Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
In the article “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,” Seth Augenstein writes about how a second forensic laboratory scandal in Massachusetts will result in over 11,0000 dismissed convictions within an estimated 7,690 cases. These cases were tainted by former forensic chemist Sonja Farak, who used drugs she stole or manufactured at the Amherst laboratory. Investigators have said Farak was high almost everyday of the nine years she worked at the state crime lab. The ACLU, the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the law firm Fick and Marx, LLP filed a petition last fall to dismiss every case handled by Farak. Rebecca Jacobstein, staff attorney for the CPCS said, “We have asked the court to dismiss the remaining cases where Farak signed the drug certificate of analysis. In addition, we have asked the court to dismiss all Amherst Lab cases during Farak’s tenure, because her misconduct was not limited to cases where she signed the drug certificate of analysis, but impacted all cases at the Amherst lab.”
This subject of this article has had a detrimental and shameful result on forensics. Sonja Farak was trusted with valuable evidence that she was supposed to examine in a very specific way in order to connect individuals to evidence in a clear, scientifically valid manner. Her actions and her careless involvement with serious drugs while working at a crime lab means that over 11,000 convictions will probably be dismissed. Some of these people are guilty of the crime they committed and some are probably innocent. In addition, this is only the second scandal in recent years as Annie Dookhan served three years in prison for falsifying and “drylabbing” drug test results. This caused the Massachusetts Supreme County to dismiss 22,000 of her cases.
Augenstein provided a succinct and well-written article that summarized the facts of this case. I think that the article did a good job of introducing the reader to this scandal, but the author did no delve very deep into the actual criminal case or the subject of lab contamination. The dates of the convictions for both Farak and Dookhan were not clear and it’s confusing to read a lot of 2014 dates in a recent 2018 article.
16 comments:
Alexander Plaza
Mr.Ippolito
4/19/18
Forensics Comment
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva, I read your review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,” by Seth Augenstein and I thought that you did a decent job. I thought that you did a decent job with making your summary of the article brief yet informative. I was not confused about your topic. This is good for the readers since it creates a understanding of the subject matter for your review. Also, I like that your analysis is relevant to society today. Finally, I like that you use a direct quote from the author to help your summary. It adds credibility to your review.
Although your article was good, there are some things that you could improve on. First, I could be helpful if you added analysis on how this affects to the entirety of the forensic science community. Also, I believe that you could add more detail to your analysis to make the review more clear.
Overall, I enjoyed your review. It’s interesting to see how a single person can affect the entirety of the work at a lab.
I thought Eva did a great job of summarizing the article in a clear and informative manner, so that I felt like I really understood the circumstances and the facts. I also thought that her use of quotes was helpful and well done, and I liked how she managed to include more background information in the second paragraph to give a better picture of the issue.
I don’t have any suggestions for improvement, since I think Eva did a good job all around.
What surprised me about this article was the fact that a forensic chemist managed to come to work under the influence of drugs almost every day for nine years and not be caught and reprimanded, or even fired, for her behavior.
Andy Goldbaum 4/19/18 D Even Forensics
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.” Forensic Magazine, Copyright 2018 Advantage Business Media, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva Cagliostro’s review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU”, an article written for Forensic Magazine by Seth Augenstein, is written in a very logical and clear manner. For example, in her summary, she started out with the details that will capture the attention of the reader, like the fact that a forensic scientist in a drug lab was herself high during every case and the fact that 11,000 convictions were suddenly dismissed; and then she cites the more specific details such as who filed the petition to look into the cases and gives a relevant quote about why every case the lab handled was dismissed and not just hers. Another strong aspect of Cagliostro’s review is that she not only gave a full critique of the article (some people even miss parts of this), but she used abundant examples to support her position: she points out that the article jumps to different years, doesn’t read chronologically, and seems outdated given that much of this took place many years ago; as well as the fact that little was written about the process of the case itself or the ongoing issue of how drugs may lead to unscrupulous scientific practice in a field where this could ruin people’s lives. Saying that the article was factually supported was enough because her summary thoroughly proves this. Lastly, Cagliostro’s connection to society at large was also fairly “outside the box” given that she stated the implications of what was largely just a factual article.
There are two ways in which Cagliostro could improve her review: she should not have summarized more information from the article in her “implications” paragraph, because she missed an opportunity to end her thought by building on it. For example, she should note how ironic it is that a lab specialized in drug testing doesn’t have scrupulous drug testing of employees. Secondly, although the quote does add helpful information to her summary, the “Why so many cases?” part, the reader now has to sift through the quote to find the new information when she could have just explained her previous sentence with “This is because…” Maybe then she would have had more room to describe Dookhan’s situation.
