The article I read was called “New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report”. It discussed how a team at Texas A&M University discovered a fatal flaw in the forensic report for the JFK assassination. In the original testimony, FBI agent Dr. Vincent P. Guinn said, “there is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence that there are two.” His problem is that when looking at the bullets found on the crime scene, he only looked at the chemical make up. Clifford Spiegelman, one of the lead authors of the study and his team, used the same technique that would have been used by the 1979 FBI officer called neutron activation analysis. It is used to find the elements contained in a material, and is the only process Guinn used when he claimed that the bullets were chemically unique. Back in the day, FBI agents would say that if bullets had the same chemical makeup then they most likely came from the same source, i.e. the same box. However today it has been proven that this assumption is incorrect and very unlikely to happen. This is because they believed that bullets had the same chemical make up from being made to being fired, which is not true. They could have tested this but decided not to, which is how the testimony has been proven to be flawed. Spiegelman is not saying that there is a second shooter, and he is not saying that there is not a second shooter. He’s just saying that the idea can’t be ruled out completely on chemical analysis alone.
This article is relevant because this moment was very important to American history, and to think that there are pieces missing is astounding considering we thought we've had the whole story for over 50 years. If there really was a second shooter, we don’t really have the resources to find out anymore. In addition, this supposed second shooter could be long dead.
What I liked about this article was that they were able to thoroughly explain why the original testimony was false. They were able to go into detail about the process and show how even if they were to use the technology available in 1979 then they could still have come to this conclusion. It makes the FBI almost seem lazy and desperate to find a suspect. I wish they would have gone into more detail about the idea of a second shooter and theories of maybe who they could be. Also I would have liked hearing the perspective of other people who worked on this rather than just Mr. Spiegelman.
Allocca, Sean. "New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report." Forensic Magazine. N.p., 26 Jan. 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/01/new-forensic-analysis-shoots-holes-jfk-assassination-report
6 comments:
Emma, I really enjoyed your review of the article “New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report.” There were a few things that stood out. One, I liked your summary. It was concise enough to learn the topic but not too long with unneeded facts. Two, I liked how you mentioned background information such as from the “1979 case.” This information helped to provide relevance to current times. This background information also helps to inform the reader who is hearing this content for the first time. Three, I thought your critique of the article was great. I liked how you explained that the officials who worked on the case in 1979 should have still been able to correctly determine what happened. You are showing a weak point of the FBI.
Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, I wish you added one or two more quotes directly from the article. You have one, but if you had added a quote from a person who is talking about this embarrassment. This could have enhanced your review. Two, I wish you went a little more into depth about how Spiegelman discovered a flaw or why they thought something was wrong in the first place.
One thing that amazed me from this article, is that this event is told so often, and that what we think happened, might actually be falsely stated. As Emma states, this is important because we can’t really do anything about it if our facts are wrong. Again, I really enjoyed your review.
I read the review of the article “New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report” by Emma Verscaj. The article that she read was about a team at the Texas A&M University had found a flaw in the forensic report for the JFK assassination. It was about the original testimony FBI agent had given which she said that the article said “there is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence that there are two”. I think her including the quote was very good with describing her article and the point of what she was trying to write. Another detail that I thought Emma did well was including her own opinion about if the article was relevant and if it was important. She said it was important to American history and I 100% believe her because with this knew knowledge there are missing pieces to an event that happened 50 years ago which could change our view of the event. She discussed that the problem of the FBI agent was that he didn’t say there was a second shooter, but didn’t say there wasn’t, he just said that the idea can’t be ruled out because the forensic investigators did not do a neutron activation analysis. One area of improvement I would say for Emma would be to elaborate on her guess of what would happen if they did figure out 50 years later that the forensics were wrong and that there had been a second shooter. Another area of improvement I saw would be for her to talk more about the article and give more detail about what the article had done wrong in giving this information. I learned a lot from this article because I never knew that there could have been a second shooter. I always had thought that the stuff in the textbooks had to be right, but it could have been all wrong. This changed my perception on this event in history, because there could be another person out in the world right now that shot JFK and no one knows about it. It also changed the way I view textbooks and history because there could be more to a story/event that we might not have been able to figure out back in the day, but are able to figure it out now.
Emma, I chose your review to examine since the article you chose seemed very interesting. You used a quote from the article to provided evidence to what you were saying and back up the claim. You did this very well in your summary. Another thing you did well in was adding your voice to the review. What you said was relevant to the article and shows what the FBI should have been “capable” of doing back in the 79’. Lastly, you talk about the case itself, providing knowledge to those who do not know what happened. Even though you used a quote to backup your review, it would have been more powerful if you added another FBI agent’s opinion on the case. If Emma included her opinion on what would have happened if the evidence was wrong and how would it affect the case. You chose a great article to review. This really changed how I think of the case since what we think happened, could have not happened at all. Overall, good job.
