Emme Kerj
Current event 15 article review
The article I read explains how a case about a man who was convicted of raping and murdering a 10 year old girl in 1990 is being reopened again. The man was convicted based on the evidence of one hair being found at the crime scene however it was later on determined that the hair did not originate from a “negroid” but rather a man who has a “caucasoid” mother so it could not have come from the suspect. The man’s lawyers therefore claimed that they needed more evidence in order to rightfully convict the suspect however all evidence had been destroyed after the trial. When the man’s lawyer’s kept calling different judges they later found out that a woman had a bag of evidence left. The lawyer’s now expect the evidence to be processed on March 28th for further testing.
This article is extremely relevant to the scientific and criminalist community since it shows that science can bring light to evidence over time since techniques are always being improved and new ways of testing evidence might be invented. It also shows how important it is to test every piece of evidence in a case in other to rightfully convict someone. The article also challenges beliefs that a suspect can be convicted with only one piece of hair and as we have learned in class, most hair found at the crime scene is in the talogen stage so it does not contain a significant amount of DNA.
I thought this article did a good job explaining the process that the lawyers went through trying to find more evidence however they did not explain why this bag of evidence had never been tested. It was really unclear as to why evidence had been destroyed after the trial and how a judge could convict someone based on only one piece of hair when that piece of hair also contradicted that the suspect was guilty.
Works cited:
Augenstein, Seth. "Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing." Forensic Magazine. Forensic Magazine, 25 Feb. 2016. Web. 02 Mar. 2016. <http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing>.
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
4 comments:
In Emma’s critique / review of the article “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing, I really liked how she explained the background of the case. She mentioned what happened (man raped and killed a 10-year old girl), the date it happened, and the reason the case is being reopened. I agree with Emma when she stated that it is not enough to convict someone based off of one piece of evidence and all of them should have been tested. I liked the way Emma connected this article to what we are learning in class at the moment (how there isn't a lot of DNA in hair during the telogen stage). The third part of the critique that I liked was Emma’s critique of the actual article. She explained both good and bad aspects of the article and I agree with her on every point.
Something the article could clarify was why the case is being reopened. I know that it is because the hair sample did not match, but it would be nice to know what went wrong with the first testing. Did the investigators only test it once and convicted the suspect just based on that evidence? Another thing that could have been more in depth was why investigators didn’t feel like it was necessary to test the additional evidence. To add on to this point, it would enhance the article if several quotes and descriptions from investigators who worked on the case were incorporated somehow. The quotes are mainly from people who are in the Innocence project, who are trying to free the suspect. To have quotes from the investigator would help readers see the other side to the problem.
I thought this was interesting because it shows how old cases can reappear based on the evidence that has been found. It shows the way investigators need to be more careful during their tests because a single mistake could potentially put an innocent person in jail for life sentences. This article also highlighted the importance of what we are learning in class.
Emme did a great job in presenting this article. She summarized the article very well, giving a brief but detailed summary of the case and why it was being re-opened. Emme also did a great job in picking an article that is relevant to our forensics class. She used references to notes we have talked about in class, talking about how DNA is not best found in the telogen phase. Emme also did a great job in explaining the relevance of this article to the science community. She explained how new science techniques are helping to rightfully convict people as well as help to challenge old ideas.
If I were to suggest anything to Emme it would be to ask what her opinion is on the case and have her suggest different ideas to help solve the case, in her critique paragraph. I also would have liked to know why a case that is 20 years old is being re-opened and where did they find the woman’s purse?
I particularly enjoyed this review and it is probably my favorite one so far, probably because it is not only an interesting story but it is also extremely relevant to what we are currently learning about in forensics.
This article is about yet another case of malicious prosecution and consequently, unlawful imprisonment. I recently read an article about the Central Park Jogger case of 1989 - a case with similar accusations. The accused in that case walked away with $1million for each year in prison. I hope this guy gets a similar judgement. The man in this case is in jail for raping a girl over 25 years ago. Emme explained beautifully the circumstances of the case. It felt like I was living an episode of CSI. There was so much information. I thought she presented a compelling argument regarding the suspicious nature of the destroyed evidence.
While I always admire Emme’s writing style and lyrical elegance, I felt that this piece could have improved in the slightest of ways. One thing I craved was more information about the process the lawyers went through. Why did they decide to look at this case again? How was it determined that the hair was from a white mother? Who is the mysterious woman with the bag? Why was the bag evidence never tested? I also think the summary could have improved by telling us what the defense plans to go over in court and if they have any tricks up their sleeves. I suppose, in order for this to happen, the original article would have to have this information included and then it might not be a news article anymore, but a crime novel.
I was impressed with the connections Emme made to what we are currently learning in class. We are learning about hair evidence and this article centers around one piece of hair. Also, one of the homework questions asked something that Emme answered in her review. The question was: ‘Why are hair specimens collected at crime scenes not good sources of DNA?’ As we all know, the answer to this question is because as they have most likely fallen out naturally, they are still in the Telogen phase (not so much DNA). Emme mentioned this set of circumstances, including the specific phase, in her review. We also discussed the importance of having enough reference samples and that the hair evidence in this case should only be considered questionable until confirmation is achieved. In this case, it never was. Emme relates these points spectacularly.
I thought Emme did a great job on her review. The first aspect of the review that I liked was which article she choose to review. The article she choose was very relevant to the hair and fiber lab we are doing now. Another aspect of the review that I liked was how organized it was because it made the article much easier to comprehend. The last aspect of the review that I liked was how she explained why the article and specifically the case was so important.
Although the review had some great aspects, it still could have been improved. One way the review could have been improved was if Emme had put more information in about the case itself. I would've liked to hear more about the case rather than just putting in the important ones. The last thing I thought the review could have used was more information on why it relates to the things we are doing in class.
In all, the review and article were great and I learned that there is a lot of malicious prosecution that occurs in the prosecution of a suspect.
Post a Comment