Ruby Howell
Mr.Ippolito
Forensics Current Event #13
January 13th, 2020
Shanahan, Ed. “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/dna-cold-case-connecticut.html
DNA testing today is more advanced than it has ever been, and has helped solve wrongfully convicted murders as well as solve unsolved murders. This is evident in the New York Times article by Ed Shanahan, an article about Mr.McFarland, a man who was arrested two months ago for a crime he confessed to 32 years ago in 1996. The crime occured in August 1987 in Conneticut, involving a double murder of a father and a son. These men are thought to have been killed August 21st, and it had been released through police investigation that Mr.McFarland had been arrested the next day on account of accusations of using a knife for sexual assault. A couple weeks later, detectives interviewed him and he denied any involvement in the murders, and then about a decade later in 1996 he confessed to the crime, yet there was not enough physical evidence for police to arrest him. Investigator Captain Smith, who took Mr. McFarland’s confession, stated “he told us approximately 30 things that you would have had to be there to know.” But now, 32 years after the crime was committed, DNA testing has been used to find DNA evidence that links Mr.Mcfarland to the crime.
This article was very interesting and I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the value of the advanced DNA testing technology we have today. Additionally, the author did an excellent job explaining the story in a long yet cohesive way. While the story was interesting, the article had little to no mention of how unsolved crimes lose their vitality over time, and how DNA testing plays into that. I also believe to improve this article the author could have cut unneeded details from the story.
3 comments:
Sarah Whitney
Forensics
Mr. Ippolito
1-17-20
Shanahan, Ed. “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/dna-cold-case-connecticut.html
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/01/ruby-howell-current-event-13.html
In her review of “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest”, Ruby did many things well that not only contributed to the effect of her review but also greatly impressed me. Firstly, her summary was very clear and straightforward which helps the reader understand it clearly without giving too much information or topics that fill space and don’t contribute. Secondly, I also appreciate how Ruby included a quote from the article to portray the author’s point of view. Lastly, the level of detail included in the summary is perfect as it is clear and understandable for most or all who may read it.
Although Ruby did many things well, there are two areas in which I believe she could improve upon. First, she did not include a reference paragraph which would have aided in connecting the topic of the article to current day events or scenarios. This would help emphasize its importance. Additionally, I wish Ruby would have gone into more detail about her criticism which would greatly aid it and allow the author to effectively make changes.
I found this article very interesting as it is very hard to believe that a criminal can be brought to justice after a time period as long as 32 years. I am glad that technology has come so far to be able to have this level of detail after long periods of time.
Jordan Hoang
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics C Odd
1/18/20
Shanahan, Ed. “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/dna-cold-case-connecticut.html
Ruby’s review on “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest” had a lot of positives to it. For one, she summarized the case in Connecticut concisely, while still being descriptive. In addition, I liked Ruby’s integration of quotes from the article. Her use of quotes was able to forward and expand her summary more. Finally, I like how Ruby gave thoughtful review on how the author could have improved their article. Stating that the author of the “article had little to no mention of how unsolved crimes lose their vitality over time” was an insightful and significant point to make.
One thing that I believe Ruby could have improved on was elaborating more on how DNA testing played a role in helping crack the case. She stated that “DNA testing has been used to find DNA evidence that links Mr.Mcfarland to the crime”, but didn’t go into detail as to how the DNA testing is carried out. In addition to this, I believe Ruby could have added more of her own thoughts on the significance of DNA testing. She didn’t elaborate much on how she thinks DNA testing could help or affect our society.
I have seen many new articles on the blog about the advancements that are being made in forensic testing. It is unbelievable to the amount of new forensic technology becoming available for scientists to use. Techniques that used to be tedious and inevitably, inaccurate, are now becoming more precise and powerful through technological advancements. It will be exciting to see what other new forensic technology will be discovered in the near future.
Charlotte Cagliostro
Forensics
C Odd / Current Event 13
1/23/20
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/01/ruby-howell-current-event-13.html
Shanahan, Ed. “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/dna-cold-case-connecticut.html
Ruby wrote a great review of Ed Shanahan’s New York Times article, “A Father and Son, Brutally Murdered. 32 Years Later, an Arrest.” There were three aspects of her piece that I particularly enjoyed. First, I liked Ruby’s engaging style of writing. She was able to immediately grab my attention with her fine introduction, and maintained my interest throughout. Second, I quite appreciated Ruby’s description of the order of events. She provided the main details and ideas from the original article, while still making sure the information was not overwhelming to the reader. Lastly, I liked Ruby’s critique of the original article. She did a very good job pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of that work.
There were two components of Ruby’s review, however, that I think could be improved upon. First, Ruby should have spoken to the relevance of the article and topic. I would have appreciated her insights regarding why this matters. Second, Ruby could have gone into more detail regarding the policy behind DNA identification and how that will evolve in the coming years. I think that would have been an interesting addition to her piece.
I had never heard about this case prior to reading Ruby’s review, so I found her work to be quite engaging and informative. I learned about these specific murders and the general processes of investigators.
Post a Comment