All of a sudden, a New Jersey man charged in two 1989 murders is challenging the DNA linking him to the crimes that occurred in Philadelphia. His argument focuses on multiple unknowns concerning the secondary transfer amounts of genetic material. The man, Rudolph Churchill, was accused of strangling of a 19 year old woman and a 33 year old woman who were both prostitutes. Touch DNA was found on a sneaker linking Churchill to the crime. The genetic mixture in the blood also connected Churchill to the crime. However, Churchill’s attorney argued that the DNA could have come from some secondary transfer, such as spit in a highly-trafficked area. There was also a used condom found near one of the victims, but it was lost in storage. The defense argued that the evidence was “compromised” The genetic mixture had DNA of as many as three people on it, so her argument is valid. This crime had been unsolved since its inception, until a federal agent allowed further testing in cold cases in 2013. The DNA from the crime scene produced a CODIS hit. Rudolph Churchill had given a DNA sample when he was released from prison in 2007 for a different crime. He was arrested for these murders in 2014.
This article is very relevant to what we learned in class. We watched a video on a son who wanted to prove that his father was innocent by using DNA evidence on a cold crime. We also talked about evidence being found at a crime scene and it's amazing how decades after a crime, they finally solved it. It is important to society because it shows people are still trying to solve crimes not matter how much time has passed.
It was really interesting reading this article. I thought the author’s summary was pretty brief and would have liked to know more about the crime and what else has happened since the murders happened. I didn’t understand some of the terminology, so definitions would have been nice. Also, I would have liked to have some opinions and quotes from people in this field as well. I liked how the author connected everything back at the end of his article.
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
12 comments:
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
Ralph picked an article about false DNA tests with secondary transfers. He did a good job of picking an interesting article about a case that relates to the material we’ve been covering in class. He also gave important details from both sides of the case, which created an interesting balance and we were left to decide what we think until an actual verdict comes out. Ralph also did a good job of comparing the case to what we have been doing in class which made a convincing case for why this specific article is relevant to the us.
There were very few errors in Ralph’s review. He did, however, mention a case that was solved many years after it occurred but was vague as to what the crime that was solved was. Also the strange formatting and different colored text was strange and made it more difficult to read.
The article itself was very cool to read. Churchill definitely sounds guilty and this seems more like a last ditch effort than a legitimate excuse. It is interesting to see another side to the story though, and see if there could be some truth to this story. If Churchill is innocent, then he got very unlucky in where he was walking and how he was convicted.
In the critique by Ralph of the article called, “Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial”, one area that was well done was the summary of the article and how the DNA was being questioned due to inconsistent DNA alleles. He mentioned that Churchill was found with two prostitutes but the evidence was compromised and his attorney argued that the DNA was not consistent. I liked how he linked the entire article to one of the units that we learned about in class, and he even mentioned specific details such as the video that we had watched in class about evidence from cold cases. I thought that was important because it shows that although the video we watched was from a while ago, it is still relevant today. I also liked Ralph’s critique of the article because he pointed out some flaws as well as areas of the article that he liked. I agree that some quotes would have enhanced the article.
One thing that the article needs to do better is make the article flow. I felt like the article skipped parts which made it difficult to follow the story. In the beginning, it mentioned about how the evidence was not consistent with Churchill’s DNA which meant there was a possibility that Churchill did not commit the crimes. After the article finishes explaining that, it mentions that Churchill was indeed arrested for committing the crimes. I wish that the article could have transitioned better, or explained the testing more. Because the article was so short, it did not go in depth on many areas of the case that could have made the article more interesting.
Without reading this article, I would not have learned about this case. It just goes to show how important evidence is in prosecuting someone and how it is necessary to go in depth on the evidence and make sure it is right. Although Churchill really did commit the crime in this case, in many other crimes, the suspect actually did not commit the crime and could have been sentenced to life because evidence was not thoroughly processed.
This article review was very well written. I like the fact that Ralph added background information to make it more interesting to read. I think Ralph picked the perfect article to write about due to the fact that a lot of it had to do with material that we had recently learned in class. It was also great how Ralph compared two sides to the story to intrigue us.
This review could have been a bit longer. I would have liked to hear more of Ralph's opinion on the case. Also, there were a couple of grammatical errors in the writing which could have been easily fixed. Other that that, Ralph did a great job with this review.
Reading this article review, I learned that any piece of information can lead to a huge part of who the guilt belongs to. This is because one thing can lead to another. Evidence plays a huge role in who to prosecute.
I read the review by Ralph Chrappa of the article, “Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial” by the Forensic Magazine. This article according to Ralph was about how a man in New jersey had been trying to go fight against his charge in 1989 about two murders. He challenged the DNA that was supposedly linking him to the crimes which had occurred in Philadelphia. He also says that the DNA found in the crime had also connected to another person which could interfere with the sentence. I thought Ralph did really well with including a lot of details on the article like how the DNA sample was the reason why the man was released from prison in 2007 while the other man was put into prison for these murders. Another thing I thought he did well was give his own opinion saying how the article was relevant to what we learned in class. He also did well by providing an example of how it was relevant to class saying he watched a video on a son who wanted to prove that his father was innocent by using DNA evidence on a cold crime. Even though he did these things well, there were a few things I saw that could have been done better. He could have talked more about the case, but according to Ralph the author didn’t provide much information about the case and crime overall. Another thing I noticed was that it would have been nice to have seen quotes from officers or the perp which would have given us more info, but Ralph said that the article didn’t give enough information as well. Overall, this article taught me that not everything can be seen once in forensic science because it can always be false and completely change a case later in the future.
