Molly Palma
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #10
Due December 5th
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
33,000 years ago, a Cioclovina man died from an unknown cause. The skull has been preserved ever since 1941 when miners were searching for phosphate in Romanian caves and came across it. There have been several theories about the cause of death that have been recently ruled out with the application of ‘modern forensic techniques’. Elena Kranioti at the University of Crete determined that the death was no accident. This is because there were depressed fractures that were shown on the CT scan, which are usually indicative of blunt force. In addition, the death would not have been caused by falling rock debris since the “fragments of bone flecked backwards into the skull.” It had to have been face-to-face conflict according to Kranioti and her colleagues.
Scully’s article is relevant for a multitude of reasons. First, it talks about the evolution of forensic science. In 1941 forensic scientists were unable to determine the cause of death just by having the skull. Usually forensic scientists looked at the body to evaluate the sequence of events, which they didn’t have from a victim from 3300 decades ago ago. Now, there doesn’t have to be a body to make conclusions, because there are generalizations that are internalized. In this, a CT scan and group of professionals were able to agree on what likely happened. This article is important not just to forensic science, but to history. Scully summarizes Stanley Serafin at the University of New South Wales, identifying new questions asked “about whether this violence was committed by someone of the same species, or whether it was perhaps caused by these modern humans migrating into areas where Neanderthals may have still lived.” Now historians are going to be tempted to dig up more information regarding this predicament. Maybe we will be able to piece together information that can tell the untold story of the past.
It was great how Scully organized her article. She started with a summary providing context about time regarding the victim’s death and when the skull was found, the confusion created about what happened to the victim, and the professionals looking into it. She had subtopics labelled ‘Bat Attack’, ‘Face-to-face’, and ‘Lethal Injuries’ which she neatly laid out her information. This not only kept the reader engaged but made it easier for them to understand the case especially if they are not forensic scientists. I did not like how short the paragraphs were for ‘Bat Attack’ and ‘Face-to-face’. The last paragraph under ‘Lethal Injuries’ had quotes and ideas taken from a new forensic scientist which kept a tone of professionalism in it. In order to keep that tone throughout, Scully should cite more experts or explain the generalized techniques that those experts use more. Otherwise the article was concise, intriguing, and relevant.
8 comments:
Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 10
12.5.19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-mur
er-mystery-after-33000-years/
Molly’s analysis of the article written by Ruby. P. Scully, “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years” was intriguing and exciting. I had fun reading her summary because it was full of information, detail, and an explanation of the forensic science that was used in this case. While I was reading I felt as if I was reading the article itself and not a student. Her writing style showed a professional technique and was extremely informative.
To me, Molly does not need criticism for her work, she did wonderfully at her writing and including her own information. One suggestion I recommend id to include more context and to cite it accordingly. Other than the lack of context her summary was inclusive and to the point. Which also gives readers a better understanding of the topic.
I learned a very interesting story from her analysis, although I had already read a similar article, I realized I had missed some information about this case and I now understand this much more than before.
Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 10
12.5.19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-mur
er-mystery-after-33000-years/
Molly’s analysis of the article written by Ruby. P. Scully, “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years” was intriguing and exciting. I had fun reading her summary because it was full of information, detail, and an explanation of the forensic science that was used in this case. While I was reading I felt as if I was reading the article itself and not a student. Her writing style showed a professional technique and was extremely informative.
To me, Molly does not need criticism for her work, she did wonderfully at her writing and including her own information. One suggestion I recommend id to include more context and to cite it accordingly. Other than the lack of context her summary was inclusive and to the point. Which also gives readers a better understanding of the topic.
I learned a very interesting story from her analysis, although I had already read a similar article, I realized I had missed some information about this case and I now understand this much more than before.
Sunday Ladas
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics D-ODD
4 December 2019
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/12/molly-palmas-review-of-modern-forensics.html
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone
Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”New Scientist, 3 July 2019, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murer-mystery-after-33000-years/
I like how Molly informed the reader as to how the forensic scientist perform the autopsy. It was and what it was and how she explained the steps the forensic scientist took when performing the autopsy. I also found it interesting how she explained the positive and negative effects of the new treatment that is being researched as the writer of the article did. I also liked how she incorporated current problems when opening their body and how it tells them what happened. Lastly, I thought that she did a really good job incorporating the article into her article, I liked how she incorporated quotes that the Author of the article she read said.
