Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight

Do you plan to read McMenamin in its entirety, and discuss its ramifications?

  • Total voters
    7

New Posts

V

voynich

Former Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
3
Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight, not clumsy or random like an RDI spin, a more elegant weapon from a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations the JIDI knights were the guardians of truth and justice in the old investigation. Before the dark times. Before the RDI spin team. Now the case has gotten so old that an intruder is about to get away with murder. The RDI was seduced by the dark side of spin.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inTbUf5Swfc&feature=related"]YouTube - Yoda vs. Darth Sidious-Episode III[/ame]

Here are some other forensic linguists


John Olsson The Forensic Linguistics Institute investigates the language of crime and ... John Olsson presented the faculty with his latest research on authorship. www.thetext.co.uk/

wrote

JOHN OLSSON. Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime and the law.

click here
http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

"The book is intended to be the core text for forensic linguistic courses at undergraduate level,"

speaks of McM methodology as scientific, accepted by linguistics, and empirical validated.

He also writes of RN

http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

rejects the null hypothesis of dual authors


Who is John Olsson?

John Olsson, the world's first full time forensic linguist, has been serving as an independent expert since 1994. He has handled more than 300 major cases, making him one of the world's most experienced in this field.

http://www.thetext.co.uk/john_olsson.html

Gerald R McMenamin himself has been citations include
# Attributing Authorship: An Introduction by Harold Love
* page 111, page 116, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
# Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy
* page 138, and page 140

# Discourse Analysis: An Introduction by Alexandra Georgakopolou
# Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes by Roger Shuy
# Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp
* page 284

# Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Language in Society) by John Gibbons
* Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy on page 138
* Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp on page 284


Just as there are Jonbenet forum, there's forums for linguists and forensic linguists, here is one


http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000931.php

Alan Perlman states I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases. I'll probably be going to LA later this month to testify.

here are some quotes:

As a forensic linguist I find many (but not all) of the comments on this page quite fascinating. I suppose about as fascinating as a geneticist would find the comments of a group of forensic linguists who knew little or nothing about genetics. I'm particularly amused that people should think of Don Foster as a 'forensic linguist'. He certainly did some clever attribution stuff and has a 'theory' that we all use language uniquely, but he has published - to my knowledge - absolutely nothing on the subject. Unfortunately there are those in the FBI who think he's an expert. It's a joke. Some of your comments on this page were quite good. You correctly point out that a lot of this started with Jan Svartvik, and you correctly point out that people like Gerald McMenamin and Roger Shuy are very impressive in what they do, as is Kniffka. Do drop by my site at any time. I did a lot of work on the language surrounding Andrew Gilligan's claims about his 'source', also analyses of the 'anthrax' envelopes, the men accused of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, etc.
Posted by: John Olsson at November 18, 2003 11:14 AM


Hello, all. I'm delighted that I found this site.

I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases. I'll probably be going to LA later this month to testify.

I agree that Don Foster is not the real thing. He draws all kinds of indirect literary parallels on the basis of puns, allusions, subconscious references, and other matters that real linguists do not deal with. He psychloigizes about his subjects.

As Professor McMenamin has pointed out, he becomes fascinated with his own media glory (whereas in reality he's a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with his timely identification a new Shakespearean sonnet right at the time when people were wondering about the author of "Primary Colors"); he vacillates wiith circumstances(instead of gathering data to confirm or support a hypothesis); he gets the linguistics wrong, and, worst of all, he takes credit for inventing a field that is hundreds of years old and had already been used in many legal cases.

Forensic linguistics, correctly practiced, is part art and part science. As Rogey Shuy has pointed out, it is good linguistics practiced within a legal context. What I report to my clients is not literary or abstruse. It involves specific linguistic data and my impartial evaluation of them.

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan
Posted by: Alan Perlman at February 23, 2004 06:50 PM

To S. Shaw:

Please see Foster's own book, Author Unknown, p. 5: "I was now [1996] presented with a fresh challenge: to develop a science of literary forensics...".

This statement, plus failure to acknowledge the vast body of forensic linguistic research and application, supports my claim (shared by Prof. McMenamin).

