The article, “DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen’s 1965 Murder” by Seth Augenstein, tells of yet another cold case in which new technology of today has confirmed the suspect of a rape and murder that occurred decades ago. The body of Mary Agnes Klinsky--an eighteen-year-old--was found along the Garden State Parkway on September 16th, 1969, naked, beaten, and raped. It was discovered that her cause of death was by multiple skull fractures due to blunt-force trauma. Klinsky had been quickly identified because of the ring that she wore with her initials, “MAK.” Today’s technology that has the ability to “amplify DNA samples,” which had been found on the pieces of evidence, was critical in solving this cold case. During the year of the murder, potential suspects and witnesses had been questioned, but no arrests were conducted. With twenty-first century technology, the profile of Robert Zarinsky, titled as “perhaps the most infamous suspected serial killer in New Jersey history,” was quickly connected to the Klinsky case.
What had gained Zarinsky this title of being “one of [New Jersey’s] most notorious serial killers” were his brutal murders of teenaged girls. He was convicted to serve a life sentence for the murder of Rosemary Calandriello in 1975, who was from the Atlantic Highlands and was killed in 1969. Although Zarinsky died in South Woods State Prison in 2008 at the age of sixty-eight, he was indicted for the murder of Jane Durrua, a thirteen-year-old girl, in 1968. Not only this, but he was also a suspect in a series of unsolved murders, in which teenage girls between the ages of fourteen and seventeen suffered severe beatings to their faces, causing their deaths from 1969 to 1974. This pattern was also seen in Klinsky’s murder.
Authorities, on the Klinsky case, had “never [been] entirely sure until the latest DNA results.” The convictions of perpetrators for crimes that had committed decades prior that have been appearing in the news lately are due to the rapid advancement of forensic technology. Today, detectives and forensic scientists have the capability to reopen cold cases or unsolved crimes that contain DNA evidence and rightfully sentence the criminals that had previously escaped justice. Now--in the case of the murder of Mary Agnes Klinsky--more than five decades later, the Klinsky family has been “provided closure” in “know[ing] who killed their sister” back in the fall of ‘65.
The author of this article, Seth Augenstein, did an excellent job in pulling in readers and keeping the interest high throughout the entire article. It is amazing that technology nowadays can aid in resurrecting cold cases that required more advanced techniques than what its particular time period could offer. However, the overall article lacked a focus on the DNA discovery that ultimately led to the closure of the Klinsky case, although it was the main point in the title. Augenstein did mention that the “technology for amplifying DNA samples” that had led to Zarinsky’s profile had not been clarified; the circumstances were the same for any questions about which evidence the DNA samples had originated from. Also, the article had been hard to follow while first reading it. It jumped from the discovery of Klinsky’s body to the background of Zarinsky, which is important to understand his pattern of his murders, but there were also some quotes by New Jersey’s officials that seemed slightly out of place. As a reader, based on the title, there was the expectation to be more written about the DNA evidence, and perhaps more about the forensic technology of the 1960s compared to today’s. Also, it would have helped to have more information about the original search for the criminal of the case back when it had been committed. Otherwise, the general message of this article stresses the rapid advancement in today’s technological world that can greatly aid in solving previously cold cases.
"DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen's 1965 Murder." Forensic Magazine. N.p., n.d.
Web. 22 Feb. 2016. <http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/02/dna-links-suspected-serial-killer-nj-teens-1965-murder>.
9 comments:
"DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen's 1965 Murder." Forensic Magazine. N.p., n.d.
Web. 22 Feb. 2016. .
This current event was very interesting. First of all, the paragraphs themselves were very well written, almost as if reading a story. It was very convenient that Sara told us background on the serial killer. This made the article review more interesting to read. Also, I like how she informed us on what the authorities were thinking, because these convictions are very important in a crime scene. I would have liked to see more of why the serial killer was doing what he was doing. Also, more of Saraś opinion would have been nice. From reading this article and article review, I was impressed by the technology we have now in days. Klinsky had been quickly identified because of the ring that she wore with her initials, “MAK.” It is major that todayś technology can help a handful. It helped in this case specifically because it was able to Today’s technology “amplify DNA samples,” which had been found on the pieces of evidence.
