Lorelei Heath
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 20
March 30, 2020
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.
This story begins in 1916, about a man named, Joseph Henry Loveless. He was known for his stunts and landed himself in jail. A few months later he arrives home and his wife answers in awe. He tells her that he escaped. Police records show that he used a saw, and hid it in his boot. When he came home to his wife he killed her in cold blood. The children were scared and in mourning. Loveless had many aliases and went by Walt Cairns. That name was printed on a “Wanted for Murder” poster. This poster had described what he was wearing and the features of his face. After Agnes’ funeral, he was arrested for murder, but escaped, using the hidden saw in his boot, for the second time. A year later, in 1917, Idaho authorities tried to identify a torso found stuffed in a burlap sack inside of a cave. After testing they found it belonged to Loveless. Many years later, in 1991, an 11-year-old girl explored the cave tunnels and discovered a preserved hand. After excavating the caves system the investigators found an arm and two legs. The head of Loveless, however, was never found.
Just 3 months ago, the first week of January 2020, his dismembered body was found. After research and help from the DNA Doe Project, a non-profit organization, made to identify the undetermined deceased using forensic genealogy, found a piece of the tibia and a long leg bone. “The DNA was high quality - unusual for such an old sample, according to Justin Loe... the temperature of the cave sand - around 37 Fahrenheit - might have contributed to the fact that the mummified remains retained an odor of decomposition, which was rare after so many years. Also, his sock was almost perfectly preserved... The clothes he was wearing when he escaped - a light-colored hat, brown coat, red sweater, blue overalls over black trousers - were an exact match for the clothes found on”. The DNA Doe Project also contributed to making a replica of Joseph Henry Loveless’s face using old photos of his relatives and his description. Dr. Blatt’s theory of why Loveless was dismembered and buried in the cave was as simple as revenge. She believed when Agnes’ side of the family visited for her remains they “might have dismembered him as payback”.
This article was the most interesting one I’ve read. I was engrossed and wanted to learn so much more about cases similar to Joseph’s. I do believe there could have been a more detailed explanation of the process. They only explained that they used old relative’s photos and did other tests.
7 comments:
Ruby Howell
Forensics D Even
Current Event 20
March 30th, 2020
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.
After reading Lorelei Heath’s review of the article, “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.”, it is clear that she has a clear and cohesive understanding of the reading. She used a good amount of evidence from the article in order to support her claims. Further, she made an impressive effort replaying the sequence of events discussed in the reading. I also thought she did an impressive job of explaining key elements to the reading, such as the DNA Doe Project. “DNA Doe Project, a non-profit organization, made to identify the undetermined deceased using forensic genealogy, found a piece of the tibia and a long leg bone.”.
While I believe the reviewer of the article thoroughly read through the article and understood the story, there wasn't much of a connection made between the article's purpose and forensics science as a whole. For instance, instead of stating how the DNA Doe Project is connected to a major progression in DNA analysis as a whole, the article ends with a quote instead.
I chose this article because it had a captivating story that I believed was intriguing while also connected deep with forensic science. I believe that it has changed my perspective on the reasons behind some of the choices made within the case as well as how those choices impacted the case.
Sophia Prior
Ippolito
Current Event
March 30, 2020
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.
After reading Lorelei’s article by the New York Times I think it had a really strong and concise summary paragraph. In addition, it had an amazing use of details about Joseph Henry Loveles’s case and the horrors within it. This topic of research was very important because of the importance that DNA has to crime and how useful it can be with facial reconstruction.
I think what Lorelei could have worked on was more quote integrations into their piece to add more supportive evidence. Also, I think they could have added some more of their own opinion throughout the review.
From Lorelei’s article review, I learned more about the use of DNA in old cases and what an impact it has made and continues to make in the forensic science community.