Alan Perlman, PhD

An introduction to forensic linguistics: language in evidence By Malcolm Coulthard, Alison Johnson reviews Gerald R McMenamin

http://books.google.com/books?id=RQ...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

and concludes that when another forensic linguist uses the same methodology as McMenanmin, in another case, the husband admitted to typing the letter. (Eagelton)



- Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics , which you can download and read for yourself here: http://www.filestube.com/8ab5481c3a4ea64d03e9/details.html

or buy it here: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Forensic-Linguistics-Advances-Stylistics/dp/0849309662/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254078073&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics (9780849309663): Gerald R. McMenamin: Books[/ame]

or read it partially online here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oF...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 
Are you working in sales now,voynich? :waitasec:
 
I said that I would read the whole thing and discuss it but the Lord only He knows when I'll get round to it...


Feels a bit like homework, TBH.
 
madeleine said:
Are you working in sales now,voynich? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

An appropriate question, in my opinion! He's certainly doing a brilliant job of it. Sadly, so are the people he mentions, and as far as I go, that's the whole problem. They seem (and I admit, that's all it is at this moment) like they're more interested in building themselves up, which is a problem in many areas of forensic examination. (That's what I was talking about when I stressed the need for good mavericks.)

I have a little something of my own. It's not specifically related to the question of linguistics, but it helps to give perspective on it:

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Oh, and just as a side-note: the Emperor WON that fight!
 
SuperDave said:
An appropriate question, in my opinion! He's certainly doing a brilliant job of it. Sadly, so are the people he mentions, and as far as I go, that's the whole problem. They seem (and I admit, that's all it is at this moment) like they're more interested in building themselves up, which is a problem in many areas of forensic examination. (That's what I was talking about when I stressed the need for good mavericks.)

I have a little something of my own. It's not specifically related to the question of linguistics, but it helps to give perspective on it:

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Oh, and just as a side-note: the Emperor WON that fight!
Click to expand...

Thanks SD.
Wow finally someone there who agrees with me!

"Hunter, statement that said we'd be surprised, if we knew who they
almost arrested and the fact the Mr Ramsey himself had the best team
of lawyers has given me even more reason to think John is more
involved then just staging the crime scene...."

I can't get this outta my head,why did the RST focus on JR's defence?PR was the focus of the investigation,so why was JR priority?We agreed that their lawyers KNEW.Then I tend to believe they were focusing on protecting the real killer,the one guilty of MURDER.Yep PR probably knew and was involved in the cover-up but I think LE was wrong re PR.That's what I think right now.
 
SuperDave said:
Oh, and just as a side-note: the Emperor WON that fight!
Click to expand...

Sith it's either victory or failure. Sith do not accept failure. It was Sidious intention to kill Yoda. Sidious failed in his mission.
 
voynich said:
Sith it's either victory or failure. Sith do not accept failure. It was Sidious intention to kill Yoda. Sidious failed in his mission.
Click to expand...

He proved he was stronger. A win's a win.
 
SuperDave said:
An appropriate question, in my opinion! He's certainly doing a brilliant job of it. Sadly, so are the people he mentions, and as far as I go, that's the whole problem. They seem (and I admit, that's all it is at this moment) like they're more interested in building themselves up, which is a problem in many areas of forensic examination. (That's what I was talking about when I stressed the need for good mavericks.)

I have a little something of my own. It's not specifically related to the question of linguistics, but it helps to give perspective on it:

http://jwarchive.tripod.com/03232001JW-FosteramaI.txt

Oh, and just as a side-note: the Emperor WON that fight!
Click to expand...

The circle is now complete, when I left you I was the learner, now I am the master.

Dave, Madelaine, Sophie, I'd like to point to you that the University of Chicago linguistics department (where Alan Perlman is a faculty) is ranked #5 in the nation.

http://graduate-school.phds.org/ran...3=4&w8=-4&w1=5&w18=-5&w9=3&w24=-2&w10=3&w25=2

1 Linguistics, Stanford University
2. Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3. Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus
4. Linguistics, Northwestern University
5. Linguistics, University of California-San Diego
5. Linguistics, University of Chicago


Alan Perlman states I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases.

You correctly point out that a lot of this started with Jan Svartvik, and you correctly point out that people like Gerald McMenamin and Roger Shuy are very impressive in what they do, as is Kniffka.


