Isabella Dibbini
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
15 November 2017
Bonnefoy, Pascale. “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/americas/pablo-neruda-death-forensic.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic+Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection.
In Pascale Bonnefoy’s article “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” he discusses Pablo Neruda’s death certificate and how it was inaccurate. Pablo Neruda was a Chilean poet. His death certificate indicated that he died of cancer, however, forensic scientists believe otherwise. A group of international forensic experts analyzed samples of Neruda's remains, leading them to believe that it was not cancer that killed Neruda, but possibly murder. Neruda, a former diplomat and senator from the Communist Party, died at the age of 69 on September 23, 1973. It was not until 2011, that Manuel Araya, Neruda’s driver, stated that “...doctors at the private clinic in Santiago where Neruda was being treated poisoned him by injecting an unknown substance into his stomach.” Therefore, it was not until years after the murder that people began to question the death of Neruda. While Araya never witnessed the injection, he stated that Neruda had described the injection to him from his deathbed. Decades after the death of Neruda, in 2013, Judge Mario Carroza sent samples to forensic genetics laboratories, in Canada and Denmark, to analyze Neruda’s remains. The experts have recently casted doubt on the official cause of death, cancer, and stated that they found “potentially deadly bacteria in one of the samples, a molar.” It was interesting to see how Neruda’s death certificate stated “cancer cachexia” as the cause of death, because this involves significant weight loss, and the forensic specialists unanimously found this to be impossible. Dr. Niels Morling, of the University of Copenhagen’s department of forensic medicine, who participated in the analysis of Neruda’s remains, stated “That cannot be correct.” He continues to explain his claim when he states “There was no indication of cachexia. He was an obese man at the time of death. All other circumstances in his last phase of life pointed to some kind of infection.” At this time, the actual cause of death is still unknown; these scientists are unable to explain the origin of the bacteria. However, the panel of experts stated that “the deadly bacteria could have seeped into Neruda’s skeletal remains from the burial site or been derived from the decomposition process.” The panel of experts that presented this information to Judge Carroza was asked to continue their research to determine the origin of the bacteria, which will ultimately establish whether or not Neruda was murdered.
Although the death of Pablo Neruda occurred over 40 years ago, this plays a significant role in our society today. This connects to our society, because cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. In Bonnefoy’s article, he discusses an issue that many do not consider. It is not often that one’s death certificate is inaccurate, however, Bonnefoy wrote this article to raise awareness on possible problems that may be occurring in our society today, that many are oblivious to. Neruda died in 1973, and it was not until the past ten years, that forensic scientists began to closely examine his death. It is crucial to acknowledge that problems, similar to Neruda’s death, are happening worldwide.
“Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” is a well written article by Bonnefoy about the 1971 Nobel Prize winner, Pablo Neruda. This article is well organized; the author starts off by discussing the death of Neruda, and then goes on to explain his court case and what the panel of forensic experts had to say. Although this was a good article, I wish the author talked more about what forensic scientists did during the 30 years after Neruda death. This is because the author talks about Araya, and the possible poisoning, but that was not until 2011. Overall, I thought this article was very informative, but I just wish that the author had included more about what the forensic experts did to analyze Neruda’s remains.
4 comments:
I thought Isabella summarized the article really well in her review, so that even without reading the article someone could understand the context perfectly. She fully described all the evidence for Neruda’s cause of death being murder instead of cancer. Her critique was also very thoughtful, as it presented both pros and cons of the article. Another thing I liked was the use of quotes - enough to sound good and credible, but not so many that it overshadowed her own writing.
Something I think Isabella could improve on is the explanation of the importance of this finding in the world or our lives, since the article was not actually about cancer but about someone’s death being (perhaps intentionally) misreported as cancer.
Something that surprised me was that someone may have poisoned Pablo Neruda, because while I was aware that his writing was a bit progressive and maybe controversial, I didn’t think anyone would have any reason to want him dead.
Andy Goldbaum Current Event 8 11/15/17 Forensics
Bonnefoy, Pascale. “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” The New York Times, © 2017 The New York Times Company, 21 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/americas/pablo-neruda-death-forensic.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics%C2%AEion&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection.
