CHARLES MANSON DEAD AT 83

Griffin Garbarini

Forensics

Mr. Ippolito

11/20/17

Current Event #9: Article Review

MLA Citation:

Augustine, Seth. “Charles Manson Dead at 83.” Forensic Magazine, 20 Nov. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/11/charles-manson-dead-83.

Review:

This article takes an in-depth view into the life of Charles Manson, the famous psychopath who was responsible for several killing sprees of celebrities in the 60’s and 70’s. Charles Manson was the leader of his “family” until he went to jail in 1972. His family was made up of primarily young women who would do psychedelic drugs and take part in wild orgies with Manson. The “family” would go to homes like the home of famous movie director, Roman Polanski, and kill five victims inside the home and then write “Death to Pigs” and “Healter Skelter” on the wall. Helter Skelter was the famous phrase that Manson and his “family” would use to describe the apocalyptic war that was coming between whites and blacks. While in prison for more than 40 years on multiple life sentences, he was denied the possibility of parole 12 times. He died of what is to be “natural causes” on Sunday November, 19th, 2017. While some today may not know who he is, Charles Manson is one of America’s most notorious psychopathic cult leaders and murders and was a true menace to society.

Charles Manson was responsible for nine murderous attacks and the death of seven innocent people. However, Manson did not think these people were innocent as he believed that they were guilty of causing “Helter Skelter”. The families today still mourn the lives that Manson and his “family” claimed in the 1970’s. Many came out after his death and expressed the happiness they felt when he died. While forensics was not used to prove that the Manson was responsible for these deaths (a family member of the Manson told a prison roommate that they committed the crimes), it still leaves a large impact on the forensics community and the crime community at large.

The article itself was very interesting and author Seth Augustine did a good job explaining to readers, like myself, who Charles Manson was and what crimes he committed. Seth also did a exemplary job explaining the logistics of Manson’s prison sentence and prison life as many people would be interested in knowing Manson was rejected 12 times from the parole board. However, the article could have used more meat in terms of explaining how this will affect society as a whole. I did other research to determine how it would affect society because there was no evidence of this in the article. To improve his writing he could have added some information about the trial of Charles Manson as I would have been interested in that as well as add some information about Charles Manson’s youth.

CHEMICAL PSWRD!!!!!! WOAH

“Virtual Case Notes: Sweat, Skin Secretions Could Contain Chemical 'Password' for Future Mobile Authentication.” Forensic Magazine, 16 Nov. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/11/virtual-case-notes-sweat-skin-secretions-could-contain-chemical-password-future-mobile

The article titled, “ Virtual Case Notes: Sweat, Skin Secretions Could Contain Chemical 'Password' for Future Mobile Authentication” discusses how the fingerprints and smudges which are left on a phone screen while tapping and swiping away may contain an unseen chemical “password” that could one day be used to unlock those very same devices. A team of researchers at the University at Albany propose that smartphones, smartwatches and other mobile and wearable devices could authenticate users through the unique metabolites in their skin secretions. “The device will measure and learn the patterns of levels of certain metabolites on your skin. It means the device will know it’s you,” Halámek explained in an interview with Forensic Magazine. “And then, in case somebody will steal it from you, like me for example, and put it on my hand—my levels are different than yours. So the device will logout or disconnect, switch off—that’s the concept.”

This advancement in both fields: forensics and technology will be very impactful in mobile device security, yet the limits are endless if it were to be developed. I would be a significantly more secure way to lock your device. Instead of typing in a code, or using the very faulty and easily copied fingerprint scanner, you will definitively be the only person to have access to whatever is locked. With the release of the iPhone X, the craze was all focused on the facial scanner, yet using a chemical password will be significantly more incredible.

I think the paragraph was very well written and easy to understand in that it was clear and concise. However, it may have been too concise - I wished there had been more information with regards to the technology behind the chemical scanning system. However, this information may still be confidential or unknown.

Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?