Masha Popovic
Forensics D Even
Current Event 20
March 30th, 2020
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.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4250390869532540972&postID=5665084719604976948&bpli=1&pli=1
I read Heaths report on the New York Times article, “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” One thing I believe she did a great job on was introducing her report with such an intriguing paragraph. Instead of referring to the article as a current event, she introduced it as a story, which I thought was interesting. Secondly, I loved how descriptive and straight forward the information she provided was. Lastly, her opinionated response was short and to the point, explaining what she believed could have been done to improve the article, but also mentioning that she was fascinated with the topic of the article she had chosen.
I believe that Heath could have spoken more about the DNA Doe Project, seeing as though she mentioned it multiple times. I also would have liked in incorporation of more quotes to back up her information and statements.
Overall, I really enjoyed this report and it was very well written. Although it has room for improvement, I thought this was one of the best reports I have read in a while.
Angie Pearson
Ippolito
Current Event
March 30, 2020
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.
I read Lorelei's review on “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.” by the New York Times. Her summary was very well written and concise. Also, I enjoyed how she wrote about this article like a narrative rather than a review. Finally, her addition of her opinion on the topic made her piece even stronger.
Despite her great review, there were a few areas that could be improved upon. First, adding quotes could have strengthened her piece by backing up her claims. Also, she could have added more detail about the DNA Doe Project and how it connects to the forensic field.
Overall, I enjoyed Lorelei's report. It was well written and interesting to read. It was an extremely interesting story that Lorelei captured well in just a few paragraphs.
Luke Sheehan
9/14/21
Forensics
Current Event Comment
Link to Current Event
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/03/headless-body-in-cave-is-identified-as.html
Link to Article used
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html
For this current event, I have decided to comment on Lorelei Heaths review of the New York Times article, “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.”. After reading her review, I noticed 3 aspects to her writing that showed that she had a clear understanding of what the article was about. The first thing Heath did well was give good context of the situation. In the review she tells about how the murderer escaped jail and came home to kill his wife, leaving his children scared. She later says that he was brought to jail a second time but escaped again. After this he was never found again. If there was no context added the information would be more confusing and less meaningful, this was a crucial part of the review. The second aspect that Heath did well was introduce her opinions on the article. In the last paragraph she says it was one of the more interesting articles but could’ve had more detail. Her voicing her opinion adds more to her review as it shows what she thinks they could have done better. The last aspect that I thought she did really well was adding information as to how they identified him. She adds that there was a DNA doe project that created a replica image of Loveless. This is an important aspect to the article because it shows how and what type of science went into this. This is very important and was a great way to end the review.
Although this was a very well crafted review, I still believe that there should be some edits made to make it better. The first correction I would make is that although mentioned, there was not enough written on the actual science part of the story. If she added more information it would’ve given the reader a better understanding of the identification process. I would correct this by going back into the article and adding some more information, if there is not a lot given I would look up evidence from an outside source. The second thing that I think she could've done better was adding more evidence from the passage to support her claims. I believe that she could have fixed this by adding more quotes from the passage, this would be direct evidence and would be perfect for adding more giving the readers a better understanding of what is happening.
I chose this review because the title and story intrigued me, I read the first paragraph and immediately wanted to read more. This will help my understanding on the identification process, Learning how correct temperatures of areas can help preserve dead bodies and keep the bones in tact. This was a great learning experience because I am still new to forensic science and this helped me learn more about how to identify a person based on their bones and clothes.
Murphy, Heather. “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.”