I think the review explained very well what happened in the case. I also believe the review presented very well why the defense argued that the evidence was “compromised”. Lastly the review explained very well why law enforcement is allowing this cold case to be reopened.
I think overall the review was very well done. However to improve this review I would add more quotes from the article. As well as giving more background information on Rudolph Churchill.
I learned that federal agents allowed further testing in cold cases in 2013 because now we have CODIS that can help find who the DNA belongs to.
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
I thought that this article review was fairly well written, and was detailed in the way that it included parts from the article about how exactly they found the DNA, and came to attempt to charge him with it later on. This review, and article, explains the importance of how mishandling evidence, even slightly, can affect a case. Although this review was very well written, I thought that it could have possibly been just a little bit longer. I also thought that at first, the article was not extremely clear about certain factors in the case, which would have given the reader a better understanding of the issue at hand. I thought that the article was very interesting to read, and thought that it was interesting how Churchill's lawyers are handling these quirks in the evidence.
The review on“Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial” by the Forensic Magazine by Ralph, to briefly sum up, was about a man in New Jersey who had been trying to fighting against his charges in 1989 about two murders.
He challenged the DNA test that linked him to the crimes that occurred in Philadelphia. Ralph did well by being thorough with details on the article, for instance, on how the DNA sample was the reason why the man was released from prison in 2007 while another man was made responsible for these murders. I also thought the review became more concrete because he gave his own opinion — commenting how the article was relevant to what we learned in class. It was relevant to class because he watched a video on a son who wanted to prove that his father was innocent by using DNA evidence on a cold crime.
While he did those things well, there were a few things that I expected him to do differently. He could have gone more in-depth about the case, but he tells in the review that the author of the article neither provides much information about the case nor crime. He also could have included quotes from officers, which would have given the readers a better sense of the case. Overall, this article taught me that to be skeptical of information, even if it is a DNA test.
Citation —
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
I thought that overall Ralph did a great job with his current event article review. One thing I thought he did well was summarizing the article in a concise and efficient way. It did not drag out too long and I was constantly intrigued while reading the important details of the article. Another thing I thought he did well was stressing the importance of the subject. The main part of these summaries is to discuss the relevance it has to the modern forensics world, and he did a great job at stressing the importance it had. Finally, I thought that he did a great job at critiquing the article. He did so in a proper manner and did so in a great way.
While I thought this review was great, some things that could be improved upon include voicing Ralph voicing his opinion more in the review, and maybe explaining the method a little bit more and in detail so it’s more understandable.
One thing I was interested while reading about how Churchill’s lawyers are handling the evidence and its little quirks.
Sources
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
I thought Ralph chose a great article and wrote a wonderful review. This article as Ralph explained was about how a man in New jersey had been trying to go fight against his charge in 1989 about two murders. He challenged the DNA that was supposedly linking him to the crimes which had occurred in Philadelphia. He also says that the DNA found in the crime had also connected to another person which could interfere with the sentence. I thought Ralph did really well with including a lot of details on the article like how the DNA sample was the reason why the man was released from prison in 2007 while the other man was put into prison for these murders. Another thing I thought he did well was give his own opinion saying how the article was relevant to what we learned in class. He also did well by providing an example of how it was relevant to class saying he watched a video on a son who wanted to prove that his father was innocent by using DNA evidence on a cold crime. Even though he did these things well, there were a few things I saw that could have been done better. He could have talked more about the case, but according to Ralph the author didn’t provide much information about the case and crime overall. Another thing I noticed was that it would have been nice to have seen quotes from officers or the perp which would have given us more info, but Ralph said that the article didn’t give enough information as well. Overall, this article taught me that not everything can be seen once in forensic science because it can always be false and completely change a case later in the future.
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
I read Ralph’s review of “Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial.” Ralph did a great job in opening with a suspenseful sentence that hooks the reader, as well as he did a great job in describing the different forms of DNA found at the crime scene. Ralph also made a great connection from his article toa video he watched in class, so it helped visualize his review for readers.
Although Ralph did a great job in reviewing this article, for someone who is not as familiar with what a CODIS hit is, or is not in our class, it may be beneficial to explain that to an outside reader. I also would suggest clearing stating the outcome of the cases in the beginning of his second paragraph, because he ended with saying that Rudolph Churchill was arrested for these murders in 2014, so it would have made it easier to follow by knowing the outcome before hand.
I enjoyed reading how Ralph talked about how this subject relates to what we are talking about in Forensic class. While reading, I felt I could better understand what he was talking about (CODIS) from what we have learned in class.
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
I think that ralph’s review was concise and to the point. I think that he conveyed the main idea of the article very well without making his review seem like it was just a rewritten article. I also liked how he included a few examples from the article in the review to help reinforce his statements. If I could improve this review in any way, I would possibly format it better. Another small improvement I could make would be to perhaps talk about the case a little bit more. I found it quite interesting that this man was arrested for what seems like a secondary transfer of dna. The claims around it seem valid, as the evidence linking him to murder seems to be circumstantial.
Augenstein, Seth. "Secondary DNA Transfers Questioned in Cold Case Murder Trial." Forensic Magazine. 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/04/secondary-dna-transfers-questioned-cold-case-murder-trial
Ralph chose a fascinating article to review about false DNA. The review was very well written. Ralph started off with important background information, setting up the article and making it more interesting. Ralph also made a great outside connection pertaining to this article.
Even though Ralph did a great job of reviewing the article, it would have been good to hear Ralph's opinion on the topic. Also to go into more detail of the case itself since I was left with some questions. Overall, Ralph did a great job and I ended up learning about how Churchill’s lawyers were handling the evidence and its little quirks.
Post a Comment