I agree that Don Foster is not the real thing. He draws all kinds of indirect literary parallels on the basis of puns, allusions, subconscious references, and other matters that real linguists do not deal with. He psychloigizes about his subjects.

As Professor McMenamin has pointed out, he becomes fascinated with his own media glory (whereas in reality he's a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with his timely identification a new Shakespearean sonnet right at the time when people were wondering about the author of "Primary Colors"); he vacillates wiith circumstances(instead of gathering data to confirm or support a hypothesis); he gets the linguistics wrong, and, worst of all, he takes credit for inventing a field that is hundreds of years old and had already been used in many legal cases.

Forensic linguistics, correctly practiced, is part art and part science. As Rogey Shuy has pointed out, it is good linguistics practiced within a legal context. What I report to my clients is not literary or abstruse. It involves specific linguistic data and my impartial evaluation of them.

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan


McM was himself cited by

erald R McMenamin himself has been citations include
# Attributing Authorship: An Introduction by Harold Love
* page 111, page 116, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
# Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy
* page 138, and page 140

# Discourse Analysis: An Introduction by Alexandra Georgakopolou
# Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes by Roger Shuy
# Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp
* page 284

# Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Language in Society) by John Gibbons
* Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy on page 138
* Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp on page 284

http://www.rogershuy.com/
Roger Shuy refences McM Who is Roger Shuy?

My service as professor of linguistics for 30 years at Georgetown University continues through my company, Roger W. Shuy, Inc., which was incorporated in ...
Roger W. Shuy, Inc., which was incorporated in 1982. This service includes linguistic analysis of:

* tape recorded conversation (bribery, solicitation, extortion, threats, etc.)
* tape recorded speeches (slander, fraud, etc.)
* tape recorded interviews (child sex abuse, police interrogations, confessions, etc.)
* written documents (reports, proposals, insurance policies, testimony, contracts, confessions, etc.)


Over the past 40 years, I have consulted on some 500 cases and have testified as a linguistics expert witness 54 times in criminal and civil trials (in 26 states), as well as before the US Senate and US House of Representatives in impeachment trials of US Senators and Federal Judges and in International Criminal Tribunal trials. I have also provided sworn affidavits and depositions in some 75 law cases.

Roger W. Shuy, Inc. is now informally affiliated with Dr. Robert A. Leonard of Robert A. Leonard Associates in New York and with Dr. Sharon Smith of Forensic Psycholinguistics, L.L.C. in Virginia.



John Olsson's Curriculum Vitae

Olsson is frequently commissioned by law enforcement agencies, solicitors, government departments, companies and private clients. These have included large UK insurance companies, a major US publisher and several of the world's most eminent universities and colleges.

Olsson is on the United Kingdom National Crime Operations Faculty register (Centre for Policing Excellence, NPIA) as an expert. His work has been used in evidence at Crown Court, Magistrates' Court, County Court and Coroner's Court levels, in addition to several industrial tribunals and other internal disciplinary hearings, representing students in plagiarism hearings and university staff in misconduct allegations. Olsson has given evidence at venues as diverse as the Central Criminal Court, (the ‘Old Bailey'), a number of Coroners' courts, and the UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

Olsson's forensic analysis has been submitted for evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court. In addition, he has been admitted as an expert in an Australian Federal Court in connection with copyright infringement and has written a number of reports in connection with copyright and trademark infringement.

Every major crime is represented in Olsson's practice including murder, suspicious death, terrorism, product contamination, witness intimidation, blackmail, fraud, sexual assault, armed robbery, money laundering, gang violence and narcotics investigations.

His work includes analysis of all kinds of texts including ransom notes, suicide texts, threat texts and a variety of other types of document. Olsson has analysed the authorship of many cell phone text messages and has assisted in a number of investigations involving electronic media, including email messages. He has also analysed the discourse of codes, including gang codes, for police officers in intelligence operations. He has also undertaken many transcriptions and other phonetic analyses of police interviews, phone calls – both malicious and genuine – to the emergency services, surveillance audio tapes, etc. This work also includes voice identification and audio enhancement. In all he has written hundreds of reports for police services and law enforcement agencies, lawyers and private clients.