The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020,
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html
After reading Lorelei’s review of “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect”, I believe she did a good job at including relevant background information. For example, Lorelei enables us to see how the case continued to progress over time, “Many years later, in 1991, an 11-year-old girl explored the cave tunnels and discovered a preserved hand. After excavating the cave system the investigators found an arm and two legs. The head of Loveless, however, was never found”. By including the fact parts of his body were found close to 80 years after his death, we are able to understand one of the most fascinating parts of this case: that the murder took over 100 years to have a confirmed identity. Also, she made it clear about how the scientists were able to use genealogy to connect Loveless to the body in the cave. The specific detail she included that I found to be helpful was, “After research and help from the DNA Doe Project, a non-profit organization that identifies the undetermined deceased using forensic genealogy, found a piece of the tibia and a long leg bone. ‘The DNA was high quality - unusual for such an old sample, according to Justin Loe... the temperature of the cave sand - around 37 Fahrenheit - might have contributed to the fact that the mummified remains retained an odor of decomposition, which was rare after so many years’”. By including this detail, Lorelei made it clear to me where the sample came from (a piece of Loveless’ tibia that was found), and why his remains were in such good condition after over one hundred years. If she didn’t include this quote, I would have been confused on why the body hadn’t been decomposed, and I would have been suspicious that it was the body of a person killed more recently. Lastly, I liked how she explained the fact scientists think Loveless was killed by his wife's family who was trying to get revenge on him for killing her, because we know why Loveless was murdered in the first place, which is a large part of this story. Murders feel more discomforting when we don’t know the motivation for why it happened in the first place.
One weakness that this review has is that she chooses to end her review with a quote, which makes the reader feel dissatisfied, like she had more to say but decided against it. Something she could have done to fix this issue is rearrange the second paragraph so that her last sentence came before her current second to last sentence, so her writing would have a better flow. Also, I feel that her personal analysis was a little bit brief, and that I didn’t totally understand what she liked about the article and why she decided to read it in the first place. One way she could fix that is to continue to elaborate about why she was engrossed by the article which may have been because the time period was so stretched out and it shows how forensics can solve a case from a long time ago, and why she wanted to learn about more cases like Josephs.
What I learned from this article is that while there are special circumstances that need to occur for genealogy to be useful after so much time has passed (like very cold temperatures), forensics can be applicable to any case, and can provide a solution that would not have been possible when the murder originally occured. I chose this article because I thought it was bizarre that this case would have taken so long to uncover, especially because they had found other parts of the body and knew that Loveless’s remains were there. It was shocking to me that it took three different occasions to recover all of his remains. This will change my understanding of forensics science because it is not just as simple as taking someone's fingerprints, and that there is always new and developing evidence that can be interpreted with our advancing technology that might help us solve old crimes.
Link to Current Event
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2020/03/headless-body-in-cave-is-identified-as.html
Link to Article used
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/idaho-outlaw-remains-found.html
For this current event, I have decided to comment on Lorelei Heaths review of the New York Times article, “Headless Body in Cave Is Identified as 1916 Ax Murder Suspect.”. After reading her review, I noticed 3 aspects to her writing that showed that she had a clear understanding of what the article was about. The first thing Heath did well was give good context of the situation. In the review she tells about how the murderer escaped jail and came home to kill his wife, leaving his children scared. She later says that he was brought to jail a second time but escaped again. After this he was never found again. If there was no context added the information would be more confusing and less meaningful, this was a crucial part of the review. The second aspect that Heath did well was introduce her opinions on the article. In the last paragraph she says it was one of the more interesting articles but could’ve had more detail. Her voicing her opinion adds more to her review as it shows what she thinks they could have done better. The last aspect that I thought she did really well was adding information as to how they identified him. She adds that there was a DNA doe project that created a replica image of Loveless. This is an important aspect to the article because it shows how and what type of science went into this. This is very important and was a great way to end the review.
Although this was a very well crafted review, I still believe that there should be some edits made to make it better. The first correction I would make is that although mentioned, there was not enough written on the actual science part of the story. If she added more information it would’ve given the reader a better understanding of the identification process. I would correct this by going back into the article and adding some more information, if there is not a lot given I would look up evidence from an outside source. The second thing that I think she could've done better was adding more evidence from the passage to support her claims. I believe that she could have fixed this by adding more quotes from the passage, this would be direct evidence and would be perfect for adding more giving the readers a better understanding of what is happening.
I chose this review because the title and story intrigued me, I read the first paragraph and immediately wanted to read more. This will help my understanding on the identification process, Learning how correct temperatures of areas can help preserve dead bodies and keep the bones in tact. This was a great learning experience because I am still new to forensic science and this helped me learn more about how to identify a person based on their bones and clothes.
Post a Comment