I found this current event on the article, "DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J Teen's 1965 Murder," to perfectly explain the important details of the murder of this teen girl for instance how her death had similarities to other murders around the same time. I also think that Sara did a good job bringing up how even though the detectives might have seen links between the murders, back then they did not have the technology for DNA testing that they have today. I also thought that it was smart to discuss how the article didn't address the DNA testing enough because I also feel that it would have been beneficial for the DNA testing in the 1960's to be compared to todays technology advancements. One way in which the review could have been made better is if you went into a little more detail on who this serial killer was and his background. I also think that the current event could have been improved if the girls murder was discussed a little more into depth. Overall, I found it interesting to learn that the technology we have today is being used to solve cold cases and bring some of the families of these victims justice.
Emme Kerj
Current event 14 comment
Sara, I thought you did a really good job summarizing the article and all of the main points. You really told the whole story throughout your review which made it really interesting to read and I felt as if I was reading the actual article. You also did a great job criticising the article and I agreed with all of your points, especially about the article being somewhat confusing since it never really went into depth about what it was with the DNA that helped the authorities convict the suspect.
I definitely think that you should have explained what exactly it was that the forensics team did later on that changed the case and caused the murderer to be convicted. I didn’t read anything about that until the end and even then you didn’t explain it that thoroughly which made it somewhat confusing since you stated that that was the main point in the beginning of your review.
It surprised me to read that authorities sometimes open up old cases in order to retest the DNA and other evidence. It also made me think about all of the possible testing that will be invented in the future since the amount that forensic scientists are able to do today is so much greater and more precise than it was in the sixties.
Citation:
"DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen's 1965 Murder." Forensic Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. .
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/02/dna-links-suspected-serial-killer-nj-teens-1965-murder
Sara Conway's current event review was very thorough. It was impressive how Conway managed to connect her relevance paragraph with examples from her article. Visibly, it almost seems as if her review was longer than the article and just as substantiated. Although the writing is far from perfect, Conway's writing has a smooth flow and solid form to it and it felt even more compelling than the article to read. Thirdly, it is easy to point out that Sara has made many valid criticisms regarding the article. The one that hit hard the most was the lack of explanation of the advancements in technology regarding DNA which have made it much easier to solve cold cases.
Despite this, there are a couple of improvements that can be made. Although she cites a lot from the article, it feels as if her quotes dominate the review instead of an actual review. The summary should not be so long; it is assumed and expected that all commenters must read the article before assessing any current event. However, this is a recent trend and affects more than just Sara Conway's article; this is an admonition for all. Last but not least, it is also important to make note that there are a few minor errors. For instance, Conway states, "Authorities, on the Klinsky case, had 'never [been] entirely sure until the latest DNA results.'" She is missing her dialogue tag, said. Despite this being really minor nitpicking, it is always possible for similar and much more impacting mistakes to be made. While it is important to be concise and to the point, one must always take care to proofread and proofread again to ensure that a current event is as polished, comprehensive, and effective as possible.
Overall, Conway's review was really impressive. As always, she takes care to substantiate her current event review with as much information from the article as she can. This method is always bound to attract readers. Also, it is a noticeable trend that more reviewers are forgetting to include their proper citations and/or hyperlinks to the article . As a result, hopefully, the fact that this current event was selected makes a statement that all should follow Sara Conway's example.
Sara did a great thorough review of the article. She masterfully summarized it, making it interesting enough to read as though it were an actual article. She also didn’t forget to critique the article. She pointed out that the article a little scattered, and that it never didn’t flesh out on what it was with the DNA that helped the law authorities.