Zixi Chen

Mr Ippolito

Forensics AB Odd

16 November 2017

Current Event 8

Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?

Bonnefoy, Pascale. “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/americas/pablo-neruda-death-forensic.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection.

The article “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” written by Pascale Bonnefoy describes the death of the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, a Nobel laureate. Neruda died on September 23rd, 1973 at the age of 69. His death happened two weeks after “a military coup toppled the leftist government of Salvador Allende” (Bonnefoy). His death certificate established that the cause of his death is cancer cachexia. However, in the year of 2011, Neruda’s former driver named Manuel Araya was interviewed by  a Mexican magazine and claimed that “doctors at private clinic in Santiago where Neruda was being treated poisoned him by injecting an unknown substance into his stomach” (Bonnefoy). The forensic scientists also found suspicious things about this case after further investigation. One forensic scientist said “There was no indication of cachexia. He was an obese man at the time of death. All other circumstances in his last phase of life pointed to some kind of infection” (Bonnefoy). Many people agreed that this case was more complex that a cancer now.

The contents in this article is very relevant to the forensics class. The investigation that took place in this case had similarities to the CSI cases and the crime scene lab done in the class. The real detectives and investigators analyzed dead body and made connections between all of the different details in the case. The case described in the article may have a small negative impact on society because people may fear that similar things will happen to people around them in the hospitals.

This article had many good things in it. For example, it listed specific years and the names of people involved in the case for its credibility. Also, it used quotes from experts to provide some direct information to the readers. The only weakness in this article is that it lacks details about information on the victim’s family and past relationships with other people. It may be helpful to do so  in order for the readers to understand the contents better. I would suggest the author of this article to include more details about the results from the analysis of the body and more information about the main character and his relationship to other people.

Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?

Isabella Dibbini

Mr. Ippolito

Forensics

15 November 2017

Bonnefoy, Pascale. “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/americas/pablo-neruda-death-forensic.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic+Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=collection.

In Pascale Bonnefoy’s article “Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” he discusses Pablo Neruda’s death certificate and how it was inaccurate. Pablo Neruda was a Chilean poet. His death certificate indicated that he died of cancer, however, forensic scientists believe otherwise. A group of international forensic experts analyzed samples of Neruda's remains, leading them to believe that it was not cancer that killed Neruda, but possibly murder. Neruda, a former diplomat and senator from the Communist Party, died at the age of 69 on September 23, 1973. It was not until 2011, that Manuel Araya, Neruda’s driver, stated that “...doctors at the private clinic in Santiago where Neruda was being treated poisoned him by injecting an unknown substance into his stomach.” Therefore, it was not until years after the murder that people began to question the death of Neruda. While Araya never witnessed the injection, he stated that Neruda had described the injection to him from his deathbed. Decades after the death of Neruda, in 2013, Judge Mario Carroza sent samples to forensic genetics laboratories, in Canada and Denmark, to analyze Neruda’s remains. The experts have recently casted doubt on the official cause of death, cancer, and stated that they found “potentially deadly bacteria in one of the samples, a molar.” It was interesting to see how Neruda’s death certificate stated “cancer cachexia” as the cause of death, because this involves significant weight loss, and the forensic specialists unanimously found this to be impossible. Dr. Niels Morling, of the University of Copenhagen’s department of forensic medicine, who participated in the analysis of Neruda’s remains, stated “That cannot be correct.” He continues to explain his claim when he states “There was no indication of cachexia. He was an obese man at the time of death. All other circumstances in his last phase of life pointed to some kind of infection.” At this time, the actual cause of death is still unknown; these scientists are unable to explain the origin of the bacteria. However, the panel of experts stated that “the deadly bacteria could have seeped into Neruda’s skeletal remains from the burial site or been derived from the decomposition process.” The panel of experts that presented this information to Judge Carroza was asked to continue their research to determine the origin of the bacteria, which will ultimately establish whether or not Neruda was murdered.

