Radiology Offers Clues in Cases of Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault

Radiological Society of North America (2017). Radiology Offers Clues in Cases of

Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault. [online] Forensic Magazine. Available at:

https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/11/radiology-offers-clues-cases-domest

ic-abuse-and-sexual-assault [Accessed 29 Nov. 2017].

The article I read was from Forensic Magazine, and it discussed the use of radiology (x-rays) to identify victims of domestic violence.  Because one in four women in the US is a victim of intimate partner violence, the doctors in the radiology department of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston were able to see certain injury patterns and decided to investigate.  In a study led by Dr. Bharti Khurana it was discovered that certain types of injuries were characteristic of patients who experienced domestic abuse, such as fractures in the extremities (from defensive attempts) or in the face (which is an easy and common target).  Another indication is when a person has repeatedly suffered the same injury, which is easy to identify because “old, healed fractures look distinct from acute fractures.”  These consistent patterns make x-rays a useful tool for identifying and helping victims of abuse.  The article also gave statistics about the subjects the study, which consisted of two groups.  Of the 87 victims of intimate partner violence, 95% were female, 40% were African American, and the mean age was 34.7 years.  Of the 35 sexual assault victims, the majority were also female and African American (91% and 46% respectively), and had fewer traumatic injuries.  Victims of domestic abuse were also more likely to be homeless, while victims of sexual assault were more likely to suffer from drug abuse.  

This is extremely relevant to the world today because domestic violence is a very common crime, and one that often goes unreported and unpunished, either because the victim is in denial about it, afraid to speak out, or unsure who to turn to.  If doctors can identify signs that a patient might be injured as a result of abuse, they can provide the patient with resources to get help and possibly get out of a dangerous situation.  It might also make prosecution in cases of abuse much easier, as this study (and probably further research) means that things like medical records of fractures can be used as evidence showing that someone has been the victim of abuse.

I thought that the article was really well written, and that it was very clear and easy to follow.  It included a decent amount of quotes and statistics, but nothing too technical for the average person.  It did use the word “radiology” quite frequently before mentioning x-rays, but this wouldn’t be too confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the term because the images of x-rays at the top should remove all doubt.  Overall I thought it was a good and informative piece.  

Jerry Brown Pardons Man Imprisoned for Decades for Murders He Didn’t Commit.

Justin McCarthy
Mr. Ippolito

Forensics Science 12H

Current Event 9: Jerry Brown Pardons Man

Due November 29th, 2017

Hauser, Christine. “Jerry Brown Pardons Man Imprisoned for Decades for Murders He Didn’t Commit.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/jerry-brown-pardon-murder.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/jerry-brown-pardon-murder.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%20Science&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Upon reading the New York Times masterfull journalist Christine Hauser, Hauser states the central idea her article because not just was Craig Coley was wrongfully imprisoned for murder, but because he was found guilty by judges, he spent nearly 50 years behind bars. However, what makes this case so bad is that Mr. Coley was imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. This crime as stated by Hauser was that Craig was charged with murder. “Rhonda Wicht, 24, who had recently ended their relationship. Ms. Wicht was found beaten and strangled, apparently with a macramé rope, in her apartment in Simi Valley, Calif., the Ventura County district attorney’s office said. Her son, Daniel, had been smothered” (Christine Hauser). Therefore because Mr. Craig was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend and stepson, based on the evidence at the time was enough to sentence him for 70 years. However, only recently did the sentence get overturned by investigators because as Hauser states a “new investigation” (Hauser) proved that Craig was innocent which was based on new information on DNA Evidence. Thence the main theme that the author presents to us as readers is that while this man got the justice that he deserves, that still does not erase the fact that he was sentenced to a lifetime in jail and because of it, it shows us as Americans how much work we have to do for improving our legal system, even though he did get his innocence after the jury along with the California Governor Jerry Brown delivered the justice that this man deserved after wrongfully being imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit, and was possibly framed .

Jerry Brown’s pardoning of this innocent man not only is important because justice was finally carried out, but it also makes us as Individuals reflect on how efficient our legal system is right now. This is because there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for wrongfully charging a human for a crime that they did not commit. If there is not enough evidence to prove a suspect is guilty, then the case should be stayed for a period time and thus if new evidence does, in fact, appear, then that case should be reopened for investigation. Hauser’s article reflects on this idea many times over but when she notes that the district attorney for California admits that because of false evidence, injustice was served to this innocent man.  “Mr. Totten vowed his office would “pursue the absolute truth in this decades-old case.” He did not release the names of any new suspects. “As district attorney, I must tell you I look forward to the day when I can shake Mr. Coley’s hand, apologize to him for the injustice he suffered,” Mr. Totten said at a news conference. “I am also hopeful that one day soon we will bring to justice the violent man responsible for this most horrific crime.”” (Hauser). Therefore by Hauser highlighting that because this man was wrongfully acquitted for a murder that he did not commit, the district attorney who led the case against him has now tainted his own legacy as an agent of the law. Because the law is supposed to keep society and those who are innocent safe and serve justice to everyone, however, for this instance injustice was served and for many times over the law and jury system in our country can sometimes be borderline corrupt.

