Ian Baxter
Forensics
Current Event
I read an
article which discusses the advantages and the flaws of DNA evidence through a
30 –year-old case. This case in which a 14 year old girl was murdered in 1984
was finally believed to have been solved in 2014. However, looking back on the
case, the author of the article James Vlahos observes that the conclusion of
this case could potentially be wrong. He starts the article with a brief
introduction to some of the main suspects in the Claire Hough case, a convicted
rapist (Ronald Tatro), and a former DNA analyst (Kevin Brown). The article
discusses the details of the case, while simultaneously analyzing the potential
of both men as suspects in the case. In 1984, Claire Hough traveled from Rhode
Island to San Diego for a week long visit with her grandparents, and one night,
the snuck out alone to the beach, to a secluded spot under a bridge. Her body
was found at five the next morning mutilated, beaten, with her mouth full of
sand. The case was unable to have been solved for years, but in 2012, police
seemingly made a breakthrough discovery: the blood of Ronald Tatro on Hough’s
clothing. However, new analysis also turned up apparent traces of DNA from
Kevin Brown’s sperm. Throughout this article, the author leans more and more
toward the idea that Kevin Brown was the one who committed the crime, until he
finally reveals Kevin Brown committed suicide after questioning placed him as
the prime suspect in the case. This case will never be definitely solved, but
it leads to questions about the reliability of DNA evidence. As Brown was once
a crime-lab analyst working in the same lab attempting to solve the Claire
Hough case, the article insists that it is a possibility Brown’s DNA is
accidentally matched. It is believed he was at once working at the very same
table as the analyst working the Hughes case. Ultimately this article poses the
question: can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime?
This
article is undoubtedly very significant to everyday life. The article stressed
the flaws of DNA analysis through numerous cases in which DNA samples had been
tampered with to a certain extent in the lab, and someone was wrongfully placed
in jail. Whether or not DNA analysis can be trusted as a precise way of solving
a crime is a very relevant subject, as DNA analysis is one of the most used
methods of solving a crime today. The article touches upon the fact that while
DNA analysis has the potential to solve crimes, it also has the potential to
place an innocent person in jail. This is very important in our society,
because it stresses the flimsiness of such a commonly used crime-lab method.
I found it
troubling to read this article due to the gruesome details and the graphic
description of the crime scene in 1984, but thought that the author did an
excellent job poising the question of whether or not DNA analysis can be
considered a precise way of solving crimes. Through the Claire Houghes case the
author makes excellent points and connections, which made me think about all of
the possible innocent people in jail for a crime they did not commit.
Ultimately, this article did a great job in making the reader think about the
subject at hand, and providing evidence to support the author’s theory.
However, I believe that the author provided unnecessary details at certain
points of the article, and felt he could have shortened the article and the
details of the Claire Houghes story in order to keep the focus on the great
overall idea of the article. In order to improve the article I would suggest
that the author takes out some unnecessary details of the story, the suspects,
etc. so that the reader is able to place their focus on the major points of the
article.
Citation:
- Vlahos,
James. "Can DNA Evidence Solve a 30-Year-Old Crime?" The
Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/a-death-at-torrey-pines/403186/>.
18 comments:
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
I thought that you did a really good job summarizing the article in a very short, clear and efficient way. You also explained why the article had been written due to 1. the development of the case when they found traces of another man’s sperm on the girl’s body and 2. that the suspicion towards Kevin Brown might have been wrongful since he worked at the lab that analyzed the girl’s body after she was found dead so it is possible that the DNA just got mis matched, so you don’t have to wonder why the author choose to write the article while reading your review. I also liked the flaws that you pointed out about the article such as the unnecessary details that the author included in the article, which I agree with.
I think that one thing you should have written about is the other girl’s body that was found nearby the location of Claire’s and had similar details to it since that was why the FBI decided to investigate the two cases together due to the possibility of it being a serial killer. It would just make it easier for the reader to understand that Kevin Brown was not suspected right away but rather six years later due to the other girl’s case shining light on the Claire’s case so more investigation was done. I also think that another thing you could have mentioned in the part of your review where you discuss the relevance to today is the importance of ongoing research because after all, the would not have been able to find Mr. Brown’s sperm on Claire’s body if it wasn’t for the more modern techniques that have been developed.
