police polygraph or independant by the same administor . May be then the truth will come out and a trial would not be needed. "

dancinggirl wrote on May 7, 2008 5:40 AM:

" dirty defense trick that usually backfires because prosecutors will not trust this attorney anymore. polygraph results are NOT admissible because they are unreliable. that is why an accused gets a polygraph done by someone they PAY. this is an underhanded way of getting the public to hear inadmissible evidence. "

bushIQis6 wrote on May 7, 2008 5:26 AM:

" polygraphs results cannot be used in court. every lawyer knows that so the only reason the defense attorney is filing a motion to use the polygraph, is to have his potential jurors (public) hear evidence that they could not hear in court. this is how defense attorneys get a bad reputation "

dwarf wrote on May 6, 2008 11:51 PM:

" Polygraphs are deeply flawed. They shouldn't be used for pretty much any purpose, ever. "

Waffle of Justice wrote on May 6, 2008 11:08 PM:

" sharky wrote on May 6, 2008 9:29 PM:Obviously you don't know much about lawyers. "

sharky wrote on May 6, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Its pretty sad that the defense has to go after the victim. Seems like hes trying to dig up things as a last ditch effort.This case should not keep dragging on as its an expense on the taxpayers.Let justice be served and get this over with. "

HRPuffinstuff wrote on May 6, 2008 4:51 PM:

" This is compelling information providing another view of the incident. Interesting...It's too bad a number of people will stubbornly hold to their opinions based on the minimal amount of information that was available up until now. Up until now there were only allegations that a person did something horrible - and the public majority tends to believe that - but I think what we have here, my friends, is reasonable doubt. "

airwren wrote on May 6, 2008 4:35 PM:

" I think he may have made the statement in open court and was quoted by the pantagraph or that was his statement to the reporter. If he filed a court document with that statement then he should be disbarred. lol "

26620 wrote on May 6, 2008 4:03 PM:

" Please tell me that the attorney didn't use the phrase "things that make you go Hmmm" in official court documents. Did I read that right??? "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy