Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics
10.26.19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after
33,000 Years.” New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/.
During World War II in 1941, the skull of a man from 30,000 years ago
was discovered. The skull belonged to a Cioclavina male from the
Upper Paleolithic Period. Since then, the skull has been examined
and analyzed by curious forensic anthropologists. Many of the
questions that people thought to themselves were how the way
he died: Did a cave collapse? Or was it a homicide? The skull
showed signs of trauma, with two fractures on the right side,
which led them to believe it was a forced injury.
When reading the article an explanation of forensic evidence
was written and was clearly used in the process of deciphering
the result of the Cioclavina man. The forensic scientists
figured out that the first fracture was a “head-on” collision.
This made the scientists believe it was a collapsing cave
falling on the man’s head. After further examination, by
recreating multiple skulls, artificial skulls filled with
ballistic gelatin, and testing different scenarios with
them, they came to a conclusion, “The linear fracture
happened first and could have been either a result of a
person falling from their own height – while running
from someone, for example – or a result of a strike while
kneeling or being on the ground” said by scientist Kranioti.
She then began to think the second fracture was from a
head-on collision caused by another individual. “Which
means that, in modern terms, if I had to define the cause
and matter of death as a forensic pathologist I would say
that the person died of craniocerebral injuries (as the brain
would also have been damaged from the blows) and that it
was a homicide.” Kranioti also adds, that without the
remaining parts of the body there is no sure way to
understand the matter of the man’s death completely.
I actually really enjoy learning new things about how
we acted and what we used to do to survive during the
Paleolithic Era. That is the reason I picked this article
because I wanted to understand more about the kinds
of procedures that need to be taken to have a result with
evidence in rare conditions.
8 comments:
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after
33,000 Years.” New Scientist, 3 July 2019, www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/.
For this week’s current event I decided to respond to Lorelei Heath’s analysis of “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” Firstly, Lorelei does an excellent job at reflecting on the main idea of the article, to open her response. “During World War II in 1941, the skull of a man from 30,000 years ago was discovered. The skull belonged to a Cioclovina male from the Upper Paleolithic Period. Since then, the skull has been examined and analyzed by curious forensic anthropologists.” Lorelei highlights the main idea of the article and describes it in great detail. Additionally, she also does a good job of she does a good job of providing an explanation of the forensic evidence of the case “The forensic scientists
figured out that the first fracture was a “head-on” collision. This made the scientists believe it was a collapsing cave falling on the man’s head. After further examination, by recreating multiple skulls, artificial skulls filled with ballistic gelatin, and testing different scenarios with them, they came to a conclusion, “The linear fracture happened first and could have been either a result of a person falling from their own height – while running from someone, for example – or a result of a strike while kneeling or being on the ground” said by scientist Kranioti. She does an excellent job providing detail on the trauma that occured to the skull, allowing for further discussion on what could've happened. Lastly, Lorelei also includes a very crucial point which is very important to the case “Kranioti also adds that without the remaining parts of the body there is no sure way to understand the matter of the man’s death completely.” She highlights that although forensic evidence suggest probable causes of death, there is no sure way to fully understand the matter of death without the rest of the body.
Although Lorelei does an excellent job reflecting on the article, she could have been more detailed at the end of her response about what she found interesting and helpful about this article. Additionally, she could have provided more direct quotes from the article to show the author's point of view.
Overall, Loerlei did a great job at summarizing the article, and providing her perspective on an interesting case from over 33,000 years ago.
Charlotte Cagliostro
Forensics
C Odd / Current Event 6
10/28/19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” New Scientist, 3 July 2019, www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/.
Review: https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/10/modern-forensics-solves-stone-age.html
Lorelei Heath wrote a very good review of Ruby Scully’s New Scientist article: “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” There are three main aspects of Lorelei’s piece that I enjoyed. First, she wrote in a quite sophisticated and engaging manner that made me want to keep reading. She did a great job at summarizing the key points from the New Scientist article. Second, Lorelei was able to seamlessly integrate numerous quotes. Those sections taken from the origin article added a lot to her piece. Third, I quite enjoyed her introductory paragraph. Lorelei is certainly able to captivate the reader and make them want to continue reading.
However, there are two parts of her review that I think she can improve upon. First, she never spoke about the significance of this breakthrough in the forensic world. I think it would have added a lot to her piece if Lorelei had included her own take on the discovery. Second, I think she could have expanded on her conclusion. To me, that paragraph just seemed quite rushed, and she didn't even make any critiques about the original article.
I learned quite a few things through reading Lorelei’s review. In specific, I enjoyed learning about the lengthy process involved with determining this individual’s cause of death (homicide).
Madison Meehan
10/27/19
Forensics D Odd
Current Event 6
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-myst
ery-after-33000-years/.
I believe Lorelei wrote a very good review on the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery After 33,000 Years”. She summarized the article very well, keeping the reader engaged. Secondly, I learned a lot about forensics from this review and believe she picked a very useful article. Lastly, Lorelei did a very good job providing evidence from the article in her second paragraph to back up what she was discussing or arguing. Overall, I believe she did a very good job with the review.
Although she did a great job on the review, there were some things she could change to make it better. First, I think she could have critiqued the article a little more. I believe she did a good job summarizing it but not giving her actual opinion on a lot of the things she mentioned. Secondly, she could have discussed what this mystery actually accomplished. She mentioned that it was very important but I believe she could have discussed the outcome in greater detail.
I learned a lot from reading this review, specifically about examination processes. I enjoyed reading this review and believe the topic was very interesting and relevant to the class.
Ruby Howell
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics Current Event #6
October 29th, 2019
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after
33,000 Years.” New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/.
