Here is the link to my article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090916123515.htm It is about a study that has been recently done on bite-mark analysis. The reason that the study was done was because in the past 10 years or so there have been several overturned convictions, convictions that were based on bite-mark analysis. The basic conclusion of the study was that there are a lot of times where it is hard to distinguish between bite-marks done by two different people. More information is in the article about this.
2 comments:
Three Aspects
-It's a relavant topic, as we just talked about bite mark analysis.
-Its short, sweet, and to the point.
- It's a very understandable conclusion.
Two suggestions
-it could have been longer (emphasiszed more, with more detail provided)
-The writing was a bit too simple; the article could have been written a little better.
One thing I learned
- I thought that bite marks were considered to be as traceable to a specific individual as fingerprints, but it turns out they are not that accurate.
Three Aspects:
1) It's very straight forward so it is easy to understand
2) It brief and leaves a lot to the article so reading the review was quick
3) Made reading the actual article easier because it formed an idea in my mind before reading the article
Two suggestions:
1) While the brevity was nice it was too short. A bit more detail would have been nice.
2) Left a lot of smaller but more important details out that were obvious in the article.
One thing I learned:
1) I didn't know that an entire case could be different based on a slight error in the analysis of the bite mark and that those mistakes were made quite freqeuently
Post a Comment