I did not like how she listed facts then talked about a dispute between two forensic scientists and then listed facts again. I felt she could have listed the facts and then talked about the dispute between the scientists regarding the new treatment. Although she did a good job tying the article into current day events and problems, I felt she could have added more to tie in the cause of death to current events or given more examples as to what the cause of death was.
When reading this article I learned lots of new things about forensic anthropologists that I didn’t know before. I found that the new treatment that makes it easier to perform an autopsy could potentially be easier. I think that this particular case is very interesting because the forensic report differentiated animal parts from human parts.
Isabelle Kennedy
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murder-mystery-after-33000-years/
For this week’s current events, I decided to analyze Molly Palma’s response to “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.” Molly does an excellent job providing description of the event in which the article is about. “33,000 years ago, a Cioclovina man died from an unknown cause. The skull has been preserved ever since 1941 when miners were searching for phosphate in Romanian caves and came across it,” says Molly. She does a great job at briefly summarizing the main idea. As well summarizing the main idea, Molly clearly states what could have happened to this skull and provides information to back it up. “Elena Kranioti at the University of Crete determined that the death was no accident. This is because there were depressed fractures that were shown on the CT scan, which are usually indicative of blunt force.” Through including this, the reader of her analysis is able to learn that depressive fractures could have been brought about by blunt force. Molly also provides further information that allows the reader’s perception of what happend to grow even deeper. “In addition, the death would not have been caused by falling rock debris since the “fragments of bone flecked backwards into the skull.” She provides information about the bone was found, creating information for what didn't happen allowing us to get closer to the truth.
Molly however, could have included a lot more detail of the event and could have provided more background so the reader had more context. As well as this, she could have included more direct quotes from the article to show the author's point of view.
Overall, Molly did a very good at providing a response to this article. She did a good job at pointing out information that helped solve a stone age murder, and includes all points of how the murder was solved using forensic information.
Logan Glick
Forensics
Current Event 10
12/4/19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-mur
er-mystery-after-33000-years/
Molly Palma wrote a wonderful article about a Murder Mystery that was solved 33,000 years after it was committed. The man who was murdered was discovered by miners in 1941, with his body being fully preserved. Molly describes how to body was found in a really good way, “The skull has been preserved ever since 1941 when miners were searching for phosphate in Romanian caves and came across it.” Here she explains the way the body was discovered which is very important. Molly also does a great job of using expert testimony to prove that the man was murdered. Using experts makes her argument a lot stronger, “Elena Kranioti at the University of Crete determined that the death was no accident. This is because there were depressed fractures that were shown on the CT scan, which are usually indicative of blunt force.” By using this person her argument is legitimized because it proves that the man did not die naturally. She also does a great job at highlighting the advancements in forensic technology, “Scully’s article is relevant for a multitude of reasons. First, it talks about the evolution of forensic science. In 1941 forensic scientists were unable to determine the cause of death just by having the skull.”
Molly wrote a great essay, but she still has some areas she can improve on. She is a little vague in some parts of her article and it shows, “Now historians are going to be tempted to dig up more information regarding this predicament. Maybe we will be able to piece together information that can tell the untold story of the past.” She needs to explain how further information can help solve the story, instead of just saying it will. Another area she can improve on is in this sentence, “ The last paragraph under ‘Lethal Injuries’ had quotes and ideas taken from a new forensic scientist which kept a tone of professionalism in it.” To improve this sentence she needs to include examples. That would greatly improve the function this sentence serves.
This article will affect the way that I look at forensics because it shows me how important the field is to solve murder mysteries. It also proves how many advancements that industry has had and how over time it can evolve to solve mysteries that were once unsolvable. Overall, this article was really well written and I think it is something others should read.
Eve Balseiro
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000
Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murer-mystery-after-33000-years/
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/12/molly-palmas-review-of-modern-forensics.html
Molly’s review and analysis of “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years” is well summarized and detailed. There were three things that especially made it well-written. Firstly, Molly retrieved quotes that allowed her summary of the backstory to be very enlightening. Secondly, Molly made sure to keep her summary short and sweet and followed it with the relevance which was very easy for readers to follow. Lastly, I believe Molly chose a very relevant piece which made it very enjoyable to read.