Although the death of Pablo Neruda occurred over 40 years ago, this plays a significant role in our society today. This connects to our society, because cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. In Bonnefoy’s article, he discusses an issue that many do not consider. It is not often that one’s death certificate is inaccurate, however, Bonnefoy wrote this article to raise awareness on possible problems that may be occurring in our society today, that many are oblivious to. Neruda died in 1973, and it was not until the past ten years, that forensic scientists began to closely examine his death. It is crucial to acknowledge that problems, similar to Neruda’s death, are happening worldwide.  

“Cancer Didn’t Kill Pablo Neruda, Panel Finds. Was It Murder?” is a well written article by Bonnefoy about the 1971 Nobel Prize winner, Pablo Neruda. This article is well organized; the author starts off by discussing the death of Neruda, and then goes on to explain his court case and what the panel of forensic experts had to say. Although this was a good article, I wish the author talked more about what forensic scientists did during the 30 years after Neruda death. This is because the author talks about Araya, and the possible poisoning, but that was not until 2011. Overall, I thought this article was very informative, but I just wish that the author had included more about what the forensic experts did to analyze Neruda’s remains.

Automated Fingerprint Analysis is One Step Closer to Reality

Mairead Cain

Mr. Ippolito

A/B Odd

15 November 2017

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). "Automated fingerprint analysis is one step closer to reality: Scientists have developed an algorithm that automates a key step in forensic fingerprint analysis, which may make the process more reliable and efficient.." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 August 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814120933.htm>.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170814120933.htm

For my current event article, I decided to read and analyze the article “Automated Fingerprint Analysis is One Step Closer to Reality,” from the online news source Science Daily.

The article discusses the scientific developments of researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Michigan State University. These scientists are in the process of developing an “algorithm that automates a key step in the fingerprint analysis process,” make the identification process of fingerprints much more consistent and subsequently much more efficient. The algorithm was imputed into a computer system by the researchers. Then, the system was trained to be able to identify different types of fingerprints. From strenuous testing, the researchers involved in the project concluded that “the scoring algorithm performed slightly better than the average of the human examiners involved in the study.” This result may sound substandard, but in all reality it is a breakthrough for the process of fingerprint identification. Since the process of fingerprint identification has been accused of erroneous results in the past, any better than average result is a good result.  Researchers behind the project credit their success to a large excess of usable fingerprints, given by the local Michigan police station. Considering the fact that the main part of the project was focused towards the training of the computer system with the algorithm, the team’s access to a large supply of fingerprints gave the researchers more opportunities to conduct even more trials. However, Elham Tabassi, a computer engineer who worked on the project extensively, believed that they should be testing even more fingerprints to make sure the system is definitely accurate. "We've run our algorithm against a database of 250,000 prints, but we need to run it against millions. An algorithm like this has to be extremely reliable, because lives and liberty are at stake."

Considering the fact that this article concerns the use of an algorithm that would make fingerprint identification easier and more reliable, it is evident that it plays an extremely important role in the future of forensic science. If the algorithm system is perfected and dispersed among law enforcement institutions across the world, then the processes of fingerprint identification and analyzation will be much easier and more effective. This can lead to quicker arrests and more trustworthy evidence to be offered during court trials. This would surely lead to a safer world as arrests would be much more definite and conclusive. Despite this, it is evident that the system still has a long way to go before it will be properly introduced into the world of forensic investigation.

Overall, I believe that the article “Automated Fingerprint Analysis is One Step Closer to Reality,” from the online news source Science Daily was extremely well written and equally informative. The authors were able to describe the complicated and advanced system developed while relating back to it’s uses and how it could deeply change the world of forensic science. The authors go into amazing detail surrounding the exact functions and why the system needs further development before it will be properly introduced into the world of forensic science. In an effort to improve the article, the authors should have supplied the reader with more information surrounding the development of the algorithm. It would be interesting to know when exactly the researchers estimate the system will be introduced after further testing and trials. The authors could have also further improved the article by describing the ideas behind the creation of the algorithm and how, exactly, it came to be.