Avery Kane 10/2/17
In the article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So” Eli Rosenberg writes about how Terrell Gills was falsely accused of armed robbery in a local Dunkin Donuts, because of a mixup with the DNA tests that were conducted. The article explains, three Dunkin’ Donuts, all within a couple of miles of one another in Southeast Queens, had been robbed in broad daylight. In each case, someone had leapt over the counter, with a knife and made off with the store’s cash. And Mr. Gills was informed the night before his trial that the man accused of these two robberies plead guilty, this made it very hard for Mr. Gills to get out of the charges. Even though police found DNA of Mr. Gills at the crime scene, that was the only evidence against Mr Gills. Terrell Gills is 5-6 120 Lbs, but the cashier describes a man 6-0 ft 200 Lbs, and the security footage supports the cashiers claim, even a juror said “As soon as they started with the surveillance video, I immediately looked at the guy in the video and Mr. Gills and said, ‘That is not him,” In the end Mr. Gills was acquitted after serving 19 months at Rikers Island.
This event is just one example of what Forensic science can do if done incorrectly. Mr. Gills’s lawyers explained her feelings after he was acquitted, “While I was relieved for my client, I was sad, angry and frustrated that he’d been in jail the whole time. It’s a broken system. How about all the other times that it didn’t turn out this way, and we don’t even know about it?” Terrell Gills’s life is forever changed as a result of his time in jail. The article states, “He stays there for most of the day with the door locked, his jail life so ingrained that he still eats at times close to his old jail schedule: 4:30 a.m., noon and 5 p.m. There is other baggage: antisocial feelings, and the questions that come during job interviews about the nearly two years left blank on his résumé.” As a result of this DNA test mix up Mr. Gills’s life is changed for the worse, this could happen to anyone.
This article did a good job explaining the case and how it affected Mr. Gills life. The article also did a good job explaining the process Mr. Gills and his lawyers went through with the court system, and how the court wouldn’t allow certain things that would help Mr. Gills’s case like refusing to bring in evidence pertaining to the other two robberies.
24 comments:
Zach Zucker
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
From Avery’s review o f“Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.”, I felt that I was able to learn many new things that he explained. Avery incited many great details in his review. For example, Avery did a good job explaining the background of the story and kept the timeline throughout the review very clear. This made it easy for readers to understand his review. Secondly, Avery added quotes from the article which gives the reader another incite about what others thought about the case. For example, Avery used the quote “While I was relieved for my client, I was sad, angry and frustrated that he’d been in jail the whole time. It’s a broken system. How about all the other times that it didn’t turn out this way, and we don’t even know about it?”. Also, I thought Avery did a good job on adding his own thoughts and opinions into the review rather than just straight facts.
Although, Avery could add a few more ideas to his review to make it perfect. First, I think that Avery should add more about the forensics part of the crime. Along with this, there are parts where Avery can make his point more clear and concise through the review.
Overall, I think Avery did a good job summarizing the article and adding his own thoughts and opinions. I found this review interesting and informative because I have never heard of this case and I am happy Avery brought up this article for his review.
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
I read Avery's current event summary of “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So”. Avery did a great job summarizing the story and providing lots of background details on the case being discussed. Avery also pointed out the dangers of forensic science if applied in correctly to a criminal investigation, which made me think about what regulations there should be to assure that DNA evidence presented in criminal cases is relevant. Avery also was effective in using quotes from the article to discuss the adverse effect that false imprisonment had on Mr. Gills.
Avery could have gone into a lot more detail on the forensics related parts of the case, rather than just telling the story of false imprisonment and the effect it had on Mr. Gills. His article also could have been a little longer in order to go into more details about forensics.
I thought that this article was especially interesting because of the instance where a juror compared the man in the surveillance video to Mr. Gills sitting in the courtroom and observed that they could not be the same person. Still, Mr. Gills was convicted due to misuse of DNA testing.
Alexander Rizzo
Oct. 2, 2017
Current Event 2
Mr. Ippolito
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.
Avery Kane
The first aspect of the review that was particularly represented was the way in which Avery summarized the article without being too wordy. It is easy to rewrite the entire article but Avery did a good job of avoiding too much context. The second thing Avery did well was the way in which he used what the article was about to relate it to forensic science. This is important because it is the reason why the article is important to this class. Finally, Avery did a good job critiquing the essay and not being afraid to be critical of it. Often, people just let sloppy writing pass by as good writing just because it was published by a reputable news source.
One suggestion on how this review could have been better is if Avery had included quotes from the article in order to provide evidence of his thoughts. Also, Avery’s current event could be improved if he had used a less formal tone and had instead used a more scientific analysis of the essay. The point of current events is not to include the author's opinion until the end of the current event.
One thing that I found interesting about this article was that this article includes evidence about forensic science and how it can be too widely accepted as accurate even if is not. This is important because even the best scientists make mistakes and can put good people in jail.
Liam Grealy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Avery chose an article called “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So” I enjoyed his review of the article. I liked how he talked about how prison life negatively affected the man a lot like still feels like he is in jail. I liked how he wasn’t afraid to criticize the weight of DNA. It was the same kind of criticism I gave last week in my current event article. I also like how he used the quote that proves the man's innocence as it was a very powerful quote and added to the review a lot.
I would have enjoyed to see more quotes from the article itself to give more direct information. I also wish that he would have talked about how he owed over 10,000 dollars in child support as he was in jail and didn't have the money to pay. I felt this was important as it shows that when u convict an innocent man to jail time how his family can pay possibly a larger cost.
I found the part that it took the court 19 months at Rikers Island to acquit Mr. Gills the most shocking. I chose to review this article as last week I also reviewed an article that was about how DNA can be flawed. After this article too i will definitely think more about how much we weigh DNA and that it may not always be the answer and that there must be more evidence in order to convict someone who might be innocent. After all aren't people innocent until proven guilty in America?
Griffin Garbarini
Forensics
Mr. Ippolito
10/08/17
Current Event #5
MLA Citation (with link):
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017.
Comment:
Mr. Avery Kane wrote a review on the educational New York Times article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So”. Avery did a great job reviewing the article and this greatness started with his explanation of the background in the article. He provided all the necessary information in the review so that readers wouldn't have to read the article. Avery also did a good job keeping the timeline of the article clear so that readers would not get confused by time. Unlike many other article reviewers, Avery incorporated quotes into the article and analyzed them. He integrated the quotes to make the timeline and the background he provided stronger and more authentic. Finally, Avery incorporated his opinion into the article and this was refreshing.
There is always room for improvement and Avery could improve some aspects of this review. Avery used good details for the background of the article, but I felt that he didn’t focus on specific parts of the article that highlight the arguments being made in the article. Secondly, the review doesn’t feel like a forensic student wrote it and Avery must change this. He needs to use more forensic-esc vocabulary.
The review as a whole was very well written and Avery did a good job incorporating a strong background and some of his opinions. It was more of a story about Mr. Gills than a story about forensic evidence in the review, but it was still effective. From reading the article, I learned the story of Mr. Gills and this will be good forensic knowledge to have in general.
Kevin Formato
Forensics
Mr. Ippolito
10/08/17
Current Event
MLA Citation (with link):
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017.
Avery provided a good review analyzing the use of DNA as evidence in a trial. Avery's summary of the article highlighted all the main points surrounding Mr. Gill's arrest due to his DNA having been found in the Dunkin' Donuts at the time of the robbery. Avery also provided the reader with details of how Mr. Gill having been wrongly convicted and how this has impacted his life. For example, Mr Gill may not be able to get a job even though this crime would not be on his record, there would be a lack of job on his resume for 2 years. Additionally, Avery provided the reader a bit of insight into the court trial and left the reader wondering why the DA did not take into account the all the evidence such as the confession of a man claiming to have committed the robberies.
Perhaps Avery could have added more of the forensics into the review by using a quote from the DNA expert who showed how the investigators DNA sample might contain possible errors. Additionally, there was a video shown in the NYT article of the three robberies. Perhaps Avery could have improved his review by analyzing the video that the investigators had to also demonstrate that DNA was not enough that day. The video shows different clothing from the 1st to 2nd and 3rd robberies. However, the knife is being held the same way and same hand in the video and the knife looks the same in each. Also, the video shows the same type of shoe worn in each of the robberies so wondering if they analyzed shoe prints.
I was curious to read his review based on the title of the article. DNA evidence is a powerful tool used in forensics however from this story it leaves me with the impression that DNA must be used along with other pieces of evidence to give the whole picture. DNA evidence can clearly put a person at the scene of a crime but could there be other reasons that person happened to be at scene. DNA evidence that is not used properly during an investigation can led to wrongly convicted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
In this current event article, Avery Kane was able to accurately summarize the article, “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” He describes that Terrell Gills was falsely accused of a DNA test that got mixed up. Avery did a good job touching upon the important point of this article, describing how Forensics science done us wrong. In addition to this, Avery was able to talk about the relevance of this article, saying that this is relevant to our modern times because if the DNA testing is faulty especially in court, false accusations will arise and complicates the case. A last thing Avery did well, was accurately criticize what the author could have done to make the article better. I agree with Avery and saying that the article was too long and he could have summed up the important points shorter.
Although Avery did a good job addressing the main points, I think he could have gave more details about the evidence held against Mr. Gills. Another thing Avery could have done was improve his writing techniques., it was a little confusing to follow. One last thing that Avery could have worked on was add additional information on the topic, although he did a good job summarizing it, I had to go back into the article to clear up any questions I had about the article.
One thing I was impressed with from reading this article and review was how harmful this could be do any of us. Like I mentioned before, if any Dna testing equipment were to fail, this could cause many problems in court cases that can lead to faulty accusations. Overall Avery did a great job summarizing this article and was able to actually describe the relevance of this article.
Avery response involving DNA was very intone and he really summarized this article well. Mr. Gill was wrongly convicted and you did a really good job of showing how that played a major role in your summary of the article. Just because his DNA was found at the Dunkin Donots does not mean that did indeed do the crime. This was a cruitial piece of the the article that you explained extremely well. His DNA being there should not be the thing convicting Mr. Gill as you defended.
I would only say I thought you could have connected the article to more about our forensic class. Especially with the DNA aspect being so involved in this article I would say there is definitely a connection between the two. DNA is the most powerful evidence in forensics and this article showed how to boundaries can be so stretched during an investigation but also how the truth will always come through. Avery did a great job with this article but could have elaborated more in that department in my own personal opinion. Good job tho!
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
I read Avery's summary of the New York Times article, “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So”. Avery did a good job summarizing the story concisely and providing additional details on the case. Avery also included quotes from the article in his summary which were very helpful. He also included statistics from the article that affected the case.
Avery could have included more quotes, and made his summary a bit longer to include these quotes. Separating his summary into separate paragraphs would have also been helpful.
I was very interested by this article, and picked it because I found it interesting to focus on the times when DNA evidence is misleading in a trial.
Olivia Lewis
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017.
www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
For this current event, Avery Kane wrote about a case in which a man convicted of an armed robbery was acquitted due to a mix up of DNA evidence. I think that Avery did a very good job summarizing the article and providing details so that the reader could fully understand the case that was being discussed. I also think that Avery did a good job in adding quotes from the article so that the reader could comprehend what had happened by seeing the perspectives of several different people involved in this case. Finally, I think that adding information about the long term effects of this wrongful imprisonment, Avery made the reader much more sympathetic towards Terrell Gills.
I think that in order to improve his response, Avery could have described the forensic process that was discussed in the article and how it might need to be amended. I also think that this response could have had more of an impact if it had been slightly more organized so that the reader was not confused by the information.
I found Avery’s response to this article very interesting as I was aware that the credibility of DNA testing was in question however, I hadn’t seen an example of cases where it is completely wrong.
Timmy McGrath
Current Events
Bronxville School
October 10th, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017.
I thought that Avery did a great job presenting a review to this article. I thought that he really did a good job at presenting the facts of the article in a way the kept the reader interested. He presented all the key fact about how Mr. Gill was arrested due to his DNA being found in the Dunkin Doughnuts. Avery then was able to present the facts of how Mr. Gill’s life was changed by the wrongful arrest. Avery did a really good job on transitioning between his paragraphs.
Overall it was a good article but Avery could have done some things better. For instance he could have definitely used a little bit more information on how it related to forensics. I think that he could have used some quotes as well to keep the reader intrigued.
I found it very interesting that people trust forensics immediately even if there is slight doubt that the person could be wrongfully convicted. And when there is a wrongful conviction it usually ends up in someone's life being ruined.
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
I read Avery's current event summary of “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So”. Avery did a great job summarizing the story and providing lots of background details on the case being discussed. You also supplied the reader with very informative details and specific statistics. Lastly, I felt that you did a great job at explaining why it is relevant in modern society by explaining what forensic scientists could do wrong.
I believe your review could have been significantly better if your writing flowed better. It was slightly choppy and it felt like you were just listing facts. However, that being said, it allowed me to remember and understand your review more clearly. Also, I would have like to see more quotes from the author. It validates your points and with ethos, it makes your review more credible.
I was very surprise to hear that even though police found DNA of Mr. Gills at the crime scene, that was the only evidence against Mr Gills.
Lucy Rizzo
October 10, 2017
Forensics
Current Event 4
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
After reading Avery’s review of the article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So” I think Avery had many good points. He did a very good job summarizing key points and important background information for the readers to gain a better understanding of the article. He provided important facts and accounts from Mr. Gills and presented his own opinion and voice in the analysis. I think Avery could have included some more examples in his summary. I also think he should have further developed his personal opinion on the article to give a more in depth perspective on his own thoughts. I was very shocked by how common these mistakes in forensic science can change one's life completely.
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
In this article, I read the summary of "Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing?" I thought that Avery really did a great job of analyzing this article and tell the audiences the truth. She has lot of backgrounds of this article as well such as "An Acquitted Man Thinks So” Eli Rosenberg writes about how Terrell Gills was falsely accused of armed robbery in a local Dunkin Donuts, because of a mixup with the DNA tests that were conducted. The article explains, three Dunkin’ Donuts, all within a couple of miles of one another in Southeast Queens, had been robbed in broad daylight. In each case, someone had leapt over the counter, with a knife and made off with the store’s cash. And Mr. Gills was informed the night before his trial that the man accused of these two robberies plead guilty, this made it very hard for Mr. Gills to get out of the charges. " She gave great details and clearly states what is going on.
I thought that she could do better on her thoughts, not only listing the facts but also tell us how she thinks of it. She can also improve on using more quotes about the article.
Overall, I love this article and I thought this is very interesting.
Catherine Faville
Forensics
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
For this assignment i read my fellow classmates Avery's analysis on the article Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? A Acquitted Man Thinks So, written by Eli Rosenberg. After reading this analysis, it was clear to see that Avery did a good job in describing the details listed in the article. The Article talks about how a man, Mr. Gills had supposedly robbed a dunkin donuts, and the only evidence against him was his DNA found in the crime scene. But the surveillance camera showed someone different from Mr. Gills, this got him out after he served 19 months on rikers island. This whole event was an excellent example on the consequences of performing forensic science incorrectly. Avery counties to follow Mr. Gills story line throughout the article, each story adding to the examples of the faulties in forensics. I chose to read this review, because it looked very interesting to learn about why and how forensic science should not be the only thing being relied on to solve crimes, and how it can be done incorrectly causing others misery.
However Avery could have added more to his review, if he continued on the path of Mr. Gills story, it would have left a bigger statement with the reader. Also if he added other examples rather than just this Mr. Gills story, it would have opened the readers eyes on the impact of this issue. Another issue was that he did not give that much detail, he didn't go into depth as to why there is forensic problems. These details could have been talking about what has to happen for these issues to happen. Also he didn't really have that much information as to his thoughts and opinions on the article.
Reading this article, showed me that you can not just rely on one factor in a case, information can come back faulty and unreliable depending on how the procedure is done. It changed my thinkings on issues like this they may pop up in my life or anyone else that i may know, this information would be useful in inflicting new and more accurate information.
My classmate Avery Kane wrote a current event on the article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So” by Eli Rosenberg, published by the New York Times. The article explains a mix up in DNA after an armed robbery. A man's DNA was found at the donut store but he did not do the crime. However, a mix up with DNA caused the man to spend 18 months at rikers island. The first thing that surprised me about this was the length of time the man spent at the prison. I thought that there would be a bigger investigation if the man really was innocent. Secondly, I found it shocking that people would rather believe DNA than video footage and a witness report. A witness said that a six foot, 200 pound male robbed the store, but the male who was convicted was five foot six, weighing at 130 pounds. The video backed this claim but the man was still convicted. Finally, I thought the most surprising yet catastrophic event that happened was how this time in prison severely affected the man convicted. He still eats at the times he would if he were in jail, and when applying to jobs he has a difficult time explaining the two year gap.
Avery did an amazing job at explaining this article, though there were some things he could to help make the reader understand his analysis better. The first thing I thought he could do better was explaining how exactly the DNA got mixed up. Lastly, I think he could've gave his opinion on the article, as it would interesting to hear different opinions on the article.