As stated in the prior paragraph, I find it ironic that a drug testing lab, a lab where many employees should in theory be doing this job on principle to help end drug-related crime and where scientific precision should be valued, that there aren’t weekly drug tests of employees. A scientific institution with the burden of making a judgement on how a person will spend significant time of his/her life as well as public safety can’t afford to dump 11,000 convictions of potentially guilty criminals. This only increases my inherent distrust of the the government.
Zach Zucker
4/19/20
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
From Eva’s review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,”I felt that I was able to learn many new things that she explained. She incited many great details in her review. For example, She 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 her review. Secondly, Eva added quotes from the article which gives the reader another incite about what others thought about the case. For example, she used the quote “We have asked the court to dismiss the remaining cases where Farak signed the drug certificate of analysis. In addition, we have asked the court to dismiss all Amherst Lab cases during Farak’s tenure, because her misconduct was not limited to cases where she signed the drug certificate of analysis, but impacted all cases at the Amherst lab.”to help set up her own opinion. Also, I thought Eva did a good job on adding her own thoughts and opinions into the review rather than just straight facts.
Although, she could add a few more ideas to his review to make it perfect. First, I think that Eva should add more about the forensics part of the crime. Along with this, there are parts where she can make his point more clear and concise through the review.
Overall, I think she did a good job summarizing the article and adding her own thoughts and opinions. I found this review interesting and informative because I have never heard of this case and I am happy Eva brought up this article for her review.
Andrew Rotchford
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
After finishing Eva’s review as always It was a absolute pleasure reading her incredible review. I thought she did great was her ability to summarize the article by being brief but making sure that the readers understood the most important parts. She made it very clear and concise, not going to in-depth but not being too vague. she also made her analysis relevant to our society today by bringing in forensic science.As always she added quotes from the Article to give the reader direct evidence from the summary giving her more credibility in her review, it's a great tactic and a move for all-time veteran like Eva.
It pains me to say this, but I have to give her too areas of improvement because you are forcing me to do so. She could maybe add how this would impact our society today and what other scientists think about it. Also, adding more about her own opinions could help us with a little bit of insight on her view.
like always I enjoy Eva review and I learned the importance of labs in forensic science.
Catherine Faville
Forensics
Current event 22
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.” Forensic Magazine, Copyright 2018 Advantage Business Media, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
After reading my classmate Eva’s review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,” written by Seth Augenstein, she did a great job. She gave a lot a good background information in her summary, it made he facts clear and easy to understand. She also added many quotes throughout her analysis, making her case clear and precise. The article was also relevant to current society, making it extremely interesting to read about.
Eva’s review was good, however if she added more as to how and why this topic was relevant to the forensics society. If she added more to this it would have made it interesting to compare what we have already learned in class to this article. Also if she added more to her personal opinion would have added another perspective on the matter, rather than it being slightly one sided.
It was a interesting review o read, it was eye opening to learn about the huge effect one person can have in a lab environment.It was also nice to read, because i was able to connect it to what we learned about drugs in class, and the side effects addiction can have on people.
Ayten El-Hennawy
Current Event 22
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva’s review of the article “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU” was very interesting to read. I liked how Eva made sure was her review was very straightforward and easy to understand. I also liked how she made a clear connection to our current society but connecting the article to forensic science. Lastly, I liked how she included many quotes throughout her review to make it stronger.
I think Eva could’ve made her review better by talking more about the forensic part of the review. I also think she could’ve been a little more clear throughout her review while explaining some parts of the article.
I think this article was super interesting and I also really liked the topic. I think it’s crazy how someone could think they could get away with something like this!
Kelsey Ravesloot
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva wrote a review on the article, “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU”. I thought her review was very well written. One thing that Eva did well was making the review very clear for the reader. It was easy to understand and read which is nice. I also thought Eva used good quotes in her review. I also really enjoyed reading her connection of this topic to modern day society.
Although I thought Eva did a really great job, but I have to say some areas of improvement. One thing that I wish I saw more of in her review is more details about how it relates to Forensics Science, not just about how it relates to society. I also wish she gave more of an overview as well, rather than just including her view on it.
Overall I really enjoyed reading Eva’s review. I really enjoyed how it was about one case because I have never heard of. I think she chose a very interesting article to write about.