John Olsson has published in the Forensic Linguistics peer reviewed professional journal, is the author of a well-known university textbook, Forensic Linguistics (subtitled An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law), now in its second edition. Olsson has also presented at conferences in several countries. He takes an active interest in matters of scientific interest and is a member of a number of learned and other societies (including the Royal Statistical Society and the British Academy of Forensic Sciences), as well as of the professional association for forensic linguists.

His primary concern in working as a forensic linguist is to serve the justice system honestly, impartially, and professionally. All inquiries are treated in the strictest confidence.
Current Positions

Director, Forensic Linguistics Institute. This institute has an educational rôle also, and our courses are accredited by the Open and Distance Learning Quality Council of the UK.

Adjunct Professor, Nebraska Wesleyan University, USA Forensic Science Program. This involves online teaching of graduate students, grading of assignments, and advice on course content. Visiting Professor, International University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Serbia. This involves supervision of graduate students in Forensic Linguistics.

Tempus Consortium Member, University of Zagreb, Croatia, EU Tempus Language and Law Programme Language and Law Centre, Zagreb, Member, Advisory Board and Visiting Professor. This involves giving lectures, conducting seminars and supervising graduate students in Forensic Linguistics.

Sound analysisFreelance consultant to legal professionals in the UK and USA and to police forces in the UK and the USA. This list includes all the major English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Ireland police forces and many rural police forces too.
Recent cases

Recent cases where John Olsson appeared as an expert witness or where his evidence was used or referred to in court:

R v A. P.
November, 2008. Birmingham Crown Court. Case No. T2008 0584. Charge of dangerous driving and racing.
Involvement: Commissioned by Defence to examine possibility of abuse of process (method of collecting witness statements).
Outcome: Racing charge dropped.

R v Graham Speed
October 2008, Lincoln Magistrates' Court
Charge of malicious communication (series of hate mail letters and emails to neighbours, police, hospitals, newspapers, government departments)
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v Steven Dawes, Richard Eyre, Graham Manuel
September 2008, Gloucester Crown Court
Charge of blackmail, possession and production of cannabis, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – voice identification and sound file enhancement
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty on all counts

R v Darryl Bennett, Richard McNamara, Shane Liddy, Nicholas Garland
May 2008, Luton Crown Court
Charge of murder, conspiracy to rob, perverting the course of justice – reconstruction of mobile phone text conversation
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty on all counts

R v Andrew Caveney and Daniel Roberts
March 2008, Wrexham Crown Court
Charge of aggravated burglary, threats, TWOC – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v Garry Weddell
March 2008, Luton Coroners' Court
Charge of murder – identification of authorship of an alleged suicide note
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution, continued as part of Coroner's Inquest
Outcome: Case discontinued owing to death of suspect, finding of double murder and suicide

Her Majesty's Advocate v David Martin
March 2008, High Court, Edinburgh
Charge of murder
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Verdict: Guilty

R v Tracey de Paulie
January 2008, Aylesbury Crown Court
Charge of conspiring to smuggle heroin into a prison – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v David Robertson
December 2007, Aylesbury Crown Court
Charge of conspiring to smuggle heroin into a prison – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

HMA v John McSween - Appeal
August 2007, High Court of Justiciary, Glasgow
Perjury case (Crown Appeal)
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Verdict: Guilty

R v John Hanmer
June 2007, Wrexham Magistrates' Court
Charge of malicious communication, analysis of audio tapes for voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v N.G.
May 2007, Oldham Magistrates' Court
Charge of reckless driving, analysis of police statements
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Outcome: Police statements not presented for evidence, case dismissed

Icarus College v MedEntry
April 2007, Supreme Court, Melbourne, Australia
Copyright infringement case
Involvement: Commissioned by the claimant
Outcome: Judgment not awarded to either party

R v Rehan Asghar
February 2007, Central Criminal Court, London UK, Case No: T20050083
Charge of Murder
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

Mr B K v Brampton Flying Club
February 2007, Superior Court of Justice Ontario
Case No: 02-BN-10544
Authorship of Internet journal
Involvement: Commissioned by the claimant
Outcome: Claim upheld, damages agreed
Areas of practice

Authorship of questioned documents, including emails, letters, phone text messages (SMS), word-processed documents, books, academic papers, term papers, etc.
Interpretation of discourse, analysis of discourse for indications of meaning
Threat assessment of ransom demands and other extortion texts
Assessment of genuineness of suicide texts
Analysis of disputed meaning – either of spoken or written language
Voice identification – including audio enhancement to clarify speech
 
madeleine said:
Are you working in sales now,voynich? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

You're free to read the other authors and books I've listed ---

JOHN OLSSON. Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime and the law.