This review of the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” by Ruby Prosser is an impressive article on the discovery of a skull that belonged to a Cioclovina male from the Upper Paleolithic Period that was found during World War II in 1941. What made the skull so interesting was how old it was; estimated to be around 30,000 years old.
Forensic anthropologists examined the skull and asked themselves questions of how the man it belonged to died, based on the details on the skull. The reviewer of this article did an amazing job summarizing and explaining the article, incorporating every important piece of information given in the text. The Author especially did a good job explaining parts of the article that were significant to the story of the skull, and how they came to the results that they found. Additionally, the reviewer expressed the shortcomings of the article, such as explaining that without the remaining parts of the body, the forensic scientists would have no sure way to understand the matter of the man’s death completely.
Overall the reviewer did a very impressive job writing her review of the article, knowing that the article presented a multitude of facts but choosing to incorporate the important ones was an intelligent decision.
Angie Pearson
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics Current Event #6
October 27, 2019
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-myst
ery-after-33000-years/.
I believe Lorelie wrote an impressive review on the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery After 33,000 Years”. First, she summarized the article in a sophisticated manner and kept the reader engaged. Second, Lorelie did a great job at providing evidence by using quotes. Lastly, I enjoyed how concise her writing was. Overall, Lorelie did a great job with her review.
However, there are two parts that I believe could be improved upon. First, she could have included more about her opinion rather than just summarizing. Second, Lorelie did not mention the importance of his breakthrough which could have strengthened her review even more.
I learned a number of things from Lorelie's summary. For example, how tedious it is to determine the cause of death. Overall, Lorelie did an impressive job at writing this review.
The review Lorelei Heath performed on the article: v“Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after33,000 Years” was very interesting and informative. she talks about how during World War II the skull of a man from 30,000 years ago was discovered. I like how she was straightforward with the information. When she stated “the skull belonged to a Cioclovina male from the Upper Paleolithic Period. Since then, the skull has been examined and analyzed by curious forensic anthropologists”,It was a good way to put the information because she did not use any unnecessary detail and got the point across to set the stage of the article. I also appreciate how he was able to add mystery to the story by stating questions of suspense, such as”Did a cave collapse? Or was it a homicide?”. She also has wonderful sentence flow which is evident in her sentence: “When reading the article an explanation of forensic evidence was written and was clearly used in the process of deciphering the result of the Cioclovina man.” This is just one example of his wonderful sentence flow. It makes the reader more engaged and shows that she put work into drafting the review.
One thing Randy could improve on is explaining how and why she chose the article. Her last paragraph is extremely short and lacks any real ideas or detail. Lorelei’s Analysis was also very short and lacked more detail. She could provide a longer analysis that makes the reader feel she has read the full article and knows what it is about. This short analysis leaves the reader unfulfilled. To improve, Lorelei could spend more time talking about the importance of the article, as well as creating a stronger summary to make sure the reader really knows that the article is about.
I chose this article because it was very interesting and I enjoy reading things like this. I also wanted to see Lorelei’s writing style as I have never looked at one of her reviews before. By reading this article I learned about scientists using different technology to examine skulls found in the ground. It was very informative. It will change my perception because now I have another piece of knowledge that I can use.
The review Lorelei Heath performed on the article: v“Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after33,000 Years” was very interesting and informative. she talks about how during World War II the skull of a man from 30,000 years ago was discovered. I like how she was straightforward with the information. When she stated “the skull belonged to a Cioclovina male from the Upper Paleolithic Period. Since then, the skull has been examined and analyzed by curious forensic anthropologists”,It was a good way to put the information because she did not use any unnecessary detail and got the point across to set the stage of the article. I also appreciate how he was able to add mystery to the story by stating questions of suspense, such as”Did a cave collapse? Or was it a homicide?”. She also has wonderful sentence flow which is evident in her sentence: “When reading the article an explanation of forensic evidence was written and was clearly used in the process of deciphering the result of the Cioclovina man.” This is just one example of his wonderful sentence flow. It makes the reader more engaged and shows that she put work into drafting the review.
One thing Randy could improve on is explaining how and why she chose the article. Her last paragraph is extremely short and lacks any real ideas or detail. Lorelei’s Analysis was also very short and lacked more detail. She could provide a longer analysis that makes the reader feel she has read the full article and knows what it is about. This short analysis leaves the reader unfulfilled. To improve, Lorelei could spend more time talking about the importance of the article, as well as creating a stronger summary to make sure the reader really knows that the article is about.
I chose this article because it was very interesting and I enjoy reading things like this. I also wanted to see Lorelei’s writing style as I have never looked at one of her reviews before. By reading this article I learned about scientists using different technology to examine skulls found in the ground. It was very informative. It will change my perception because now I have another piece of knowledge that I can use.
Ruby Howell
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics Current event #6
October 29th, 2019
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after
33,000 Years.” New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/.
This review of the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” by Ruby Prosser is an impressive article on the discovery of a skull that belonged to a Cioclovina male from the Upper Paleolithic Period that was found during World War II in 1941. What made the skull so interesting was how old it was; estimated to be around 30,000 years old.
Forensic anthropologists examined the skull and asked themselves questions of how the man it belonged to died, based on the details on the skull. The reviewer of this article did an amazing job summarizing and explaining the article, incorporating every important piece of information given in the text. The Author especially did a good job explaining parts of the article that were significant to the story of the skull, and how they came to the results that they found. Additionally, the reviewer expressed the shortcomings of the article, such as explaining that without the remaining parts of the body, the forensic scientists would have no sure way to understand the matter of the man’s death completely.
Overall the reviewer did a very impressive job writing her review of the article, knowing that the article presented a multitude of facts but choosing to incorporate the important ones was an intelligent decision.
Post a Comment