"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May
2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
Generally when observing marks on a corpse they can indicate violence and therefore be recognized as a murder. There is also a chance that the marks on the body have been made by legions of insects. Dr. Stefano Vanin, a forensic scientist, has made some valuable discoveries, which will help crime scene investigators find out if the injuries on the body were caused by a killer or by insects. A lot of times insects will go over a corpse and “deposit marks which mimic the effects of a punch,” so it can sometimes be difficult to determine whether the injury was made by a killer or an insect and so it is vital for detectives to determine the differences between insect damage and wounds that a killer made. Dr. Vanin starts to investigate what kind of damage happens to a corpse underwater. A 28 year old male was found in River Brenta in Italy. It turned out that this man drowned and there were some witnesses that said he was struggling in the water. There were no signs of injuries on the body, but during the autopsy small abrasions on the upper eyelids were discovered. These injuries were caused by many amphipods. Dr. Vanin was now able to record the post mortal damage that was caused by the amphipods. The records will be helpful for future cases that involve a body being recovered from fresh water since there are explanations for the different markings on the body.
Determining the difference between wounds inflicted by a murderer and by insects is significant because if forensic scientists see wounds on a corpse then they will most likely think that a murder was committed. When sometimes the death is either natural or accidental and the wounds are created by insects. So some wounds on bodies can be very misleading and lead a case in the wrong direction.
The article was really interesting to read. I found the article to be informative, and the record created by Dr. Vanin will help identify if the bodies wounds are caused by insects or a killer if they are pulled out from fresh water, which will definitely help future cases. Overall, the article was fascinating and easy to understand.
11 comments:
I read Emily Kowalski’s review of how forensic scientists are using insects to track crimes. Emily did a great job of starting of her review with a captivating sentence that grabbed readers into her review. I immediately wasn’t bored because I wanted to know what she was talking about. Emily also did a great job of using a specific crime to help visualize the topic being discussed in the article and how it pertains to real life crime scenes. Lastly, Emily did a good job of bringing up the topic of accidental deaths and how some abrasions are sometimes confused for murder when they are from insect wounds.
What I would have liked to have seen from Emily was more of an opinion from herself on the topic. Other than saying that the article was informative and interesting, what about it made it informative and interesting? Also, there were some grammar errors that needed to be looked over.
I really enjoyed reading Emily’s review because it was a topic that isn’t really talked about a whole lot in forensic science. Insects can play a major role in crime scenes and can sometime make or break a case so it is important to learn more about insects in crime scenes.
Emily Kowalski wrote a fantastic summary about how forensic scientists are using insects to track down criminals. She had a great blend of factual information, and opinionated content. She did a great job of summarizing the article into a good length and very informative article. Emily could possibly use some information from outside sources in order to create a more complete piece of literature.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
Emily did a great job at picking an interesting article. The relation of insects and forensic science was extremely relevant, especially based off of the insect labs that we have already done in class. She was also particularly good at integrating quotes, where she talked about how “insects will go over a corpse and ‘deposit marks which mimic the effects of a punch’” which was effective, yet concise. She also gave a good example of how this research came about with the case of the drowning man, where cuts were discovered on the eyelids and it was found to be amphipods. This gave some background on how this part of forensic science came to be and why it is relevant.
The review could have benefited from examples of when a case had gone in the complete wrong direction because of insect abrasions. This would have strengthened her argument as to why this is relevant. She was also a bit repetitive with a couple sentences that were very similar and perhaps could have either been cut or replaced by a new thought or different idea.
The article was very interesting and I did not realize that wounds caused by insects could be mistaken for wounds caused by a murderer. That adds a whole extra layer to a potential murder investigation. It seems weird to have to consider bugs as a possible culprit.
“Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
I think you did an excellent job of captivating your reader through the summary. I also think your inclusion of the relevance, that Dr. Vanin is finding out if the injuries on the body were caused by a killer or by insects, was so early in the summary. This added to the ability to easily follow the summary you laid out for us. Your summary was also very well laid out; introduce the goal, the struggles, and then the procedure/ overcoming the goals. Although I think at times you may have simplified the summary a little too much, if you had added a little more analysis of the process Dr. Vanin is doing it would have made the summary more stronger by adding your voice into it. I also think you could have found something to critique about the article to make your summary stronger. Overall great job! I love that you added a specific story in there, it made it easier to connect to!
Emily did a nice job summarizing the article and explaining how forensic scientists use insects to track criminals. Emily grabbed my attention right off the bat, and did a nice job explaining all the information to make sure the audience was engaged in the interesting topic she chose. Emily did a nice job finding specific crimes to help visualize the topic being discussed in the article. Emily also did a nice job finding research that helped figure out the case of the drowning man, where cuts were found on the eyelids and in the amphipods. Although emily did a nice job finding a lot of detail and information, if she included more personal opinions or more relevant information it would have strengthened her paper. There were a few grammatical errors, and the information got a little repetitive, but other than a few little errors, it was an interest article to have read. I was unaware of the conflict between wounds of an insect and a murderer and how they could be mistaken for each other, which happens frequently.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
I thought Emily did a great review of the article on how forensic scientists are using insects to determine the marks. She was well informed and opinionated, which were demonstrated throughout the review. I didn’t feel as though I was reading summary because she wrote it in a casual way while promptly executing the facts. Emily also did a good job of giving an example related to an article of a crime to help visualize the topic being discussed in the article and how it pertains to real life crime scenes. Lastly, she didn’t forget to discuss accidental deaths, and that some abrasions are sometimes confused for murder when they are in fact insect wounds.