Overall this article was very interesting to read. However, it was eye opening to show that our criminal justice system isn't always right when convicting criminals. It also puts a spotlight on how serious DNA evidence can swing a case one way or another. I will be looking more into issues like this and seeing how we can change our criminal justice system for the better.
Hana Eddib 10/11/17
Forensics current event 4
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2 Timestopic%2 Forensic%20science Action=click&contentCollection=times topics region=stream module=stream_unit&version=latest content Placement=1&type=collection
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017,
Avery’s review of the article, “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So”, was extremely interesting to read. I really appreciated how well he explained the facts of the case, without including extensive detail to confuse us. I also found the quote he included from a jury member to be exceptionally interesting because it gave first hand observations to the trial. I respect the idea that Avery took time to acknowledge that there is a negative effect of DNA evidence and it can be misused. Often times people believe that science cannot be proven wrong, but, as seen here, that is not always the case.
While Avery did write a very good review of his article there were two aspects he could improve on. The first thing I wish he did was include the MLA format of his article as it would’ve made it much more convenient when reviewing the article. There were also a couple of grammatical errors, which he could’ve fixed, that made it difficult to understand what he was saying sometimes.
Overall, Avery did a great job with his review and I was very intrigued to hear about this case because it happened in Queens, which is a neighborhood quite close to us.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
The article that Avery read and reviewed gives and very interesting point to a seemingly one-sided argument. Avery did a great job explaining the argument from the article. He gave all the facts necessary to help this. Another part I thought he did well was implementing quotes into his review. I thought it really helped get the point of the article across. I also liked how he took on a article that is taking on DNA evidence, which is thought to be the best way to ID a criminal. The first, and obvious thing, is that he did not use MLA format for his citation. I also would have liked to see his personal opinion on the argument. I very much enjoyed his review and am glad he took on this topic.
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
Avery did an excellent job in his review of “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So,” by Eli Rosenberg. Throughout his report, he presents many important aspects stressing what one small misinterpretation could do to someone’s life. Avery did a good job in discussing the story behind the case, and what evidence was provided and used to determine the suspect. He also did a good job in utilizing quotes from Mr. Gill’s lawyers as well as jurors. Avery also did a good job on discussing the type of effect that a mistake in interpreting the DNA evidence could have on the person who was wrongfully convicted.
While Avery’s review of the article was very well thought out, there were some aspects of his report which could be revised. From his review, he could have added a bit more detail regarding the forensic mistakes that went wrong, and possibly discussed why these mistakes occurred using the technology that was used. Avery could have also discussed less about the summary of the story.
From Avery’s review of “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So,” by Eli Rosenberg I learned more about the situation such as Mr. Gill’s who was a victim to the misjudgment of DNA left at a crime scene. It opened my eyes more about how faulty DNA evidence can be at times then resulting in changing someone’s life forever.
Andrew Rotchford
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
From Avery’s review f“Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.”,
I was able to learn many new things that he explains. Avery brought up many great details in his review. for example he did a great job explaining all the background information about the story And kept the timeline throughout the whole review very clear. This made it easy for the reader to understand his review. The second thing that Avery did was add quotes from the article which gives the reader more insight to what others thought about the case. used a couple different quotes that I liked and it helped brought more understanding into the article. the final thing that I thought he did a good job was out of his own thoughts and opinion rather than just give straight facts.
Avery could have fixed a couple of ideas to make his review better. the first thing that I would tell Avery to do is add more about their forensics part of the crime. with that I think that Avery can make his point more clear and concise and the review so people enjoy it more.
In the end I thought that Avery did a great job summarizing his article and adding his own thoughts and opinions. I found his article and review very interesting and informative because I didn't hear anything about this cas
Andrew Rotchford
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
From Avery’s review f“Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.”,
I was able to learn many new things that he explains. Avery brought up many great details in his review. for example he did a great job explaining all the background information about the story And kept the timeline throughout the whole review very clear. This made it easy for the reader to understand his review. The second thing that Avery did was add quotes from the article which gives the reader more insight to what others thought about the case. used a couple different quotes that I liked and it helped brought more understanding into the article. the final thing that I thought he did a good job was out of his own thoughts and opinion rather than just give straight facts.
