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>.
5 comments:
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
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
I read the review of and the article “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” and really enjoyed both. I liked many aspects of the review of the article. First, I liked how the author of the review gave a clear and concise background on the history of the case that was reopened before getting to the main point of the article, this helped the reader understand the importance of the discovery more and its relevance in today’s society. Also, I liked how the author of the review explained what the discovery was and how it differed from when the case was dealt with in 1990. The improvement of technology and resources has allowed investigators to get a clearer view on what really happened the day of the crime. Lastly, I liked how Emme explained how relevant and important this case is to scientific and criminalist community because 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.” Overall, there were many good aspects of this review.
Even though there were many good parts of this review, there were also some negative aspects. First, I did not like it how the author of the review did not mention specific technologies or tactics the investigators used today that made this investigation re-open- we do not not why it did but it did. Also, the review would have been stronger if the author provided specific information regarding the case and what was found and how this discovery is important to the future of forensic science. But overall, I enjoyed this article and review.
I learned many things when reading this review. First, I learned about a criminal case that took place in 1990 that was important to that time period because it provided insufficient evidence that would be discussed today. Also, I learned how improvements in technology can open so many doors- resolving cases closed twenty five years ago and looking at the evidence and facts of the case again- this can change forensic science. This article and review has changed my perception because it has made me wonder how many other cases have been ended locking up the wrong suspect and providing the wrong information. Overall, I really enjoyed the article and review of the article and look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
Griffin Garbarini
Forensics
Mr. Ippolito
09/06/17
Link:
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
MLA Citation:
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. 06 Sep. 2017
For my first review for Forensics current events, I read Emme Kerj’s write up on “Virginia Inmate. Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” as well as the original article. Emme did a great job reviewing the article as it appeared to be complex. She wrote a good summary and background of the article and its history. With that she explained that the case was reopened before she began to really review the article and this helped the reader's fully comprehend the article before needing to understand her review. Emme then went to explaining the discovery that was made in the article and she compared it to similar, but different, cases from 1990. Through time, history has proven that technology has significantly improven. “...techniques are always being improved and new ways of testing evidence might be invented” (Kerj). These improvements in tech have allowed investigators to have a clearer vision of what really happened at the crime scene. Emme finally did a great job explaining the information that was important and necessary to understand what happened in phrases that a sophisticated high school forensic scientist could understand. “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 telogen stage so it does not contain a significant amount of DNA” (Kerj). She talks about what she learned about in class and applies it in her writing. That is true proof of learning, even if I don’t understand it.
While Emme did a good job on this article review, she has room for improvement. First and foremost, Emme’s use of specific examples f how technology has changed in general and more specifically in the realm of forensics was not existent. She mentioned that “ “...techniques are always being improved” but she never actually says how or gives example of this. In order to correct this, Emme should possibly have spent time researching how these alleged technologies have changed since the crime took place. This way the reader could have context around the history. Emme’s overall tone in the review was also very casual even though her use of forensic terms was superior. She uses words like “man” and “man’s” in reference to the convicted man. I would have prefered if she used his name to make it more impactful to outside reader's.
As someone who knows nothing about the forensics world as I just started the class today, I learned a lot from this review. As someone who likes history, I specifically learned about a rape case that took place in 1990 that was one of the first cases that didn’t have enough evidence, but the defendant was still prosecuted. Yet it is being discussed today. These improvements in technology over the past 27 years have allowed for this case to be reopened and hopefully find who was truly responsible. In life in general, and more specifically in my life as a rookie forensic scientist, this article was very helpful in giving me a real world example of forensic science.
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
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
I read the review of and the article “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” and really enjoyed both. I liked many aspects of the review of the article. First, I liked how the author of the review gave a clear and concise background on the history of the case that was reopened before getting to the main point of the article, this helped the reader understand the importance of the discovery more and its relevance in today’s society. Also, I liked how the author of the review explained what the discovery was and how it differed from when the case was dealt with in 1990. The improvement of technology and resources has allowed investigators to get a clearer view on what really happened the day of the crime. Lastly, I liked how Emme explained how relevant and important this case is to scientific and criminalist community because 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.” Overall, there were many good aspects of this review.
Even though there were many good parts of this review, there were also some negative aspects. First, I did not like it how the author of the review did not mention specific technologies or tactics the investigators used today that made this investigation re-open- we do not not why it did but it did. Also, the review would have been stronger if the author provided specific information regarding the case and what was found and how this discovery is important to the future of forensic science. But overall, I enjoyed this article and review.
I learned many things when reading this review. First, I learned about a criminal case that took place in 1990 that was important to that time period because it provided insufficient evidence that would be discussed today. Also, I learned how improvements in technology can open so many doors- resolving cases closed twenty five years ago and looking at the evidence and facts of the case again- this can change forensic science. This article and review has changed my perception because it has made me wonder how many other cases have been ended locking up the wrong suspect and providing the wrong information. Overall, I really enjoyed the article and review of the article and look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
Andrew Rotchford 9/12/17
Forensic
Comment
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
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
I read and reviewed “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” and really enjoyed both. I liked many things of the review of the article. One thing that I liked is how Emma gave a clear background on the history of the case that was reopened before getting to the main point of the article,I think this was a good idea because they gave the reader more understanding of the discovery and how it relates today in society.,Another thing she did great is how she reviewed and explain the discovery and how it was different from the case in 1990. With the Improvement of technology and resources this helped the investigators get a clearer view of what really happened the day of that crime.The last thing I think she did great was explain how this case is very important in scientific and criminalist community because 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.” Overall, there were many good aspects of this review.
Even though she did a great job reviewing the articles that are some negative things that she did. The first thing that I did not like is that she did not mention specific technologies and different tactics that the investigators used today that made the investigation be reopened and why there we looking into it. Another thing that she could have done better that would have made the review stronger see if she provided more specific information about the case and about the discovery because it could have given us more insight. Reading this article I learned a lot, I learned about a criminal case that was very important because it was closed due to insufficient evidence. But with new technology, it was reopened and the case was closed 25 years later. it shows that science is getting better and we are getting better technology.
Andrew Rotchford 9/12/17
Forensic
Comment
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/02/virginia-inmate-serving-100-years-rape-based-hair-get-new-dna-testing
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
I read and reviewed “Virginia Inmate, Serving 100 Years for Rape Based on Hair, to Get New DNA Testing” and really enjoyed both. I liked many things of the review of the article. One thing that I liked is how Emma gave a clear background on the history of the case that was reopened before getting to the main point of the article,I think this was a good idea because they gave the reader more understanding of the discovery and how it relates today in society.,Another thing she did great is how she reviewed and explain the discovery and how it was different from the case in 1990. With the Improvement of technology and resources this helped the investigators get a clearer view of what really happened the day of that crime.The last thing I think she did great was explain how this case is very important in scientific and criminalist community because 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.” Overall, there were many good aspects of this review.
Even though she did a great job reviewing the articles that are some negative things that she did. The first thing that I did not like is that she did not mention specific technologies and different tactics that the investigators used today that made the investigation be reopened and why there we looking into it. Another thing that she could have done better that would have made the review stronger see if she provided more specific information about the case and about the discovery because it could have given us more insight. Reading this article I learned a lot, I learned about a criminal case that was very important because it was closed due to insufficient evidence. But with new technology, it was reopened and the case was closed 25 years later. it shows that science is getting better and we are getting better technology.
Post a Comment