What I wanted from this review was more analysis of the process Dr. Vanin used and her critique about the article. It also could have been better if she gave her thoughts on specifically on the insects.
I overall enjoyed reading Emily’s review because we don’t necessarily think that insects have the power to make marks that could confuse the investigators. I didn’t know their strength was enough “deposit marks which mimic the effects of a punch.” Insects and their traces are essential in crime scenes and can sometime influence greatly, enough to tell the story of crime scenes.
Citation —
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
I thought that Emily's review was pretty good overall, the topic was interesting which made the review much more interesting to read. I thought that the review included just enough information from the article to help the reader better understand the importance of the article, as well as keep them informed. I also thought that Emily did a good job at giving an example related to an article of a crime, this helped the reader better understand the relevance of the article's topic. If I were to suggest any improvements for this review, I would say make it just a little bit longer. Another suggestion I would give is to include more information from the article, although you did a good job at this, it would be a small improvement. I found this technology really interesting and I think that it could make a difference in forensic technology in the future.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May
2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
The article that Emily reviewed, “Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders,” was well written and was on a fascinating topic, in which insects could cause marks on a corpse that resemble those of violent acts. If it was found that insects do cause marks like this, some supposed murder cases may have to be reevaluated because the death may have been caused from something else. In her article, Emily included a quote directly from the article, which enhanced the overall argument. Also, she added an example of a situation in which a body had been discovered in the River Brenta in Italy. Although there were no visible marks on the body of any aggression (witnesses say that he had been struggling), during autopsy abrasions were found on the corpse’s eyelids, which were later found to be caused by amphipods.
However, there were some grammatical issues within the review, along with problems with sentence structure. This impedes the fluidity of the review. Also, the structure of the first sentence made it confusing to read and understand what it was saying, which causes readers to have to read it multiple times. Otherwise, the topic was easy to comprehend, and it was an informative review.
It is very interesting to find out that marks on a corpse may be caused by insects in the post-mortem stages that sometimes resemble markings of a committed murder. Science and perspectives on certain ideas/beliefs are constantly changing, as seen specifically in the study of forensic science and in this particular review.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May
2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
I read the review of “Forensic Scientist Tracks the CRime Scene Invaders”, by Emily. She did a good job describing the article in a way for me to understand it. She explained how when you observe marks on a corpse that they are the indication of what had happened. For example, she says that the marks on a corpse can indicate violence and can be recognized as a murder. She also talked about how Dr. Stefano Vanin, a forensic scientist, made discoveries which will help investigators find out if the injuries on the body were caused by a killer or insects. The reason why insects could be a determination of death because insects will go over a corpse which deposits marks and make is difficult to determine whether the injury had been caused by a killer or the insect. Another thing I thought Emily did well was that she discussed the difference between wounds inflicted by a murderer and by insects. She said that the death could be natural but when insects go over it and cause marks that could look like injuries to crime scene investigators could make them believe that a murder was committed. Another thing I thought Emily did well was that she put her own opinion in. She said that the article was really interesting to read and informative which shows me insight to the article. Even though Emily did a good job reviewing the article, there were a few things that could be improved. One thing I saw was that she never described anything negative about the article which isn’t terrible if she didn’t see anything, but there is always something in a piece of information that could not sound right or your opinion could be negative towards it. Another thing I thought Emily could have done better on was the information given to her. I wasn’t exactly sure how Dr. Vanin had discovered ways in telling the difference between wound inflicted by a murderer and by insects. Also, I think that Emily could have described how a small insect could be able to leave wounds the size a murderer could inflict. I enjoyed reading her review because it taught me more information that I can include in my forensic investigations. I learned that insects can inflict wounds that could possibly look like a wound that a murderer could leave. I also learned that if you don’t do your research of the body, than you could end up putting an innocent person in jail for being charged with murder when it could have been a natural death, but insects could have left wounds on the body. Overall I thought Emily did a good job on the article!
Emily did a nice job describing the article in a very cohesive way. It was easy to follow and understand. She was able to explain how the marks on a corpse can help detect what happened in the crime scene which is extremely relevant and interesting. Emily talked about Dr. Stefano Vanin, who is a forensic scientist, and how he made discoveries which help investigators find out if the injuries on the body were caused by a killer or by something else, such as an insect. Another reason Emily did such a nice job was because she was able to explain the different between wounds inflicted by a murderer and by an insect. One area to improve for Emily would be some issues with the article, and areas for the article to improve or expand on. Part of the response needs to include how the article could be better, which was not mentioned. I liked this review, and enjoyed reading it. I learned about different wounds and how they are mistaken for a murderer or an insect, which is crucial. Nice job emily!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May
2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
Emily chose a great article to review. I think your summary was very well detailed and got your readers attention. The information in your review was very relevant when talking about the relation between insects and forensic science. You also threw in some quotes that furthered your review even more. Even though you did a great job, I felt that if you had put more of your own opinion/voice into it, your review would have stood out even more. Also I wish there was more of an analysis of the process Dr. Vanin used. Overall, I think Emily did a great job reviewing this article and I found it very interesting.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511101345.htm
"Forensic Scientist Tracks the Crime Scene Invaders." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 May 2012. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
Post a Comment