Alan Perlman, Robert Shuy
An introduction to forensic linguistics: language in evidence By Malcolm Coulthard, Alison Johnson

Attributing Authorship: An Introduction by Harold Love
* page 111, page 116, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
# Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy
* page 138, and page 140

# Discourse Analysis: An Introduction by Alexandra Georgakopolou
# Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes by Roger Shuy
# Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp
* page 284

# Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Language in Society) by John Gibbons
* Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy on page 138
* Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp on page 284
 
The Ramseys didn't write the RN note. We all know what that means. Justice for JB is Justice in IDI (JIDI)
IMHO sitting around discussing JR's sex games with JB or PR's PMS rage attack or DNA secondary transfer are all just mental masturbation while the real killer remains at large.

Forensic Linguistics: Recognizing Individual Written and Spoken Word Usages and Characteristics
Angela Lack, Law and Science Fellow

Introduction
Forensic linguists provides two functions: determining what text means and who wrote it.1 Experts in this field assist with investigations and have worked with attorneys in this capacity for over 20 years.2 The 1993 Daubert decision, which holds that trial judges must conduct a two-pronged test of admissibility by evaluating proffered expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”, increased the need for testimony from forensic linguistic experts and made it imperative to prove scientific reliability of forensic linguistic findings.3 These experts are now being called to the witness stand to analyze spoken words and handwritten or computer-generated documents.

Forensic Linguistics
Forensic linguists focus on “the theoretical position that every native speaker has their own distinct and individual version of the language they speak and write, their own idiolect, and the assumption that this idiolect will manifest itself through distinctive and idiosyncratic choices in texts.”4 To determine individualized meanings or authenticity, linguists study syntax, or the way in which words are combined to make phrases.5 These syntactical structures are measured by complexity, categorized by the terms of the complexity, and then run through statistical procedures.6 Linguists also study patterns of speech sounds, how words are combined, how sentences are formed, the meaning or conveyed meaning of words, and the changing nature and variability of language.7 In addition to these tools, linguists sometimes rely on common sense and awareness to determine if someone else is imitating the writing of another.8

Forensic linguistic experts are skilled in numerous areas to help solve crimes or to help prove the guilt or innocence of the accused. These areas include (1) voice identification, such as determining whether the voice on a threatening tape was the defendant; (2) author identification, which compares the document in question to that of a known writing sample; (3) discourse analysis, which analyzes the structure of written or spoken words, to determine what topics are discussed and if the defendant agreed to partake in criminal endeavors; (4) linguistic proficiency, to determine if a suspect understood the Miranda warning or police caution; and (5) dialectology, focusing on the dialect of the defendant and comparing it to the dialect of the speaker on the incriminating tape recording.10 Dialectology differs from voice identification because voice identification analyzes the acoustic qualities of the voice.

To comply with Daubert, statistical information has become more complex, producing mathematical proof of the accuracy of the expert’s identification of the document’s author.11 However, some courts have limited the testimony of forensic linguistic experts to the comparison of the ‘markers’ between the compared writings; sometimes courts exclude the testimony of the expert with regard to extrinsic factors and their opinion of the authorship of the ‘questioned’ writing.12 When allowed to testify, most forensic linguistic experts testify for the defense because there is less burden of proof.13 In most cases, the expert can say with confidence that the person on the tape is not the voice of a certain person or that it is not likely that a certain person was the author of a particular written piece.14 Therefore, it is easier to eliminate a person than to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is the speaker or author.15

The Written Word
While each person has a unique style of handwriting, forensic linguistics focuses on the way in which a person uses a word or phrase rather than the unique characteristics of their handwriting. Determining whether a writing is an imitation can be as simple as knowing that a elementary school dropout will not use sophisticated words in a confession or as complicated as determining that a certain word or phrases is specific to a dialect.16 One issue with author identification of documents is the length of the document. In most cases, the document (such as a ransom note or threatening letter) is too short to make reliable identifications.17 Forensic linguistic experts typically compare the writings of a known person to those of an unknown author. For example, Brian David Hummert was convicted of killing his wife after he claimed that a stalker sent notes to his wife.18 In addition to the notes from the stalker, the police received letters from a “serial killer” claiming to have killed Hummert’s wife.19 Professor Robert Leonard from Hofstra University compared the letters to Hummert’s writing and discovered that the stalker, serial killer, and Hummert had a pattern of never using contracting positive verbs, such as using “I am” instead of “I’m”.20