Though I think Molly’s current event is very well-written, there is still room for improvement. Most notably, there were a few grammar errors. For example, when writing about the age of the skull analyzed, she wrote: “3300 decades ago ago”. Placing her writing in an online grammar service would eliminate this problem. Secondly, I feel Molly elaborate too much on the structure of the article as that was not very important.
From Molly’s review and analysis of “Modern Forensics Solves Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years” was a very educating piece of writing. I chose to read Molly’s current event because it was very intriguing. It makes me curious as to if any other old cases will receive more evidence. I also got to learn much more about the strength of forensic science today.
Ruby Howell
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 10
12/2/19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murer-mystery-after-33000-years/
After reading the review of the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”, it is clear that Molly had a deep understanding of the article. Not only did she mention the small yet crucial details discussed within the text, she also provided a clear and coherent explanation of the articles findings and results. The article focused on the forensic findings of a 33,000 year old skull that was uncovered in 1941 by miners.
One of the most impressive points was that the author of the article review included is an explanation of the importance of recent scientific findings about the skull, “There have been several theories about the cause of death that have been recently ruled out with the application of ‘modern forensic techniques”. It turned out that the depressed factors found on the skull led to the determination that the cause of death could be contributed to some kind of blunt force to the skull. In addition to mentioning the findings found within the article, but also Molly even provided evidence to use with counterclaims about the cause of death, including the observation that it had to have been from face-to-face contact. Apparently, when it was uncovered, there were many theories surrounding the “the death would not have been caused by falling rock debris” then going on to use evidence from the text: “fragments of bone flecked backwards into the skull.” Along with a concise explanation of the research and its significance to forensic science, the review of the article even includes its relevance to science as a whole. This case documents the advanced technology of forensic science, as unlike when the skull was found, now forensic scientists are able to use something as small a just a skull to determine the cause of death. In addition, Molly made an insightful connection between this case and its importance, concluding that “This article is important not just to forensic science, but to history.” If I had to change anything about this review it would be to add more information about the researchers findings and how it took till now to come to those conclusions. While I greatly enjoyed all of the contextual details explained within this review, the last thing I would add would be more details on the previous theories about the cause of death.
Overall, this was a very interesting article and with an impressive review that enraptures not only the articles purpose but also draws connections between the research and its importance within forensic science as a whole. With this review, I want to be able to develop a more coherent understanding of the articles context to its research.
Ruby Howell
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 10
12/2/19
Scully, Ruby Prosser. “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”
New Scientist, 3 July 2019,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208455-modern-forensics-solves-stone-age-murer-mystery-after-33000-years/
After reading the review of the article “Modern Forensics Solves Stone Age Murder Mystery after 33,000 Years.”, it is clear that Molly had a deep understanding of the article. Not only did she mention the small yet crucial details discussed within the text, she also provided a clear and coherent explanation of the articles findings and results. The article focused on the forensic findings of a 33,000 year old skull that was uncovered in 1941 by miners.
One of the most impressive points was that the author of the article review included is an explanation of the importance of recent scientific findings about the skull, “There have been several theories about the cause of death that have been recently ruled out with the application of ‘modern forensic techniques”. It turned out that the depressed factors found on the skull led to the determination that the cause of death could be contributed to some kind of blunt force to the skull. In addition to mentioning the findings found within the article, but also Molly even provided evidence to use with counterclaims about the cause of death, including the observation that it had to have been from face-to-face contact. Apparently, when it was uncovered, there were many theories surrounding the “the death would not have been caused by falling rock debris” then going on to use evidence from the text: “fragments of bone flecked backwards into the skull.” Along with a concise explanation of the research and its significance to forensic science, the review of the article even includes its relevance to science as a whole. This case documents the advanced technology of forensic science, as unlike when the skull was found, now forensic scientists are able to use something as small a just a skull to determine the cause of death. In addition, Molly made an insightful connection between this case and its importance, concluding that “This article is important not just to forensic science, but to history.” If I had to change anything about this review it would be to add more information about the researchers findings and how it took till now to come to those conclusions. While I greatly enjoyed all of the contextual details explained within this review, the last thing I would add would be more details on the previous theories about the cause of death.
Overall, this was a very interesting article and with an impressive review that enraptures not only the articles purpose but also draws connections between the research and its importance within forensic science as a whole. With this review, I want to be able to develop a more coherent understanding of the articles context to its research.
Post a Comment