It surprised me that it takes so many years to solve murder cases and it makes me angry to think about all of the cases that go unsolved. It surprised me that contamination at labs is considered a possibility when examining DNA results since I would expect the labs to be extremely clean and the scientists to be very careful when analyzing DNA, especially when it comes to cases similar to that of Claire’s.
Ian did a great job of capturing the article in a shortened version, where the audience was able to efficiently find the details of the crime scene as well as the message and purpose behind its findings. I also thought it was nice how not only did Ian represent the crime scene thoroughly, he also gave a decent response to the significance of DNA analysis and the role it plays in crimes today. He left us with a question that left us thinking, that was could we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I wanted to know what the truth was behind the murder and it is interesting to see that with such advances in technology, a 30-year-old case cannot still be solved.
I would have liked to see a few more details involving the crime scene, so viewers could get a better aspect of what happened. What role specifically did Kevin Brown play? Also it would be interesting to see more deductive reasoning or information regarding the DNA analysis.
I thoroughly enjoyed this current event because it was interesting and left you with a question to debate the reliably of our current science world. I learned that we are still making advances in science today and have yet to solve some of histories most gruesome murders.
Ian did a great job of capturing the article in a shortened version, where the audience was able to efficiently find the details of the crime scene as well as the message and purpose behind its findings. I also thought it was nice how not only did Ian represent the crime scene thoroughly, he also gave a decent response to the significance of DNA analysis and the role it plays in crimes today. He left us with a question that left us thinking, that was could we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I wanted to know what the truth was behind the murder and it is interesting to see that with such advances in technology, a 30-year-old case cannot still be solved.
I would have liked to see a few more details involving the crime scene, so viewers could get a better aspect of what happened. What role specifically did Kevin Brown play? Also it would be interesting to see more deductive reasoning or information regarding the DNA analysis.
I thoroughly enjoyed this current event because it was interesting and left you with a question to debate the reliably of our current science world. I learned that we are still making advances in science today and have yet to solve some of histories most gruesome murders.
Ian did a great job of capturing the article in a shortened version, where the audience was able to efficiently find the details of the crime scene as well as the message and purpose behind its findings. I also thought it was nice how not only did Ian represent the crime scene thoroughly, he also gave a decent response to the significance of DNA analysis and the role it plays in crimes today. He left us with a question that left us thinking, that was could we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I wanted to know what the truth was behind the murder and it is interesting to see that with such advances in technology, a 30-year-old case cannot still be solved.
I would have liked to see a few more details involving the crime scene, so viewers could get a better aspect of what happened. What role specifically did Kevin Brown play? Also it would be interesting to see more deductive reasoning or information regarding the DNA analysis.
I thoroughly enjoyed this current event because it was interesting and left you with a question to debate the reliably of our current science world. I learned that we are still making advances in science today and have yet to solve some of histories most gruesome murders.
I think you did a really good job at pointing out the possible flaws in something that most people think is completely reliable these days. I had not thought about the possibility of tampering with DNA or the uncertainty that the DNA being tested is leading you to the correct suspect.
I was very shocked at the possibility that Tatro could have been imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Also, I found it very coincidental that Kevin Brown worked in a DNA testing center and shortly after being questioned on the case, committed suicide.
I would have liked to know more about what Tatro used to defend himself before being imprisoned and how he ended up being convicted even though there are recent discoveries that he may have been wrongly convicted. Maybe finding what evidence was stronger than that of others questioned that led him to being impriosoned.
I learned that DNA testing is not as reliable as I thought it had been myself. I knew and heard of stories in the news about someone being falsely convicted but I never knew that it could be from a tampering with DNA. I know now that DNA testing is not always an exact way to identify someone and that it has its faults. I would like to learn more about this case and find out if there was ever further evidence as to why some of Kevin Brown's DNA was found on the crime scene, and if Tatro should never have been convicted.
In my personal opinion, i believe that you preformed excellently at explaining risks in the use of DNA testing. I find it quite frightening that an innocent person could be incarcerated wrongly because of faulty or accidentally matched DNA tests.
I think it is very strange that Kevin Brown committed suicide even though Ronald Tantro's blood was found on Claire Hughes clothing.