In one case, the murder suspect sent text messages from the victim’s cellular telephone to her friends and her father days after the murder to make them believe she was still alive.21 The police gave Professor Malcolm Coulthard the three July text messages sent to the victim’s friends and father, 100 samples of the July text messages, and 11 samples of text messages sent by the victim.22 Text messaging is rather short and most people make up their own style of sending text messages; therefore, making them more distinctive than other writings.23 While the texts sent by the victim and the July texts looked similar, upon closer review, Coulthard noticed differences.24 For example, both the victim and the 3 July texts used “2” instead of “to”; however, the victim did not leave a space between the “2” and the next word, while the 3 texts sent in July had a space before the next word.25 Other differences were more apparent, such as the victim’s use of “Im” and “Im not” rather than “I am” and “aint.”26 Other words used by the victim, such as “my”, “cu”, and “fone”, appeared as “me”, “cya”, and “phone” in the July texts, leading Coulthard to determine it was highly unlikely the victim sent the text messages.27

Another example of written analysis is focusing on misspelled words. In order to help determine the guilt of the murder suspect, Coulthard analyzed text messages, two suicide notes, and writing samples the suspect gave to the detectives.28 Similarities between the 3 July texts and the writing samples of the suspect were indicated through the misspelling of the word “off”, spelled “of” and the word “might”, spelled “mite”.29 An expert can determine when a highly educated person attempts to portray that he was poorly educated by misspelling simple words, such as cops (spelled “kops” in the letter), but correctly spelled complex words.30

Forensic linguistic experts use other methods of comparison such as transposition of verbs, which helped identify the Unabomber, or the similar and unusual spacing between words, which helped lead to the conviction of a surgeon who murdered his wife and then tried to blame someone else by writing an anonymous letter.31 Another mistake or error that linguists look for in documents is ‘competence errors’, which are differences from standard rules that the writer uses consistently.32 The linguist focuses on the grammatical or orthographic rule-breaking in short documents and only examines characteristic vocabulary in longer documents because more textual context is needed to determine vocabulary preferences.33

Forensic linguistic experts also provide testimony in non-criminal cases. A forensic linguist can testify in trademark disputes to help determine if the similarity or difference between two trademarks would be significant enough to confuse people.34 The forensic linguist focuses on how the words sound, the smallest component of the language.35 In addition to how a word sounds, a forensic linguist would also look at the meaning of the word to determine similarity.36

The Spoken Word
Analysis of the spoken word generally relates to tape recorded conversations or messages, such as undercover police recordings, voicemail messages, or answering machine messages.37 Each speaker builds his/her own active vocabulary, which differs from others, in terms of actual words or in preference of word choices.38 Forensic linguistic experts, such as Dr. Robert Shuy, specialize in ‘discourse analysis,’ which determines what a person is thinking based upon subjects raised in the conversation.39 Once the topics of the conversation are determined, the expert then looks at which person initiated the conversation in regard to the topic, who responded, and how the person responded and then subjects the information to linguistic analysis.40 For example, analysis of covert recordings may show the suspect's use of "I" rather than "we" indicating noncomplicity in a conspiracy, or the suspect’s use of the word "yeah" or "uh-huh", may not show that the suspect necessarily agrees, but may simply provide a feedback marker indicating he has understood the utterance.41 However, conflicting court decisions exist as to whether discourse analysts can testify as experts; however, even when they are not allowed to testify, attorneys may use them to help prepare the case.42 While this method will not give an exact indication of what the speaker’s intentions truly are, it does provide useful hints to what is on their mind and what is not on their mind.43

Another method of analyzing speech includes breaking down the speech into its smallest unit and counting syllables to make clear a disputed transcript.44 For example, by counting syllables in the sentence “I’ll take the bribe, wouldn’t you?” or I wouldn’t take a bribe, would you?”45, the linguist could determine what the suspect in a bribery case said on a recording.46

Computer analysis
Advances in technology and science now allow experts to compare documents and voice recordings quicker and more easily. Computer use, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Communication Threat Assessment Database (CTAD), makes it possible to break communication into 23 different categories.47 These developments promise continued expansion of forensic linguistics.