Allocca, Sean. "New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report." Forensic Magazine. N.p., 26 Jan. 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/01/new-forensic-analysis-shoots-holes-jfk-assassination-report
I enjoyed reading the review of and the article “New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report,” and liked many things about the review. First, I liked how Emma quoted an FBI agent who worked on the case and examined the bullets, this made the review come to life and helped the reader understand the issue more. Also, I liked how Emma referenced to and describe the neutron activation analysis, which is used to find the elements contained in a material, and then described that this was the only process that the investigator used to analyze the bullets. This stressed the importance of this process on this discovery and investigation. Lastly, I liked how the authors of the review and the article thoroughly explained how the discoveries found during this case were false, they clearly explained the details about the process and made this story more relevant. Although this review presented good aspects, it did have its bad aspects.
First, I did not like how the author of the review went straight to talking about the discovery of this false assumption instead of talking about the background of the JFK case first. I was kind of confused when reading this review because I did not have any background information on the original case. Also, I did not like how Emma did not go further into detail about the new investigation, like how this idea of it being false came up again in the criminal world. This would have made me understand the review better. But, the article and review were both good and well written and I understood both.
I learned many new things when reading this review. First, I learned what the neutral activation analysis was and how it was used in this investigation. Also, I learned how bullets were examined, through its chemical make up. But also, that investigating a bullet’s chemical make up was not enough to prove an investigation and conclude a case. Lastly, I learned that investigations that occurred back when this investigation was dealt with did not always have the right materials and technology to complete a case with the truth, so not every investigation was true. This changed my understanding by making me question the investigations and that every one is not always truthful. Overall, I enjoyed reading both the article and investigation and learned many new things.
I enjoyed reading Emma’s review of the article, “New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Reports.” The summary of the article was very clear and made simple for us to understand. There was also sufficient background information that helped us understand the history of the case. While this is a very well known event in history, not all people know much about the case itself which was very interesting to hear about. Emma’s critique was also interesting to read and hear her opinion.
While I enjoyed the review, I would have liked to heard a few more details about the case. Because this is a topic I am interested in myself it would have been great to hear even more background on the case and the article’s findings. I was very surprised that we still do not know for certain what the events of this day were. There is much skepticism about who assassinated JFK and I am surprised that despite the technology we have today that we still are not able to find out more about the case.
Allocca, Sean. "New Forensic Analysis Shoots Holes in the JFK Assassination Report." Forensic Magazine. N.p., 26 Jan. 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/01/new-forensic-analysis-shoots-holes-jfk-assassination-report
Emma Verscaj’s review of her current event was very thorough. There are many good aspects of her review but three of them particularly stand out. The first thing Emma did right was bringing more to the table. She went beyond just reading the article; she also researched about the subject matter. For instance, Verscaj discusses neutron activation analysis, which was never included in the article before. Secondly, she provides a lot of analysis. Her second paragraph is shorter than her summary, yes, but all of it presents valid points of analysis.. Although, perhaps there is a way to find out whether there was a second killer, as long as the physical evidence from the case is still intact. Regardless, her commentary still stands. Last but not least, Verscaj actually presents an opinion in her significance paragraph. No offense is meant but she words her point of view strongly despite how gracelessly and casually worded it was, and that is remarkable. Most people just dangle one flimsy statement in front of the commentators about their opinions. A review is like an editorial; one must provide some substance to their opinion.
While Emma Verscaj hits all of the criteria for perfect content, her writing style was less than perfect (but comprehensive at least). She throws around ambivalent language such as “I wish” and “I would have liked”. Despite being such a great writer, she needs some conviction for her great ideas and opinions! Also, there really is no need for her to start her sentences with phrases such as “What I liked about this article…” It is understood she is trying to make a point and fit the criteria of a proper review but it actually does not add much to her review. It does not add to sentence variation or anything; to some degree, it looks as if minimal effort was put into starting such a sentence even though there were much shorter and simpler sentence starters she could have utilized with less energy.
Nonetheless, these are nitpicks and are not meant to be taken that seriously. The fact that there was so little to critique on means that Emma Verscaj definitely did something right. She attracted someone with a short, precise review that still was interesting and engaging. Talking about a topic so personal to many people while holding nothing back is no small feat.
Post a Comment