Cindy Kwok
Forensics Current Events
E/F Odd
Marusak, Joe. "D.A. Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case." Charlotteobserver.
N.p., 01 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Oct. 2015.
The article, “ D.A Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case” by Joe Marusak is about how prosecutors are going to retry a man called Timothy Scott Bridges who was sentenced to life in prison in Charlotte, North Carolina because the case against him was shown to be flawed. The same FBI forensic unit who gave flawed testimony for this N.C case was reported by the Washington Post in April to have given incorrect statements for more than 2,500 cases. It was found that out of 28 members of the Forensic microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 gave statement that favored the prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the cases they had reviewed. In the Bridges case, at the crime scene, there were two hairs that were used against Bridges, though now, the FBI uses DNA testing combined with hair examination. Lauren Miller, Bridges’s attorney said, “ If offered today, the hair evidence would be inadmissible, and without the hair evidence there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Bridges.”
This article is important because it shows how there are still ways that we can improve on using evidence and it also shows how much we have improved. This case was back in the 1990’s where the hair was the only evidence against Bridges, while today the FBI go through the evidence more throughly to make sure the right person gets sent to prison.
I think that this article did a nice job recounting the events that happened in this case in 1990’s and explaining the background of what happened. It also did a good job comparing how different the evidence would have been used today. It stated that hairs were what linked Bridges to the murder but his attorney states that today the evidence would not have been enough.
7 comments:
Marusak, Joe. "D.A. Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case." Charlotteobserver. The Charlotte Observer, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Oct. 2015.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article37222038.html?
Cindy did an excellent review on the article, "D.A Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case". She gave a short and to the point summary on how "a man called Timothy Scott Bridges who was sentenced to life in prison in Charlotte, North Carolina" will be undergoing a retrial after "the case against him was shown to be flawed." She then explained how he could have been wrongfully convicted since it was recently discovered that the FBI forensics unit were giving false testimonies to at least 2500 cases for the past two decades until 2000. Cindy shrewdly points out "in the Bridges case, at the crime scene, there were two hairs that were used against Bridges, though now, the FBI uses DNA testing combined with hair examination," so the evidence that put him in jail was not sufficient to do so. In her words, "today the FBI go through the evidence more throughly to make sure the right person gets sent to prison." I also agree to her that this article a great example to see "how different the evidence would have been used today." How could have two strands of hair be used for proper testimony? What if they simply looked uncannily similar? A world without DNA testing relies heavily on guesswork.
As for what I found Cindy's review to be lacking were transitions of each sentences, especially in the first paragraph that seemed to be overwhelmed by data, and recognition of the hardships that this retrial may face. Although it is arguable that her first paragraph is informing enough to present the whole scope of the article, I found it hard to absorb the piling information that the lengthy paragraph consisted. As for how she forgot to include the troubles the court is facing is nonexistent in her review. She should have at least said some judges, despite their intolerance for improper testimony represented by the FBI, find the mistake "not serious enough to call for a new trial," and prosecutors are still determining how they could move forward with the case. It is also noted that "prosecutors and police are trying to find whether any witnesses are still available."
I have chosen Cindy's review because I was unfamiliar with a rape case being retried. I thought a convicted rapist should not be given a second chance but reading the article, I was made aware that Bridges was sentenced a life-time imprisonment just because there were two strands of hair that appeared to be his in the crime scene. Even if he were the offender, how could such obscure evidence convict someone? I hope that DNA-testing and further advanced forensics technology will reveal the ultimate truth and bring peace to the victim's family.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article37222038.html?
In Cindy’s review of “D.A. Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case,” she did a good job presenting the information from the case and explaining why it is significant. I like how she compared how the case was looked at in 1991 and how it is looked at now. She explains how it would have been different now if this kind of case appeared again and how much the technology has changed. I also like how she gave facts about how many people lied to protect the prosecutors and what they used to do it. Finally, I liked how she presented the information- it was clear and straight to the point. Although she had her strengths, there were also parts of the review that could be improved. Cindy could have gone into more detail about the history of the case and who was involved in it. Also, she could have explained the significance of the article better- her response did not really say why the article is significant. I learned a lot from reading this article. The facts surprised me the most and made me wonder about what people would do for money or to win a case: lie. I learned that a FBI forensic unit gave incorrect statements for more than 2,500 cases. This shocked me because they put innocent people in jail were probably bribed for doing so. I was also surprised by how little evidence they had in that case. Today, that would not be enough to put someone in jail. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and Cindy’s review and it taught me a lot about criminal cases and how they are not as truthful as they seem to be.