I believe from reading this article was of the biggest strengths that this author did very well was that she jumped into her topic right from the start because she does this very well, it establishes a hook and makes the reader want to keep reading. “A California man who served nearly 40 years in prison for murders of a woman and her 4-year-old son that he said he did not commit has been pardoned by Gov. Jerry Brown after a new investigation proved he was wrongly convicted”  (Housier). I thought the way she structured her article was also very effective because with some of the article that I have read this year, some feel like unevenly balanced and in result, the entire article is somewhat off timing with its perfect potential. While I enjoyed this article very much, one fact which I believe this author could do a better job at was I wished that she could have gone a little deeper into how and what led to the justification by the jury to indict this innocent man for murder back in 1970. I believe that by doing this it makes the article not only better but it makes less complicated for individuals because she does note that he was indicted, but she does so in the legal description. This is an area which I think she can improve because by adding a little more forensic information because I think by adding data regarding the DNA typing test to her article it does only improve her writing, but it adds more verification to her article. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and the overall reflection that I took away was that even though America has a complex legal system and in a result, some individuals might receive injustice for crimes that they did not commit- even though they are innocent.   

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.

Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty

Liam Grealy

November 7th

Forensics

Current Event #6

Mr. Ippolito

Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.

According to the article it says that in court that fingerprints do not solely prove a person's guilt. They are only enough to give reasonable doubt, other evidence must be present to prove someone is guilty. It talks about the  quality of latent fingerprint analysis says that courtroom testimony and reports stating or even implying that fingerprints collected from a crime scene belong to a single person are indefensible and lack scientific foundation. "Fingerprinting is one of the most heavily used forensic methods. Routinely, fingerprint analysts report and testify to 'identification,' that is, that the person who left the mark at the crime scene is the same person whose fingerprint is in the database,” Fingerprint analysis is used to help find criminals and it is kind of shocking that now it has been disproven despite a lot of evidence saying that there is only one individual per set of prints.

The fact that fingerprints are no longer viewed as a key piece of evidence are a little weird  as there are many parts of forensics which already aren't viewed in high light but fingerprints are pretty universally agreed upon. “Forensic science is an important tool for investigating crime and helping to determine guilt or innocence at trial, but questions have been raised about the validity and reliability of many forensic disciplines. A crucial National Research Council report issued in 2009 noted that most forensic disciplines have not been subjected to rigorous scientific study. And there is no way to know which aspects of these disciplines were based on a solid scientific footing and which were not.” This reiterated how it seems like almost all of forensics is getting a bad rep in the world of criminal justice.

My only real complaint is that this article doesn't go into more detail and use a real case as an example. I feel like it would have made the case more personal and left the reader more affected, It almost draws attention away as the there is no real case to make me think about and to either agree or disagree with, I have always taken fingerprints as pretty sound evidence. This really got me thinking how different can a set of fingerprints be that will make them believe that a set of prints is not suitable information in a case/

Forensic Pathologist Testifies in Police Disciplinary Case

Andy Goldbaum Forensics Mr. Ippolito CE #6

Witte, Brian. “Forensic Pathologist Testifies in Police Disciplinary Case.” Forensic Magazine, © Copyright 2017 Advantage Business Media, 6 Nov. 2017, www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/11/forensic-pathologist-testifies-police-disciplinary-case.

In “Forensic Pathologist Testifies in Police Disciplinary Case” by Brian Witte of Associated Press, Baltimore police officer Caesar Goodson was accused of failing to follow police policy when he did not buckle Freddie Gray in with a seatbelt while arresting him and placing him in a police van, and Gray hit his head on the ceiling of the car during the ride to the police station and ended up fatally injuring his spinal chord in April of 2015. This being seen as an example of police brutality sparked riots and protests across Baltimore upon Gray’s death in the hospital.  Forensic pathologist Dr. Jonathan Alden Gray testified in Goodson’s trial a year later that Gray would have still hit his head on the wall of the van even if he had not been wearing a seatbelt at the time; however, the police department, who believed that Goodson was negligent and deserved to be fired, hired the prosecuting attorney Neil Duke who was allowed to question in court whether Alden’s expertise in pathology extended to the use of seatbelts. On top of this, Duke made a compelling case against Goodson: even though Gray’s aggression during the arrest prompted officer Goodson not to buckle him in, Duke stated that Goodson did not get medical attention earlier during the drive; confirmed that the injury would have been avoided had Gray been hospitalized; cited a medical examiner’s report that claimed the injury took place as early as between the second and fourth stop as well as ruling Gray’s death as a homicide; and claimed that Gray was in dire need of care when Goodson and the other officer checked on him. Dr. Alden’s rebuttal was that hospitalization would have had “no effect whatsoever” because the injury occurred later on, and the evidence was “overwhelming” in that the injury occurred later than the second and fourth stop. Despite Duke’s compelling case against Officer Goodson and the fact that Dr. Alden was even forced to resign as DC’s medical examiner in 2013 due to “operational deficiencies” and accusations of sexual harassment, Goodson was acquitted of all of his charges largely because Dr. Alden’s position of forensic pathologist swayed the court to accept him as an expert witness.