Damian Kaminski
4/23/20
Current event 22
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
From Eva’s review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,”I felt that I was able to learn many new things that she explained. She incited many great details in her review. For example, She 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 her review. Secondly, Eva added quotes from the article which gives the reader another incite about what others thought about the case. For example, she used the quote “We have asked the court to dismiss the remaining cases where Farak signed the drug certificate of analysis. In addition, we have asked the court to dismiss all Amherst Lab cases during Farak’s tenure, because her misconduct was not limited to cases where she signed the drug certificate of analysis, but impacted all cases at the Amherst lab.”to help set up her own opinion. Also, I thought Eva did a good job on adding her own thoughts and opinions into the review rather than just straight facts.
Although, she could add a few more ideas to his review to make it perfect. First, I think that Eva should add more about the forensics part of the crime. Along with this, there are parts where she can make his point more clear and concise through the review.
Overall, I think she did a good job summarizing the article and adding her own thoughts and opinions. I found this review interesting and informative because I have never heard of this case and I am happy Eva brought up this article for her review.
Maggie Miller
April 25th, 2018
Forensics A/B odd
Current Event 23 Comment
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva Cagliostro submitted an excellent review of the Forensic Magazine article, “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU,” by Seth Augenstein. Eva did a great job giving a summary of the article, sharing with the readers the key information on the cases being evaluated. Eva also used a great quote from an expert staff member on the case, which helped support her claim. She also went in depth into how this article impacts the forensic world, which improved the power of her writing greatly.
However; there were two things Eva could have improved on in her writing. One thing is that she did not divide up the paragraphs properly, so combined the critique section with the connection to our world. Secondly, she was very brief on her critique of the article and could have gone much more in depth into this section.
Overall, I was very interested in this article and Eva’s review, it is a group of cases I had not yet heard about, but am interested to learn more.
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
This week my classmate Eva Caligestro did a current event on the article “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.” written by Seth Augenstein. The article that was published in Forensic Magazine talks about how a forensic lab technician possibly contaminated evidence that was used in 11,000 forensic cases. The first thing that surprised me was that for the nine years she was working at this forensic lab she was high nearly everyday. I couldn’t believe that no one in the lab noticed she was high. The second thing that shocked me was that she actually used drugs used as evidence or made as a control in the laboratory. Finally, I was glad that the ACLU could help free some prisoners that were wrongly convicted due to her mishandlings.
Overall Eva did a really good job on this article. It was a very interesting article and she presented the facts as is. I also really liked her personal input on what she thought of what happened. However, there are two things that she could've added to make the reader understand what happened better. The first thing she could’ve added was more information about the investigation into the contamination cases. She also could’ve added quotes from people in the lab, or judges instead of the ACLU. However, the article was still very informative.
This article is very important. It highlights how we should be very careful with who employ in our criminal justice system. The carelessness of this forensic technician is very shameful. We could learn from this and do routine drug tests among other preventative procedures.
Olivia Lewis
Ippolito
Forensics AB Odd
Current Event 23
4/25/18
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva Cagliostro's review of the article “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals” was very well thought out and informative. Overall, I think that she did a very good job in her review of the article; specifically, her summary of the article was very thorough. She included several specific details and gave the reader a good understanding of the article without actually having to read it. Eva also did a very good job of connecting the information presented in the article to society and to what we are learning in class. She was able to clearly detail the implications of this event on society as a whole. Finally, I think that Eva’s critique of the article was very well thought out. She listed specific things that the author could have changed in order to make the article more impactful and interesting to the reader.
While Eva’s critique of the article was overall very good, there were a few places where she could have improved. Firstly, I think that if she had added more quotes from the article, it would have been helpful to the reader as we would be able to get a better understanding of the article that she was critiquing. I also think that Eva could have added slightly more information on the forensic science of this case. While the article is more focused on the issues of a forensics lab and not the forensic science itself, I think that it would have been more interesting if she had added more information on how the forensics lab mishandled the evidence and how it could have been improved.
Overall, Eva wrote a very interesting and informative critique of this article. It was an interesting look at how forensic science can be faulty and how it is a very delicate field, as a slight mistake can have extreme repercussions.
Martha Thomas
4/26/2018
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
Eva did a great job on her current event review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass Leands to 11,000 Case Dismissals.” Eva’s quote use was well done, citing an expert made her review more credible. Eva’s summary was detailed and clear. Eva’s thoughts and opinions added a nice touch to her review, especially her criticism of the original article.
Eva could have improved her review by connecting this crime to society as a whole. She also could have included more information and details about the judicial side of this event, instead of focusing on the ACLU.
