Charlotte Martin
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics Current Event #13
January 22th, 2020
Fortin, Jacey, and Heather Murphy. “Despite 'Unsupportable' Bloodstain Analysis, No Relief for Man Convicted of Murder.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/joe-bryan-texas.html.
Bloodstain pattern analysis is a technique used in forensic science to study bloodstains found at a crime scene. It can also help draw conclusions about the case. In 1985, Joe Bryan was convicted of killing his wife, Mickey Bryan but he claims he is innocent. When a man at his trial had delivered an expert testimony concerning the blood splatter in the room where the murder occurred it was a very pivotal moment. It has now been revealed that some conclusions of this man had made were incorrect. At the time of the murder, Mr. Bryan was in Austin Texas, 120 miles away from his wife. After he returned he let Ms. Bryan’s older brother, Charlie Blue to use his car. Mr. Blue later told authorities when he opened the trunk of the car he found a flashlight with bloodstains on the lens. They then concluded “They called Robert Thorman, a police detective who was trained in bloodstain-pattern analysis, as an expert witness. Pointing to the patterns of blood as evidence, Mr. Thorman tied the strands of the case together in a narrative that involved Mr. Bryan driving from Austin to Clifton, shooting his wife at close range, changing his clothes and driving back to the conference.” In July 2018 the Texas Forensic Science Commission said that the blood-spatter analysis used to convict Mr. Bryan was not supported by science.
Overall, I found this article to be very informative on the use of bloodstain analysis and how it works in actual cases. The author did a good job making sure the article was easy to understand and had a great amount of background information to catch the reader up. It was also well organized with its dates and events in order. Although this article could be improved by including more quotes just to show what source they got their information from.
2 comments:
Madison Meehan
1/22/20
Forensics D Odd
Current Event 13
Charlotte picked a very good article to write a current event on because it teaches a lot about forensics. Since the article had to do with an investigation with evidence of bloodstain, she explained bloodstain pattern analysis in the very beginning of her first paragraph, which was very helpful. She also did a very good job including specific quotes from the article to be more descriptive in her writing. Lastly, I believe Charlotte did a very good job summarizing the article because I learned a lot about the case and how looking at bloodstains could help solve it.
Although she did a very good job with the current event, there are some things she could have done to make it better. The first thing is she could have menioned the name of the article and the author in the beginning of her current event just to be clear what she was taking about. Lastly, she could have been more descriptive in her conclusion about what she would change about the article.
Overall, Charlotte did a very good job with her current event. I learned a lot from reading this and the article. It helped me understand why bloodstains are so crucial in cases and how forensic scientists use this evidence to help them.
Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 13
1.23.20
Fortin, Jacey, and Heather Murphy. “Despite 'Unsupportable' Bloodstain Analysis, No Relief for Man Convicted of Murder.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/joe-bryan-texas.html.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
Charlotte’s review of the article was informative and was supported greatly. She begins her summary by writing about her chosen article. She provides background and information. I was very interested in this case, it was interesting and to the point. Which is good for comprehension and understanding.
Charlotte’s review was very detailed in the summary but needed more forensic evidence and explanation in her analysis of forensic science. She could have explained her thoughts on the tests the scientists made from the evidence. Overall, her review was good but could use more.
This article was great! She explained it well and it had a great tone. It went over DNA in which we learned in class once. As a result, I enjoyed reading the article and her review.
Post a Comment