This case is indicative of a fundamental problem in the justice system: the label of “expert witness” is essentially a tenured position. Once someone is deemed an expert witness in a court case, it is very difficult to undo that decision. This poses a problem in a case like this because not only may a forensic pathologist not be qualified on the issue of whether to use a seatbelt, since they deal more with using indicators like toxins or bullets in the body to determine the cause of a death rather than to describe whether a specific practice like using a seatbelt could have led to a death, but it was clear that his trustworthiness as an expert should be questioned after he was fired from his last job for negligence and temperamental issues and yet he was still taken just as seriously because the position of “expert witness” is highly prestigious in its own right. The problem with any government-run institution is that its lack of inclusion in the competitive free market allows public sector workers to escape accountability. In any forensic field, this lack of accountability manifests itself in how difficult it is to remove the status of “expert witness” from someone even if this person would have felt immediate consequences for his/her actions in a private sector job. Just as the government takes action to make sure that our labs and other facilities are the best in the world, the government needs to pay attention to flaws in the system to make sure forensic workers are accountable and therefore the best in the field.

Overall, Witte’s article is well-written. The information is presented chronologically, and it is easy to follow what the positions are of both sides in the case despite a lot of different elements of the crime being examined (ie debate on the use of the seatbelt, medical attention at various times, when the injury happened). However, I would have preferred if Witte included analysis of whether it was appropriate to trust Alden as an expert witness in this case. I know this was strictly a “report” of what happened, but because this was on a forensics publication, raising an issue related to the “forensics” aspect of the article (expert witnesses) would have been more appropriate.

Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA

Catherine Faville

Forensic

Current event

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%20Evidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection

Rosenberg, Eli. “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%2BEvidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection.

“Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA” written by Eli Rosenberg describes how officials in New York are arguing over whether or not to authorize the method familial searching. With this method, they would be able to find the relatives of people charged with crimes.  Investigators look through a database with the large parameter of identifying people who bare even a close DNA resemblance to a person who may have committed a crime. This method has been useful for the arrest in  cases like “so-called Grim Sleeper.” However even with some success, this method has risen many questions, a lot of people find that this method is a invasion of privacy of an innocent group of people, even if they have a blood relation to a suspect. This whole issue goes back and forth, between if the New York State Commission on Forensic Science should go through with the authorization of familial searching.

This is a relevant issue, because it concerns many people who may or share a blood relation to any criminal or suspect. With gene pools spreading wide, many people many casted into the net of criminals for cases undergoing investigation. For example in one case, an innocent man was told that he was a murder suspect after the familial searching, he was eventually cleared. However this type of incident can cause a saga of events if information is read wrong, or a era occurs. These types of mistakes can cause great turmoil to innocent people.

Reading this article I would have liked to have gotten more information as to how they use the familial searching, what exactly they do witht he found information. If this information was added it would have made the article easier to understand and break down. Also the article spent most of its time giving the good side of the method, rather than the opposing sides views. If there was a equalization of both sides of information, it would have allowed the reader to come up with their side of their own volition, rather than from one sided views. The article did however captivate my interest, the idea was backed up by a great wave of information, allowing me to fully understand and appreciate the article.

Who Betrayed Anne Frank? Former F.B.I. Agent Reopens a Cold Case

Schuetze, Christopher F. “Who Betrayed Anne Frank? Former F.B.I. Agent Reopens a Cold Case.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/world/europe/anne-frank-cold-case-investigation.html

The article by Christopher F. Schuetze explains the hardships of Anne Frank went through with her family while they were hiding out during World War 2. Anne Frank said that she heard a little knock on the wall and she did not know what to think of it. Then four weeks later in August of 1944 the police discovered the hideout during a  raid and arrested her and the other people that were hiding with her. Recently there has been talk about who told the police and they want to figure out how the police could have found it without getting a tip. They want to take a three-dimensional scan of the original house and using computer models to determine how far sounds might have traveled.

There were many stories like this one during World War 2 where families would be hiding out underground or in someone's attic and they get caught by the police. There were many tips to the police back then because they never wanted to get caught hiding people so they would set them up as a trap. There is always an explanation to why things happen and in this case Anne Frank could have been set up by someone who knocked on the wall four weeks before they got arrested. This could have been a setup or it could have been a warning, we will never know that reason but we can cross out the explanation that the police just happened to find them.

Overall, I thought this was a very well informing article that really got into details about Anne Frank and the layout of their hiding space. If there was one thing that I would change would be the layout of the article. I thought that they had a lot of backstory, which is nice to have if you did not know that story already, but I thought the forensic part of the article came too late and there was not much about it. In conclusion, I think for it to be categorized as a forensic article there should be a little more forensic and a little less backstory.