Conclusions
Forensic linguistic experts use the written and spoken word to determine many characteristics and patterns in anonymous writings and covert recordings. These traits, utterances, unique abbreviations, and grammatical style or formatting are used to help link to a known individual, thereby leading to greater certainty in evidentiary analysis.
 
voynich said:
The circle is now complete, when I left you I was the learner, now I am the master.

Dave, Madelaine, Sophie, I'd like to point to you that the University of Chicago linguistics department (where Alan Perlman is a faculty) is ranked #5 in the nation.

http://graduate-school.phds.org/ran...3=4&w8=-4&w1=5&w18=-5&w9=3&w24=-2&w10=3&w25=2

1 Linguistics, Stanford University
2. Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3. Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus
4. Linguistics, Northwestern University
5. Linguistics, University of California-San Diego
5. Linguistics, University of Chicago


Alan Perlman states I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases.

You correctly point out that a lot of this started with Jan Svartvik, and you correctly point out that people like Gerald McMenamin and Roger Shuy are very impressive in what they do, as is Kniffka.


I agree that Don Foster is not the real thing. He draws all kinds of indirect literary parallels on the basis of puns, allusions, subconscious references, and other matters that real linguists do not deal with. He psychloigizes about his subjects.

As Professor McMenamin has pointed out, he becomes fascinated with his own media glory (whereas in reality he's a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with his timely identification a new Shakespearean sonnet right at the time when people were wondering about the author of "Primary Colors"); he vacillates wiith circumstances(instead of gathering data to confirm or support a hypothesis); he gets the linguistics wrong, and, worst of all, he takes credit for inventing a field that is hundreds of years old and had already been used in many legal cases.

Forensic linguistics, correctly practiced, is part art and part science. As Rogey Shuy has pointed out, it is good linguistics practiced within a legal context. What I report to my clients is not literary or abstruse. It involves specific linguistic data and my impartial evaluation of them.

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan


McM was himself cited by

erald R McMenamin himself has been citations include
# Attributing Authorship: An Introduction by Harold Love
* page 111, page 116, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
# Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy
* page 138, and page 140

# Discourse Analysis: An Introduction by Alexandra Georgakopolou
# Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes by Roger Shuy
# Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp
* page 284

# Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Language in Society) by John Gibbons
* Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy on page 138
* Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp on page 284

http://www.rogershuy.com/
Roger Shuy refences McM Who is Roger Shuy?

My service as professor of linguistics for 30 years at Georgetown University continues through my company, Roger W. Shuy, Inc., which was incorporated in ...
Roger W. Shuy, Inc., which was incorporated in 1982. This service includes linguistic analysis of:

* tape recorded conversation (bribery, solicitation, extortion, threats, etc.)
* tape recorded speeches (slander, fraud, etc.)
* tape recorded interviews (child sex abuse, police interrogations, confessions, etc.)
* written documents (reports, proposals, insurance policies, testimony, contracts, confessions, etc.)


Over the past 40 years, I have consulted on some 500 cases and have testified as a linguistics expert witness 54 times in criminal and civil trials (in 26 states), as well as before the US Senate and US House of Representatives in impeachment trials of US Senators and Federal Judges and in International Criminal Tribunal trials. I have also provided sworn affidavits and depositions in some 75 law cases.

Roger W. Shuy, Inc. is now informally affiliated with Dr. Robert A. Leonard of Robert A. Leonard Associates in New York and with Dr. Sharon Smith of Forensic Psycholinguistics, L.L.C. in Virginia.



John Olsson's Curriculum Vitae

Olsson is frequently commissioned by law enforcement agencies, solicitors, government departments, companies and private clients. These have included large UK insurance companies, a major US publisher and several of the world's most eminent universities and colleges.

