Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 16
February 25, 2020
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018, https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
In 1986, a 15-year-old girl, Dawn Ashworth walked home, she was
found raped and murdered later that day. Richard Buckland was the lead
suspect for the young girl’s case, for he confessed. Alec Jefferys, a genetics
professor, from the University of Leicester had previously discovered the
power of DNA identification. Jefferys worked in the field of paternity and
immigration cases. But the authorities insisted that he get himself involved
with Dawn’s case. Jefferys began sampling DNA from Dawn’s scene and a
similar one from 1983 to Buckland’s. The results came back stating Buckland
was not present at the scene. After discovering Buckland was not the
murderer, Jefferys still had work to do. He began collecting DNA from more
than 4,000 men in Leicestershire with ages between 17 and 34. There were
no matches found within the 4,000. However, a man was overheard saying he
was paid off to confess to the crime against Dawn. The name of the real
murderer was Colin Pitchfork. After analyzing Pitchfork’s DNA and comparing
it to the scene, Jefferys found a match. Colin Pitchfork was arrested on
September 19, 1987. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
DNA sampling has become one of the world’s most highly valued
discovery, for its ability to catch criminals. It is enough to send an offender off
to prison and is used as evidence for most cases. “ Today, investigators can
retrieve DNA profiles from skin cells left behind when a criminal merely
touches a surface. This improved sensitivity combined with new data
analysis approaches has made it possible for investigators to identify and
distinguish multiple individuals from the DNA in a mixed sample. And
it’s made possible efforts that are underway to develop user-friendly instruments
that can run and analyze samples in less than two hours.” This scientific
discovery has made lives and saved lives every day.
The article I wrote about was very interesting, as it was about
the first crime solved with DNA sampling. This discovery saves the
world and puts away one more bad influence almost every day. Although
it has it faults, it ultimately saves the world.
7 comments:
Charlotte Cagliostro
Forensics
C Odd / Current Event 17
3/4/20
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018, https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/02/thirty-years-of-dna-forensics-how-dna.html
I quite enjoyed reading Lorelei’s review of Arnaud’s article, “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” In specific, there were three aspects of her work that I liked. First, I am very fond of Lorelei’s style of writing. She was able to present the information in a clear yet still informative manner. Second, I liked her introduction. She did a fantastic job summarizing the main ideas from the original article. She included many facts and statistics, which I appreciated. Lastly, I enjoyed Lorelei’s second paragraph in which she spoke to the relevance of this topic and explained her ideas regarding the future of forensic science and the use of DNA. I quite liked how she included her own opinions and beliefs on the topic.
However, there were two components of her review that I believe could be improved upon. First, I think she could have lengthened her conclusion. I felt like there was more to criticize about the original article. Second, I believe that she could have adopted a slightly more formal tone towards the end of the piece. In the last two paragraphs it seemed more like she was talking to a friend. That is a very small criticism, but it is worth mentioning.
I had not known much about the evolution of DNA analysis in forensic science before reading this piece, so I found it valuable and interesting to learn more about its nuances.
Molly Palma
Mr. Ippolito C Odd
Current Event 17
Due March 4th, 2020
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018, https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4250390869532540972&postID=5169573355371378692
Lorelei’s review was impressive because of the way she was able to concisely explain what the case was about. Not only did she do this to keep the reader from getting bored, but she had many facts: the age of the victims, the dates in which the events occurred, etc. In addition to providing this specific context, she provided context from a scientific lens, which is important. For example, in her third sentence, she said “Alec Jefferys, a genetics professor, from the University of Leicester had previously discovered the power of DNA identification” which essentially sets up her entire review to be focused on forensic science, which is almost necessary with a title, like “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.”
Even though Lorelei pulled direct quotes into her review, it felt rushed when she was doing that. To prevent this feeling of uneasiness in the reader, Lorelei would’ve expanded on her connections paragraph and her conclusion paragraph as well. In addition to this, Lorelei might want to vary up her sentence structure a little more. Even though I liked how concise her review was, her choppy sentences made it harder to read.
This review lived up to my expectations of how interesting and timely it would be. With only five minutes I was able to learn so much about the cause-and-effects behind the creation of this DNA tool. I will continue to research other examples as time goes on, because previous crimes will soon be uncovered, like the ones of 1986 and 1987.
Jordan Hoang
Mr.Ippolito
Forensics C Odd
2/29/20
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal
Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018,
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/02/thirty-years-of-dna-forensics-how-dna.html
Lorelai’s review of the article “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations” had a lot of positives to it. For one, I think Lorelai did a great job of organizing the details from the event and making the crime easy to understand. In addition, I enjoyed how Lorelai style of writing; she used an ominous tone throughout her piece that made her review more interesting to read. Finally, I liked how much information and data she was able to give about the crime while still being concise.
One thing that Lorelai could improve on is shortening her quote in the second paragraph. I found the quote to be a little bit lengthy- and Lorelai didn’t elaborate much on the significance of it. In addition, Lorelai mentioned that DNA sampling has its faults. I wish she would have added more information backing this statement. I think she should have added things to how DNA sampling can be difficult or inconclusive at times.
I found it really interesting that the crime mentioned in the article was the first case solved with DNA sampling. As Lorelai mentioned in her piece- this type of new technology does have huge significance and importance for the future of forensics. I am excited to see how this technology progresses and how it will help solve cases in the future.
