Tuesday, September 17, 2019
How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years
Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic 11 c-odd
9.17.19
Current Event 2
Citation:
Murphy, Heather. “How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years”, The New York Times, 11 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/cold-case-genealogy-dna.html.
In this article, written by Heather Murphy, she explains how the case of a Jane Doe from 1982 was solved. Jane Doe was shot in the forest near Lake Tahoe. Unfortunately, they were not able to identify her at the time of her death but knew certain characteristics. “She was in her 20’s or 30’s, 5 ½ feet tall, with hazel eyes and brown hair” (Murphy, 2019, para. 4). Nearly 36 years later, the Washo County Sheriff’s office identified Jane Doe and her killer. Jane Doe’s real name was Mary Edith Silvani born in September of 1948. Her killer was James Richard Curry born in 1946. The Sheriff’s office used a technique involving genetic genealogy to identify Mary and James. Relatives of Mary and James were the key to solving this cold case. Genealogy websites played an intricate part as well. This method has been popular over the past year used to help solve several cold cases. This case was the first time both victim and killer were named.
The forensic evidence showed Mary Edith Silvani in the mountains that ran along the border of California and Nevada. There were footprints that she and her killer walked about a mile away from the main road to a location known as Sheep’s Flat. Mary was found near a log, shot in the back of the head. The autopsy found semen, what appeared to be salad in her stomach and her dental work suggested that she was European. The evidence collected at the time of her death was not able to identify her. In 1982, DNA was not used as it is today. This article affects the development of forensic science by showing how DNA has evolved over the last 30 years. As you can see, in 1982 the police had DNA but were not able to test it. In 2018, forensic genealogist, Colleen Fitzpatrick developed a method for identifying DNA. The use of a database called GEDmatch was used to upload DNA and find relatives. They opened this database up to law enforcement which helped in solving cold cases. They found semen at the scene of the crime and it wasn’t until 2018 that they were able to test it. This is what they used to identify the killer.
I found the article to be interesting but poorly written. Murphy informed me about the use of forensic science through DNA and how it identified Mary and James 36 years later. Having the ability to use DNA to solve cases is extremely important. I am happy we have the technology and resources that give us the ability to use all of the forensic science at crime scenes. I felt the article was poorly written. The author’s writing was choppy and her style confusing. I had to read the article several times to fully understand the case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ellie Dessart
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics C Odd
5 November 2019
Current Event 7 Comment
Citation:
Murphy, Heather. “How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years”, The
New York Times, 11 May 2019,
www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/cold-case-genealogy-dna.html.
Lorelai’s review was interesting and informative. She did a good job keeping her summary short, making it easy for readers to follow. Facilitated by her concise summary, I was able to learn more about the story while simultaneously staying engaged Additionally, Lorelai integrated specific evidence from the original article into her own piece. For example, she wrote, “She was in her 20’s or 30’s, 5 ½ feet tall, with hazel eyes and brown hair.” Using direct support strengthens her own writing, and by including details about the victim, readers can better visualize the situation. Finally, Lorelai did a good job connecting her article to our study of forensic evidence. She states in her second paragraph, “This article affects the development of forensic science by showing how DNA has evolved over the last 30 years.” This one insightful line demonstrates her understanding of the article’s relevance to our studies.
However, there were some aspects of her review Lorelai could have improved on. While her summary was short and easy to read, it was a little too vague. For example, Lorelai wrote, “Genealogy websites played an intricate part as well.” I wish Lorelai detailed the specific science behind genealogy websites, because I was interested in hearing more about their contributions to the case. Additionally, while Lorelai connected her article to our study of forensic science, much of her second paragraph was a summary continued from the first paragraph. She could have improved the section by focusing less on recollecting the story and instead working on analyzing the effects of the case. I felt like her own ideas and insight were weighed down by the heavy emphasis on summary.
Overall, I enjoyed Lorelai’s review. By reading her summary and analysis, I learned the power of DNA and its strength as evidence, even 30 years later. As technology advances and continues to develop, it’ll be interesting to see the vast array of cold cases that can be solved through the smallest samples of DNA evidence.
This survey was intriguing. She worked admirably keeping her outline short, making it simple for perusers to pursue. Encouraged by her compact rundown, I had the option to get familiar with the story while at the same time remaining connected Additionally, Lorelai coordinated explicit proof from the first article into her own piece. For instance, she expressed, "She was in her 20's or 30's, 5 ½ feet tall, with hazel eyes and dark colored hair." Using direct help fortifies her very own composition, and by including insights regarding the person in question, perusers can all the more likely imagine the circumstance. At long last, Lorelai worked superbly associating her article to our investigation of legal proof. She states in her subsequent section, "This article influences the improvement of legal science by indicating how DNA has advanced in the course of the most recent 30 years."
In any case, there were a few parts of her survey Lorelai could have enhanced. While her rundown was short and simple to peruse, it was excessively dubious. For instance, Lorelai expressed, "Family history sites had an unpredictable influence also." I wish Lorelai point by point the particular science behind lineage sites, since I was keen on hearing increasingly about their commitments to the case. Furthermore, while Lorelai associated her article to our investigation of legal science, quite a bit of her subsequent section was a synopsis proceeded from the principal passage. She could have improved the segment by concentrating less on remembering the story and rather taking a shot at investigating the impacts of the case. I felt like her own thoughts and understanding were burdened by the overwhelming accentuation on synopsis.
In general, I making the most of Lorelai's survey. By perusing her rundown and investigation, I took in the intensity of DNA and its quality as proof, even after 30 years. As innovation advances and keeps on creating, it'll be fascinating to see the huge range of virus cases that can be illuminated through the littlest examples of DNA proof.
Lorelei's review of the article “How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years” by Heather Murphy was accurate and concise. I thought her summary was successful in presenting the key points of the article, and she seemed to accurately mimic the article's structure throughout her summary. I liked the way she used statistics and quotes from the article so that they worked in favor of her summary and backed up the arguments.
I would say Lorelei could improve her review by adding more details into her analysis. To do this, she could connect the points made in the article to specific current events. I also wished she had elaborated more on her own opinions regarding the topic.
I chose to comment on Lorelei's review because the title of the article drew my attention, and overall, it kept me engaged as a reader. I find the specificity of DNA incredibly intriguing, and this article satisfied my curiosities.
Sophia Prior
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event Review 7
November 5, 2019
Citation:
Murphy, Heather. “How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years”, The New York Times, 11 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/11/us/cold-case-genealogy-dna.html.
After reading Lorelai’s review of the article “How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years” by Heather Murphy, I was impressed by her use of details directly from the text, as they were integrated into her summary. Her review allowed the reader to follow along and used language that was intriguing as well as easy to understand. I liked her uses of quotes and statistics as a way to support her claims made. In terms of aspects of the review that Lorelai could improve on, I would say she could have improved on her first paragraph summary by adding her own opinion. In addition, she could have improved on adding more than one quote into her piece, she could have used a couple more in the last two paragraphs. After reading Lorelai’s review I was able to further my knowledge on genetic genealogy in order to solve a cold case. I was able to take away the importance that DNA has in order to solve a crime, and how even the smallest piece of DNA could solve the case.
Post a Comment