I think that this case has more to it then people think and would greatly enjoy further researching this unsolved mystery. This article clearly demonstrates that DNA testing may not be as exact and trust worthy then most people think.
This makes me wonder how many people have been wrongly incarcerated due to faulty DNA testing.
In my personal opinion, i believe that you preformed excellently at explaining risks in the use of DNA testing. I find it quite frightening that an innocent person could be incarcerated wrongly because of faulty or accidentally matched DNA tests.
I think it is very strange that Kevin Brown committed suicide even though Ronald Tantro's blood was found on Claire Hughes clothing.
I think that this case has more to it then people think and would greatly enjoy further researching this unsolved mystery. This article clearly demonstrates that DNA testing may not be as exact and trust worthy then most people think.
This makes me wonder how many people have been wrongly incarcerated due to faulty DNA testing.
Having read the article myself, I think that Ian did a good job identifying the key theme of the article: the debate of the reliability of DNA evidence when solving crimes. The main point of the article was hard to follow at times because, as Ian mentioned, the author included lots of detail that only made the article more confusing. I liked that Ian clearly expressed his opinion on how the author could improve the article by cutting out minor details and focusing more on the bigger picture. And so, Ian did a good job balancing relevant details of Claire Hough’s case and the theme that the author of the article was trying to convey to his readers. I also thought it was smart of even to take the main idea of the article and really expand it to apply it to our everyday world. By doing so, Ian points out that DNA analysis flaws not only occurred in Hough’s case, pinning Kevin Brown as a suspect, but also that DNA evidence can be a misleading factor in any other case. Ian did a good job explaining that even though this murder took place 30 years ago, misinterpreting DNA is a completely relevant subject to all of us today. What is unfortunate about DNA evidence is that even though it creates huge possibilities for forensic scientists to solve crimes, it also creates the danger of locking innocent people behind bars it if a person’s innocence cannot be justified beyond the information that the DNA tests provide. In all, Ian did a pretty good job, but I do believe that he was a bit redundant at times. However, I believe his redundancy is as a result of the fact that the author himself did not illustrate his main idea with much explanation besides providing Hough’s case as an example. I also think that at the beginning of the review, it is a bit hard to understand the context of Hough’s case. After reading the article, I was better able to understand Ian’s intentions, but like I said, I needed to read the article to get a better sense of the murder and how Kevin Brown became a target. I enjoyed reading Ian’s review, along with the article because suspicions of the accuracy of DNA testing was applied to a real life case. I was also shocked that a case had been reexamined so many years after the murder itself. I think it is really impressive that unsolved cases never die and that investigators continue to devote their time and effort in seeking justice to the very end.
First off I really think you did a great job explaining how DNA evidence has some flaws that can ultimately wrongly convict someone. Your summary reminded me of the key points the article was trying to make. The idea of DNA testings wrongly convicting someone is mind blowing since you would think that if they found two sets of DNA they could do some research into the two sets before setting one of the two as the prime suspect. You explained the story of Claire Hough very well with including the background of why she was there. You also brought up a lot of good questions that made me reflect and look back at both the article and the review. One thing I think you should have included was the other victim who was found at the beach in a similar fashion to Claire. This information could help the reader make a decision on who was the murderer. Another thing that would have been interesting to add would be how Ronald Tatro reacted to the allegations of this. This made me wonder how many other unsolved crimes were unsolved due to the time period when the crime took place. It also gave me an appreciation of how with new technology, there is more than just one way to find out whether or not a person commit the crime.
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
I found this review to be very interesting by Ian Baxter, the choice of article caught my eye when I first looked at it. The first thing I found enjoyable about this review was the question that it left the reader with. After explaining the story it made the viewer must think to himself can we rely on DNA analysis as a precise way of solving a crime? I found that to be a very fascinating way to end the story. Another thing I thought was well projected in this review is how this related to everyday life, and how Ian used the example of having someone placed in prison for something that was unrelated to them. This is important because DNA analysis is one, if not the most commonly used method in crime laboratories today. Lastly I thought that Ian did a good job of incorporating his thoughts into the review, he had various strong points that swayed my opinion on DNA analysis today. Although the review was phenomenal, I did think that their were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought in the story it was unclear as to the process of DNA analysis, and how they performed the analysis on the body. Another thing is that although you had great ideas towards the article, I thought you could’ve gone into further details on your view of the article. One thing that I learned from the review is that you can never fully rely on one technique for solving a crime. You must go further into the evidence before making any accusations, if you do not do so the wrong person could end up in prison.
