Randy Ayala Valdez
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic Science
6 January 2019
Current Events #12
Murphy, Heather. “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html.
Forensic Genealogy, a forensic technique that uses individuals’ relatives in genealogy databases to identify human remains and crime scene DNA, was able to help identify a torso that had been stuffed in a “burlap sack in a cave.” The torso belonged to Joseph Henry Loveless. Loveless was a bootlegger in Idaho who repeatedly escaped from jail by hiding a saw in his shoe and cutting his way out of his cell in 1916. He died 103 years ago yet forensic science was able to crack the case. The clothing found on the torso was an exact match for the clothes found on “Clark County John Doe.” To confirm this hypothesis, the genealogists used a close relative, locating his 87-year-old grandson, and the test determined that the remains belonged to his grandfather. Although the investigators do not know why Loveless was killed and buried in the cave, genetic genealogy aided in identifying unclaimed remains from a century ago.
The rise of genetic genealogy services has helped police crack crime investigations. The growth in the number of DNA ancestry tests being uploaded is what has enabled genetic genealogy to assist criminal investigations. The use of this practice has led to the identification of suspects or victims in criminal cases, pushing the concept of a future with genetic genealogy as a routine police procedure.
The article did a great job organizing the case in chronological order, making it very easy for the reader to follow. The research on the investigation is detailed oriented, listing dates and names originating back to the mystery of Joseph Henry Loveless. The article relies so heavily on the details of the case that it fails to grasp the bigger picture. In doing so, the reader only focuses on the identification of the torso instead of how in solving one mystery, investigators helped solve another. The article could be improved by providing both an analytical and simplistic approach to the investigation.
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic Science
6 January 2019
Current Events #12
Murphy, Heather. “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html.
Forensic Genealogy, a forensic technique that uses individuals’ relatives in genealogy databases to identify human remains and crime scene DNA, was able to help identify a torso that had been stuffed in a “burlap sack in a cave.” The torso belonged to Joseph Henry Loveless. Loveless was a bootlegger in Idaho who repeatedly escaped from jail by hiding a saw in his shoe and cutting his way out of his cell in 1916. He died 103 years ago yet forensic science was able to crack the case. The clothing found on the torso was an exact match for the clothes found on “Clark County John Doe.” To confirm this hypothesis, the genealogists used a close relative, locating his 87-year-old grandson, and the test determined that the remains belonged to his grandfather. Although the investigators do not know why Loveless was killed and buried in the cave, genetic genealogy aided in identifying unclaimed remains from a century ago.
The rise of genetic genealogy services has helped police crack crime investigations. The growth in the number of DNA ancestry tests being uploaded is what has enabled genetic genealogy to assist criminal investigations. The use of this practice has led to the identification of suspects or victims in criminal cases, pushing the concept of a future with genetic genealogy as a routine police procedure.
The article did a great job organizing the case in chronological order, making it very easy for the reader to follow. The research on the investigation is detailed oriented, listing dates and names originating back to the mystery of Joseph Henry Loveless. The article relies so heavily on the details of the case that it fails to grasp the bigger picture. In doing so, the reader only focuses on the identification of the torso instead of how in solving one mystery, investigators helped solve another. The article could be improved by providing both an analytical and simplistic approach to the investigation.
2 comments:
Riley morgan
Mr ip
Bio
10/28/19
“Serious Problems with Forensic Software.” ScienceDaily, North Carolina State University, 15 Jan. 2019, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190115111950.htm
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
The review Randy Ayala performed on the article: “Serious Problems With Forensic Software” very interesting and informative. He talks about how in a forensic software program called DXAGE, There was a massive mistake resulting in their age calculations to be off by over 14.25. I like how he was straightforward with the information. When he stated that DXAGE which is devised to estimate the age of individuals based on their bone mineral density, It was a good way to put the information because he 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 make his sentences flow nicely, putting the reader at ease while reading. His sentence: “They plugged the bone mineral density data for each of those women into SAGE and compared the resulting estimated age with each woman's actual age.” is just one example of his wonderful sentence flow. I also like how Randy used numbers in his overview of the article rather than just explaining the general results. This makes the reader more engaged and shows that he put work into drafting the review.
One thing Randy could improve on is using quotes from the article. Without quotes, her credibility is taken away and her accuracy is questioned since she does not have any quotes to back up her information. Randy's Analysis was also very short and lacked more detail. He could provide a longer analysis that makes the reader feel he has read the full article and knows what it is about. This short analysis leaves the reader unfulfilled. To improve, Randy could make sure to use quotes from the article to back up his information, 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 Randy’s writing style as I have never looked at one of his reviews before. By reading this article I learned how there are mistakes in forensic technology such as the DXAGE which will put into question many other scientific technology. It was very informative. It will change my perception because now I have another piece of knowledge that I can use.
Murphy, Heather. “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html.
Randy’s review of “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect” by Heather Murphy was well-written and very informative. To start, Randy did a very good job of providing context and background information about the article and the case. This allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the case that is being discussed and how old, but relevant this case is. In addition, Randy also did a good job of discussing some areas the article could improve. I agree with Randy that the article should have focused more on the bigger picture in addition to this one specific case. Lastly, Randy also did a good job of explaining why this case is important and the lasting idea that forensic science will be an important science that sticks around for a long time and how even though a case may have happened over 100 years ago it can still be solved today thanks to technological and scientific advancements.
While Randy did a good job summarizing the article and the contents discussed there were a few things he could have done to make his review better. First, the review could have been formatted to be more reader-friendly. As is, it works, however, spacing between the paragraphs would make it look less like a block of text and therefore more friendly to the reader’s eye. Additionally, the review could have benefited from more of his own opinion. Randy does a great job discussing the contents of the article however, I think more of his own opinion on the case would make his review even better.
Overall, I found this article and review to be engaging and informative. I was surprised and impressed to learn that even though Loveless died over 100 years ago, using his grandson they were still able to positively identify him all this time later. The biggest takeaway for me was that even though someone may have passed away a long time ago there are still various ways investigators and scientists can tie a crime to your name.
Post a Comment