Clara DeMagalhaes Current Event #18
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018, https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/02/thirty-years-of-dna-forensics-how-dna.html
Lorelei’s review of the article Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations” was a very interesting and enjoyable read. One aspect that was well done was that her summary was detailed and concise. The length suited it well and the writing was clear without being too convoluted. Additionally, I enjoyed reading about the importance of DNA sampling and how it saves lives today. Lastly, I appreciated the use of a direct quote from the article to back up what was said in the second paragraph.
Although the review had many strengths, I thought that the concluding paragraph could have been longer and more in-depth. One way this could be accomplished is by listing a couple of critiques with the original article. Additionally, while the use of quotes is praiseworthy, the integration felt a bit odd. The quote took up much of the connections paragraph, whereas I think it would be better if it was filled more with Lorelei’s personal thoughts.
Ultimately, DNA sampling is a remarkable discovery that has helped advance the studies of forensic science immensely. Reading about one of the cases that made it into a widely used technique was very interesting. Its precise nature and wide usage has helped strengthen the criminal justice system. Learning about this compels me to look more into the topic as a whole.
Olivia Martin
Mr. Ippolito D Odd
March 23, 2020
Current Event #19
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal
Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018,
Lorelei’s review of the article, “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.” by Celia Henry Arnaud was very educational and interesting. Firstly, Lorelei incorporated many facts into her article. She includes all of the DNA samples Jefferys collected and the ages of the men he collected the samples from. Additionally, Lorelei efficiently explained how forensic science was used during this case. She clearly describes how DNA sampling and comparisons were used. Finally, Lorelei adequately integrated a quote into her review. She added a quote explaining how DNA samples are collected and used by investigators in order to identify criminals.
Although there were many things Lorelei did well in her review, there were a few things she could improve upon. Firstly, her summary was a bit unclear at times. It was a bit confusing how Colin Pitchfork originally became a suspect. Additionally, her critique paragraph could have more distinctly identified a strength and weakness in the article. Lorelei mentions the significance of the use of DNA sampling in the case, but does not comment on the actual article.
I learned about the first crime solved using DNA sampling. I chose to read Lorelei’s review as I found the title very interesting. I now have a better understanding about how DNA sampling and DNA comparisons can solve a case.
Luke Sheehan
10/3/21
Forensics
Current event 3
Link to Review:
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/02/thirty-years-of-dna-forensics-how-dna.html
Link to Article:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
For this current event article, I chose to read and comment on Lorelei Heath’s review of the article “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal Investigations.”. While reading the article I noticed three things that she did extremely well. The first thing that I noticed she did well was provide a lot of background information that made the article a lot easier to follow and understand. She provided names, ages, and dates that made it so I could understand the context of each situation. The next thing Heath did well was add quotes which allowed for the reader to get a better understanding of what the author was trying to say. I think this is really important because it shows that she is providing a lot of evidence to back up her claims. In the second paragraph she had a quote about the relevance of DNA sampling today. The last thing I thought she did really well was add her own perspective on the article at the end. It showed me that she took time to read the article to get a good understanding of what is happening. It also showed that she cares about the article and she is interested in the topic. Although she did a lot of things well, she also did a few things that I would change.
While reading the review there were two things that I would fix in her review. The first thing that I would change in her review is the fact that her quote in the second paragraph was lengthy. The quote is a really good aspect to the article but I think that if she cut down the quote and left the important pieces in, this would allow for the quote to be more meaningful. This would also make the reader a little bit more engaged. The second thing that I think she could have improved on was the fact that she could have expanded on the idea that DNA sampling has its faults. If she would have expanded on this it would have added a counter argument to the positive parts of the review. This would make her review on the article a lot stronger.
My learning experience while reading this article was extremely positive, it allowed me to understand more about DNA sampling and how important it is for the identification process. I chose this article because I did not know a lot about DNA sampling and I wanted to learn more about the process and importance of it. This will change my perception of forensic science because now I know that DNA sampling is the most accurate way to identify a potential suspect. It allows for people to be correctly identified so cases will be solved quicker and more accurate.
-Luke Sheehan
Hudson Zivic
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics, Current Event Comment
Friday, October 29, 2021
Arnaud, Celia Henry. “Thirty Years of DNA Forensics: How DNA Has Revolutionized Criminal
Investigations.” CEN RSS, 18 Sept. 2018, https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i37/Thirty-years-DNA-forensics-DNA.html
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/02/
Lorelei's evaluation was outstanding since she was able to discuss the case in a clear and straightforward manner. She accomplished this not just to keep the reader from becoming bored, but she also had a lot of information: the ages of the victims, the dates of the occurrences, and so on. She not only supplied this specific background, but she also provided context from a scientific standpoint, which is critical. By stating, Alec Jefferys is a genetics professor who had previously established the potential of DNA identification directed her whole review towards forensic science which was the task. This shows that her article and concise review fell into such a category, “DNA Forensics”, “Revolutionized…Investigations,”.
Despite the fact that Lorelei included actual quotes in her evaluation, it felt abrupt. Though concise the movement between paragraphs was choppy and felt unorganized. Lorelei could have elongated her connections paragraph as it would have been nice to understand more about the impact and development of DNA on criminal investigations. I felt like this extension and also extending her conclusion paragraph would create a smooth read and let the reader have a more relaxed thought process when reading. Lorelei might also want to experiment with her sentence construction a little more. Her choppy phrases made it difficult to read, even though I enjoyed how succinct her review was.
This review met my expectations as it was fascinating and fit the forensic science umbrella topic perfectly. I learned a lot about the causes and repercussions of the invention of this DNA instrument. This changes my perspective on forensic science because I can see how it helps cases, but not just present ones, past ones. I will look out for more on this development as past crimes will now be more likely exposed due to new developments in DNA and forensic science.
Post a Comment