Maggie O’Reilly
Ian did a great job reviewing his article, "Can DNA Evidence Solve a 30-Year-Old Crime?". For starters the way he set up the review was well done. He had a brief summary which ended with a question then he went on to answer the questions based on his opinion after reading the article. However, he could have provided a little evidence (i.e a quote) from the article to help strengthen his opinion about DNA testing. He also tied in society, a greater aspect of life into it, but I think he could have helped his argument about how DNA testing may not be that safe still today by mentioning more about DNA testing today rather than just the mishaps from 30 years ago. I enjoyed reading Ian’s review because I didn’t know of this case before. I learned how little DNA testing has changed/ improved. His review and his speculation towards DNA has truly made me curious about how tedious it all is and how easy it is for there to be mishaps causing the wrong person to be accused. The fact that a man was put in jail for having thought killed a girl, but later found innocent is crazy. It surprised me tremendously that he was accused of being guilty all because his DNA transferred from him to her through the table he worked on which her body was examined on. Seems ridiculous that something like that would pass by professionals without question. Overall Ian did a great job, I learned from his review and think he picked a great article.
I found Ian Baxters article interesting because he described in detail about the case of the 14 year old girl who was murdered. He also had pointed out the flaws in the case of DNA analysis and how the tampering of DNA samples can put someone wrongfully in jail. He also described how DNA analysis solves crimes as well as it can put someone in jail that didn’t do the crime. I enjoyed how he explained the article thoroughly and the ways to solve a crime using DNA found at the crime scene. I did think that there were a few things Ian could have done better. I thought some parts of the story needed more description on how DNA does help solve cases and what process it goes under to come out with a final piece. I also think that he should have described how a tampering can affect a court decision after they found out about the DNA tampering. Also, he could have explained what goes on after the court finds out about the tampering, if they do a re-trial, or if they put the person’s who really did the crime right into jail. One thing I learned reading this article was that you can’t rely on science as one factor. You need other evidence to help support your argument because science could be proven wrong sometimes. I chose this article because it was interesting and because he talks about how science shouldn’t be the only thing to rely on when solving a case. It changed my perception on solving a crime because now I know I must have other evidence to back up my argument instead of just science.
Forensics Emma Verscaj
CE #2 9/24/15
I think the he did a good job summarizing this article. He explained the case very well and he even speculated that the case might never be solved due to the suicide of the primary suspect. This article was very long but he summed up the important parts very well (ie: main case, main suspects, how the crime was committed…). I agree with the way he glossed over the gruesome details of the case. He did not subject me to the horrendous mental image I got when I read the original article.
I think the article summary could have been written in a more structured, unambiguous way. After reading the summary I was confused about some things. Did the police find Kevin Brown’s sperm on Claire Hough’s body or did they get a sample in 2012 for DNA comparison? How did it get on the body? Was it while Claire Hough was being attacked or did it happen at the lab when he worked on her body? Another thing that was off-putting was that he spelt Claire’s name three different ways: Hough (correctly); Hughes; Houghes. I thought he was talking about another case when I saw ‘Hughes’. Also, I think he is a bit accusatory when it comes to the crime lab analysts. He says that their work was flimsy and flawed. I believe that they did a wonderful job finding out whose DNA was on the body and they were correct in their findings. They pointed the police to two very probable suspects. I think it was someone else’s job (criminalists or police) to determine how the DNA got into the hands of the analysts. Was it deliberate in Brown’s case? Was it accidental in Tatro’s?
I chose this article summary because it seemed extremely interesting. I agree that DNA analysis is a useful tool to help solve both cold and hot cases but it can also be have a damning effect on an innocent person. If, perchance, an innocent person’s DNA was maliciously intentionally introduced to a crime scene, that person could spend the rest of his or her life in jail. I have different perceptions about solved cases because of DNA evidence. Now, I think that there may be more wrongly convicted people in jail. I feel that police have to use deductive reasoning to figure out if the DNA evidence is appropriate.
- Vlahos, James. "Can DNA Evidence Solve a 30-Year-Old Crime?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. .
Post a Comment