This review was the first of my hearing of this scandal in Massachusetts. I am outraged at this neglect of justice and am glad that Eva brought this issue to my attention.
Sophia Kocur
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu
I read Eva Cagliostro’s review of “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU”, an article written for Forensic Magazine by Seth Augenstein. Her review was very well written. For example, She 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 her review. Secondly, Eva added quotes from the article which gives the reader another incite about what others thought about the case. For example, she used the quote “We have asked the court to dismiss the remaining cases where Farak signed the drug certificate of analysis. In addition, we have asked the court to dismiss all Amherst Lab cases during Farak’s tenure, because her misconduct was not limited to cases where she signed the drug certificate of analysis, but impacted all cases at the Amherst lab.”to help set up her own opinion. Also, I thought Eva did a good job on adding her own thoughts and opinions into the review rather than just straight facts.
Although her review was very logical and easy to understand, there is always room for improvement. One thing is that she did not divide up the paragraphs properly, she combined the critique section with the connection to our world. I think that she also could have expanded on this second section about the connection to the world because she didn’t explain how it affected forensics enough. Secondly, she was very brief on her critique of the article and could have gone much more in depth into this section.
I enjoyed reading Evas current event and I found it very interesting. The carelessness of this forensic technician is very shameful. We could learn from this and do routine drug tests among other preventative procedures.
Timmy McGrath
Bronxville School
4/26/18
Current Event #23
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU.”
Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018, www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
I read Eva’s current event on “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU”. Eva did a great job summarizing the article she really helped the reader understand what the author was talking about. She also did a great job sharing Key information on the cases this really helped the reader understand the cases being talked about. She also did a great job quoting the author. This helped the reader gain the perspective of the author.
Although her review was great there were some things she could have done better. She could have added more forensics information about the crime this would help people to understand how forensics is being used. She also could have could have made her critique a little bit longer.
Overall I thought the review was great and I would like to look into the cases being investigated.
Justin McCarthy
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics 12H
Current Event 22- Reviewing Eva Cagliostro’s Comment
Due April 30th 2018
Augenstein, Seth. “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU. ”Forensic Magazine, 17 Apr. 2018,
www.forensicmag.com/news/2018/04/second-lab-scandal-mass-leads-11000-case-dismissals-aclu.
For this week’s current event review I decided to review an article that Eva Caligestro wrote which was on Forensic Magazine's “Second Lab Scandal in Mass. Leads to 11,000 Case Dismissals: ACLU” which was written by Seth Augenstein. There were many great things that I learned about when I read this article it was very good when it comes to writing by the author as well as very good review by Eva. Therefore the first factor which I though Eva did a great job at was that based on her writing I thought she did a great job presenting logos throughout her work. This surprised me and worked since with her going deep into the facts she is able to present a very well rounded argument that is presented during her work which she was able to do through using great grammar. A second factor which I thought Eva did a great job at was providing textual evidence. This is important to the highest level because without quotes than there is limited validity to a review. Eva did this perfly because as she provides quotes she makes her review sound not only better but it also adds more depth to the article. Thence the third and final factor which I also thought Eva did a great job at was using a great 3 paragraph structure to present her review almost as if it was a story. This is important because if a review seems boring it has the power to turn people off since there’s a chance that the review could not be interesting. Eva did a great job at this because she not only provided great depth but made her review interesting throughout.
Overall while Eva did a really good job on this article I believe there were some minor changes that she could have made to make her review a little better. The first thing that I believed she could have done to make her review better was to perhaps start her review off with a little hook to not only make the reader understand what happened better but also catch her reader’s interest. This is important because when executed properly it can draw several readers in. Thus the second factor which I also believe Eva could have improved on was she perhaps could have cut down on her quotes because while they were really good with information they were a bit redundant because they were a little long to read. I believe the best way to fix this is by breaking the quotes apart to make them appear shorter as well as more fluent to your writing style. Despite these two minor issues however I believe that this article was still very informative and very thoughtful review.
Overall I liked this review very much and I think Eva did a good job summarizing the article and adding her own thoughts and opinions to it. Thence I found this review interesting and informative because I have never heard this case before and I am happy Eva brought up this article for her review because it is a case that is outside the box when it comes to forensics. Since it was an interesting review to read and it was eye opening to learn about the huge effect one person can have when it come to lab work. .It was also nice to read because I was able to connect it to what we learned about drugs and the side effects addiction can have on people which is a huge problem. Thus I chose this article because I am a fan to which Forensic Magazine provide as they are a very trustworthy source. I think Eva did a great job at her review and I thought it was very good.
Post a Comment