Despite her splendid job, there are a few of aspects where she could work on. Firstly, it was not necessary for the summary to be that long. Secondly, it seemed as though the amount of quotes she cited from the article both overwhelmed and undermined the review. Finally, she should have explained what exactly it was that the forensic researchers did that affected the case, causing the murderer to be convicted.
Overall, Sara did an impressive review. It was fascinating that authorities sometimes revisit old cases with the support of modern technology. Not only did it make me wonder how more we could advance in technology, but also how the crimes will be committed from now on with the strengthening securities.
Sara I really enjoyed your review of the article “DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen’s 1965 Murder.” There were a few things that stood out. One, I really liked your summary. It was straight to the point and concise enough so that I understood the article. Two, I liked how you quoted directly from the article. This easily strengthened your review. Three, you did a great job criticizing the author. I agree that “ it would have helped to have more information about the original search for the criminal of the case back when it had been committed.”
Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, I wish you explained more about what happened to cause the team to change their case and have the murderer convicted. Two, you did a good job of criticizing the article, but I would have liked to see more of your own opinion expressed in your review.
One thing I found interesting was how advanced our technology has become. I didn’t know authorities would reopen cases to retest DNA samples. Who knows what other cases could now be solved.
I thought that Sara overall did a great job with her current event review. One of the things that I liked about her review in particular was the fact that she left no details out of the article. She told the full events of the article, to make it a clear read. Another thing I liked about this review was that she reviewed the article in an interesting yet concise manner. I was intrigued to continue reading throughout the review, and thought that Sara did a great job at keeping the reader interested. Finally, I liked Sara’s review on the writing style of the article was very to the point and excellent. She was able to critique the author’s writing in an interesting and proper way.
While I thought that overall this was a great article review, one of the things that I thought could have been improved upon was better discussing the relevance of the article to the modern forensics world. Another thing she could have improved on was discussing the serial killer’s motive a little bit better and more thoroughly.
I was fascinated to discover after reading this article and Sara’s review that forensic scientists can open up old cases to solve the crime given new technology with DNA and other such modern forensic technologies. Overall this was an excellent review on a very interesting article.
"DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen's 1965 Murder." Forensic Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. .
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/02/dna-links-suspected-serial-killer-nj-teens-1965-murder
Sara’s review of the article “DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen’s 1965 Murder” was very interesting to read. There were many things Sara did which i liked more than others. Specifically, Sara did a phenomenal job of criticizing the author of the article. Secondly, I liked how she took quotes directly from the article, it definitely helped to strengthen the review. Lastly, her summary was straight to the point and concise enough so that I understood the article, but no too short. Although the review was great, there are two things which could have helped it. First, while she criticized the article well, I felt like Sara could have expressed her own opinion on the topic a little more. And secondly, Sara could have explained more about what happened to cause the team to change their case and have the murderer convicted. One thing I found interesting, which i hadn’t know, was that since the advancement with technology authorities will reopen cases to retest DNA samples. it’s crazy to think of the cases that now can be solved, and amazing that cases can be reopen so many years later.
"DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J. Teen's 1965 Murder." Forensic Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2016. .
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/02/dna-links-suspected-serial-killer-nj-teens-1965-murder
I think that Sara did a good job bringing up how even though the detectives might have seen links between the murders, back then they did not have the technology for DNA testing that they have today. I found this current event on the article, "DNA Links Suspected Serial Killer to N.J Teen's 1965 Murder," to perfectly explain the important details of the murder of this teen girl for instance how her death had similarities to other murders around the same time. I also thought that it was smart to discuss how the article didn't address the DNA testing enough because I also feel that it would have been beneficial for the DNA testing in the 1960's to be compared to todays technology advancements. One way in which the review could have been made better is if you went into a little more detail on who this serial killer was and his background. I also think that the current event could have been improved if the girls murder was discussed a little more into depth. Overall, I found it interesting to learn that the technology we have today is being used to solve cold cases and bring some of the families of these victims justice.
Post a Comment