Isabella Dibbini did a thorough job while reviewing Pascale Bonnefoy’s, “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was it Murder?” Dibbini summary of the article explained nearly all of the points from the article, including that Pablo Neruda’s death certificate originally stated that he died from a certain form of cancer that involves heavy weight loss despite the fact that he was obese; that Neruda’s driver Manuel Araya did not come forth with his knowledge that Neruda told him that the doctors injected him with poison for decades; that the analysts in forensic genetic laboratories discovered a pathogenic type of bacteria in Neruda’s molar that could either be what infected and killed him or what started to decompose him after death; and lastly that the forensic analysts asked for more time to determine the origin of the bacteria. Since all of these points were explained in her summary, I could pick up the main idea of the article that simply not knowing a crime was committed was what made this case so difficult. Another well-presented aspect of Dibbini’s review was how she connected the review to something that is relevant in humanity: she points out that cancer is a leading cause of death in humans, making it surprising that the certificate was inaccurate and how it became a forensics issue. Lastly, her critique of the article is well-explained: She explains that the article was well written because of its organization and gives an example, and criticizes the article for not including how the remains were analyzed and missing what happened during the decades since Neruda died.
Although Dibbini’s connection to cancer being prevalent in society was strong, she goes on to describe that Bonnefoy was supposedly “raising awareness” for people who die and do not get examined by forensic scientists for decades. However, when I read the article, I was not convinced that he was raising awareness but just explaining a particular esoteric case because there is no point in which Bonnefoy explains any kind of lesson learned from the case. Dibbini could have improved her connection by further explaining her first point about how cancer is a major issue in society that may be too easily trusted as a diagnosis and can prevent investigation into a crime instead. Additionally, Dibbini summary could have been more concise by not including quotes where they weren’t necessary. For example, rather than include the quotes stating that the cancer “cannot be correct” and that “There was no indication… All other circumstances point to an infection”, she could have shortened this to a simple sentence in which Dibbini states that the cancer diagnosis was not correct because he was obese, and the new bacteria lead makes an infection the more likely cause.
From this article, I learned that sometimes just discovering a crime was committed can be the hardest task for investigators. I thought this was interesting considering that in class we talked about how it is almost impossible to commit a murder because the perp always makes a mistake somewhere. Maybe for trusted members of society like doctors who make a trusted diagnosis like “cancer”, they enjoy more leniency.
Mairead Cain
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
26 November 2017
Bonnefoy, Pascale. “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/americas/pablo-neruda-death-forensic.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic+Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection.
Isabella did a very nice job with her current event review on the article “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” by Pascale Bonnefoy. I decided to review her report as the title left many unanswered questions as it concerns the ultimate fate of a famous Chilean poet and politician. There are many good techniques she uses throughout the report. One example is how she gives thorough background concerning the death of Neruda and how it was initially thought to be from cancer. Her focus on this factor of the original report is important as the background helps readers understand why, exactly, his death was initially thought to be from cancer. Another aspect of Isabella’s writing that was done rather well was when she explained why the search to find out if the death was from cancer began. She explained stories of how people claimed Neruda was poisoned with unknown substances by the doctors that were supposed to be treating him. Lastly, I appreciated how Isabella discussed the discovery of deadly bacteria in the corpse of Neruda. This shows readers the possibility that Neruda was, in fact, murdered by those tasked with keeping him healthy.
Overall, Isabella’s report was extremely interesting and informative, however there are some details that she could tweak and add to make the current event report even that much better. I recommend that she explains how, exactly, the scientists were able to discover the deadly bacteria in Neruda’s system. It would have been beneficial for her to go into some detail about the testing involved in the investigation to give readers a deeper understanding concerning the case. Also, she could have discussed her own opinion concerning the rather controversial case of the death of Pablo Neruda.
Isabella’s report was very informative and I learned extensively about the case concerning the death of Pablo Neruda. Before reading the report, I had little knowledge about how there are many cases of incorrect death certificates. Countless people across the world could have loved ones with doctored death certificates and after reading Isabella’s report, I see now that these cases need to be stopped and corrected.
Post a Comment