Cindy did a great job giving us a short and sweet description as to what happened in the case, and why there was going to be a retrial on the man. I thought it was very interesting that the case from almost 20 years ago was being retried. Cindy also did a great job not adding any extra information into her reflection, making it very easy to read and understand. I really enjoyed this article, and thought it was extremely interesting. What stood out the most to me, was how this article shows the different technology and equipment that we have today to use for trial, and what we didn't have in the 1990s. The technology we have today is so helpful because we have all the information needed to convict someone of murder, or rape.
Although Cindy did an awesome job summarizing all the information in just a few sentences, I think it could've been a little longer, and there could be more information about the case. Also, the technology we have today that we didn't have back in the 90s could have been mentioned so we get a better idea for the lack of equipment casing this case to be looked back on. In order for us, as readers, to fully be engaged and interested in the article, there should have been more information presented about the trail.
I decided to read this article because it immediately caught my attention that the case was from the 90s and that was made clear in the opening line. I wanted to keep reading to see why there would be an article written recently about the case which happened a long time ago. I was very interested to see why it was brought back up. I found it very interesting that during this time in the 90s there were over a thousand false trials.
Marusak, Joe. "D.A. Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case." Charlotteobserver. The Charlotte Observer, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Oct. 2015.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article37222038.html?
Cindy did a great job reviewing the article, "D.A Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case." She did particularly well at displaying how this case depicts the times where prosecutors got a case wrong. Mr. Bridges was prosecuted on insufficient information. Cindy also provided enough facts and quotes from the article to understand the general case. She did also manage to be concise in her summary and not ramble on with too many details. It was straight to the point and maintained the fascinating nature of the original article.
She could have provided a bit more detail into why the hair evidence was inadmissible in a court of law. That seemed to be a pretty key part of information in the article in showing why Mr. Bridges was being given a retrial. She also could have avoided restating information. There were a few points and facts that she rephrased or changed slightly and repeated again.
I found the article very interesting however it was also rather unnerving. The fact that a man could have been imprisoned for life for something he didn’t do is horrible to think about. It also makes me think about how many other people in prison may have been wrongfully accused.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article37222038.html?
Marusak, Joe. "D.A. Agrees to Retry Man in 1991 Charlotte Rape Case."Charlotteobserver.
Cindy Kwok’s current review was very well written and based upon a very intriguing case while relating to topics that are also being studied in class. For instance, she reviews a quote in order to prove that evidence is everything, and only a certain amount can be enough to prove the suspect guilty or not guilty of a case. Her example was, “Lauren Miller, Bridges’s attorney said, ‘If offered today, the hair evidence would be inadmissible, and without the hair evidence there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Bridges.’” The handling of evidence is crucial since it can mean the difference between a fair trial and an unfair one. Thankfully, Kwok allowed the readers to review important information regarding how forensics should handle cases based on the comparisons between what they were capable of doing before and what they are capable of doing now. For example, she states, “This case was back in the 1990’s where the hair was the only evidence against Bridges, while today the FBI go through the evidence more thoroughly to make sure the right person gets sent to prison.” Her current event is precise with a lot of details and citations from her article and brings up many valid points. Taking statistics directly from the article, Kwok managed to emphasize her points: “The same FBI forensic unit who gave flawed testimony for this N.C case was reported by the Washington Post in April to have given incorrect statements for more than 2,500 cases.” Not only that, the current event she wrote was coherent and adhered properly to conventional writing standards because there were very few writing errors, aside from a lack of variation in her sentence structure.
Although Cindy’s current event was well-written, there were two problems that should be addressed. First of all, the summary paragraph was great, but it brought up a lot of points that the article had already brought up. She even includes a quote that makes the point for her, using, “Lauren Miller, Bridges’s attorney said, ‘If offered today, the hair evidence would be inadmissible, and without the hair evidence there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Bridges.’” While using a lot of citations and information from the article can enhance an article, Kwok will need to keep in mind that it cannot solely make her article, though the second and third paragraph indicate that she has avoided it. However, her second and third paragraphs bring up the disproportionate lengths between them and the first paragraph, with citations and details from the article substantiating the latter. As a result, even though Cindy Kwok is an excellent writer, there are many ways she can present her arguments more effectively.
Above all, however, it was really pleasing to see someone who wrote as well as her. She chose an unusual case that detailed the circumstances behind a retrial, and retrials are a tricky subject to work with, whether one is the writer of an article or of a current event regarding an article. Since this is surely a first, it is obvious that Cindy has set a trail regarding this type of case ablaze, and there is no reason why this current event should have not been chosen to review. Overall, her review had a lot of valid points, excellent citation and adequate analysis. Without a doubt, many readers will come back to review her current event the next time she has her turn again.
Post a Comment