Avery could have fixed a couple of ideas to make his review better. the first thing that I would tell Avery to do is add more about their forensics part of the crime. with that I think that Avery can make his point more clear and concise and the review so people enjoy it more.
In the end I thought that Avery did a great job summarizing his article and adding his own thoughts and opinions. I found his article and review very interesting and informative because I didn't hear anything about this cas
Jack Baxter
Comment review
Mr. Ippolito
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
Avery did an excellent line of work in his reexamination of “Can DNA Grounds Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Human Man Thinks So,” by Eli Rosenberg. Throughout his report, he presents many important aspects stressing what one small misinterpretation could do to someone’s living . Avery did a commodity chore in discussing the level behind the guinea pig , and what grounds was provided and used to determine the defendant . He also did a good job in utilizing quotes from Mr. Branchia ’s lawyers as well as juror .Avery also did a good job on discussing the type of result that a mistake in rendering the DNA evidence could have on the person who was wrongfully convicted. While Avery’s revue of the article was very well thought out, there were some aspects of his report which could be revised. From his review, he could have added a bit more detail regarding the forensic misunderstanding that went wrong, and possibly discussed why these mistakes occurred using the technology that was used. Avery could have also discussed less about the summary of the story. From Avery’s review of “Can DNA Grounds Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So,” by Eli Rosenberg I learned more about the state of affairs such as Mr. Gill’s who was a dupe to the misjudgment of DNA left at a crime. picture . It opened my eye more about how faulty DNA evidence can be at times then resulting in changing someone’s living forever.
Mairead Cain
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
18 October 2017
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
Avery did a very nice job with her current event review on the article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So,” by Eli Rosenberg. I decided to review her report because the article title was rather intriguing, and it made me question how exactly DNA evidence can be too convincing, considering the fact that it is factual evidence. There are many good techniques he uses throughout the report. One example is how he specifically explains the original case in which a man was falsely convicted of a crime. Her focus on this factor of the original report is important as it shows exactly what went wrong with the original investigation. Another aspect of Avery’s writing that was done rather well was her inclusion of a quote from the court case involving the man falsely accused of a crime. This inclusion provided readers with a deeper understanding of what happened during the court case.
Lastly, I appreciated how Avery discussed how deeply Forensic science can negatively affect people if it is performed in a poor manner. This shows readers the severity of the topic and hand and how researchers and Forensic scientists should work to perfect the art of obtaining DNA evidence.
Overall, Avery’s report was extremely interesting and informative, however there are some details that he could tweak and add to make the current event report even that much better. I recommend that he includes more quotes from the original current event into her report. The quote he included from a juror made her review much more engaging. The addition of even more quotes would have further given readers a deeper understanding of the case being described. Also, he could have discussed some of his own opinions and ideas about how this immense problem can be fixed.
Avery’s report was very informative and I learned extensively about how some lives have been uprooted because of mistakes made in investigations involving the usage of DNA. Before reading the report, I had little knowledge about careless mistakes can so negatively affect the lives of many. Countless people across the world could be affected by careless errors, and I know now, after reading Avery’s review, that these mistakes must be prevented.
Zixi Chen
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
31 October 2017
Current Event 1
Rosenberg, Eli. “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 May 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/nyregion/can-dna-evidence-be-too-convincing-an-acquitted-man-thinks-so.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
In Avery Kane’s review of the article “Can DNA Evidence Be Too Convincing? An Acquitted Man Thinks So” written by Eli Rosenberg, Avery provided a detailed analysis about a case in which the DNA evidence put someone who was innocent into jail until his lawyer later proved his innocence. First of all, Avery included many direct quotes from the main characters in this article. These quotes established his credibility and gave the readers more direct feelings about the people that the article described. Secondly, Avery included specific data that were used in the investigation to show the details of the case. Lastly, Avery elaborated on the deeper implications of the case. He thoroughly described what people should learn from the mistake in this case and what could possibly be done to avoid similar mistakes-- imprisoning innocent people.
Even though this review was very well written, there are two areas of possible improvements. For example, Avery could have included more of his own opinions in the review to show the readers what he personally got out from reading this article. Also, Avery could have included more informations on the forensics aspect of the case.
I found this article very interesting to read. It is also a little scary to think about how easy someone could be mistakenly imprisoned for false evidences. In order to prevent these terrible things from happening, all of the investigators and judges are working very hard to catch the right person in every case.
Post a Comment