Olsson is on the United Kingdom National Crime Operations Faculty register (Centre for Policing Excellence, NPIA) as an expert. His work has been used in evidence at Crown Court, Magistrates' Court, County Court and Coroner's Court levels, in addition to several industrial tribunals and other internal disciplinary hearings, representing students in plagiarism hearings and university staff in misconduct allegations. Olsson has given evidence at venues as diverse as the Central Criminal Court, (the ‘Old Bailey'), a number of Coroners' courts, and the UK Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

Olsson's forensic analysis has been submitted for evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court. In addition, he has been admitted as an expert in an Australian Federal Court in connection with copyright infringement and has written a number of reports in connection with copyright and trademark infringement.

Every major crime is represented in Olsson's practice including murder, suspicious death, terrorism, product contamination, witness intimidation, blackmail, fraud, sexual assault, armed robbery, money laundering, gang violence and narcotics investigations.

His work includes analysis of all kinds of texts including ransom notes, suicide texts, threat texts and a variety of other types of document. Olsson has analysed the authorship of many cell phone text messages and has assisted in a number of investigations involving electronic media, including email messages. He has also analysed the discourse of codes, including gang codes, for police officers in intelligence operations. He has also undertaken many transcriptions and other phonetic analyses of police interviews, phone calls – both malicious and genuine – to the emergency services, surveillance audio tapes, etc. This work also includes voice identification and audio enhancement. In all he has written hundreds of reports for police services and law enforcement agencies, lawyers and private clients.

John Olsson has published in the Forensic Linguistics peer reviewed professional journal, is the author of a well-known university textbook, Forensic Linguistics (subtitled An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law), now in its second edition. Olsson has also presented at conferences in several countries. He takes an active interest in matters of scientific interest and is a member of a number of learned and other societies (including the Royal Statistical Society and the British Academy of Forensic Sciences), as well as of the professional association for forensic linguists.

His primary concern in working as a forensic linguist is to serve the justice system honestly, impartially, and professionally. All inquiries are treated in the strictest confidence.
Current Positions

Director, Forensic Linguistics Institute. This institute has an educational rôle also, and our courses are accredited by the Open and Distance Learning Quality Council of the UK.

Adjunct Professor, Nebraska Wesleyan University, USA Forensic Science Program. This involves online teaching of graduate students, grading of assignments, and advice on course content. Visiting Professor, International University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Serbia. This involves supervision of graduate students in Forensic Linguistics.

Tempus Consortium Member, University of Zagreb, Croatia, EU Tempus Language and Law Programme Language and Law Centre, Zagreb, Member, Advisory Board and Visiting Professor. This involves giving lectures, conducting seminars and supervising graduate students in Forensic Linguistics.

Sound analysisFreelance consultant to legal professionals in the UK and USA and to police forces in the UK and the USA. This list includes all the major English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Ireland police forces and many rural police forces too.
Recent cases

Recent cases where John Olsson appeared as an expert witness or where his evidence was used or referred to in court:

R v A. P.
November, 2008. Birmingham Crown Court. Case No. T2008 0584. Charge of dangerous driving and racing.
Involvement: Commissioned by Defence to examine possibility of abuse of process (method of collecting witness statements).
Outcome: Racing charge dropped.

R v Graham Speed
October 2008, Lincoln Magistrates' Court
Charge of malicious communication (series of hate mail letters and emails to neighbours, police, hospitals, newspapers, government departments)
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v Steven Dawes, Richard Eyre, Graham Manuel
September 2008, Gloucester Crown Court
Charge of blackmail, possession and production of cannabis, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – voice identification and sound file enhancement
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty on all counts

R v Darryl Bennett, Richard McNamara, Shane Liddy, Nicholas Garland
May 2008, Luton Crown Court
Charge of murder, conspiracy to rob, perverting the course of justice – reconstruction of mobile phone text conversation
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty on all counts

R v Andrew Caveney and Daniel Roberts
March 2008, Wrexham Crown Court
Charge of aggravated burglary, threats, TWOC – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v Garry Weddell
March 2008, Luton Coroners' Court
Charge of murder – identification of authorship of an alleged suicide note
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution, continued as part of Coroner's Inquest
Outcome: Case discontinued owing to death of suspect, finding of double murder and suicide

Her Majesty's Advocate v David Martin
March 2008, High Court, Edinburgh
Charge of murder
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Verdict: Guilty

R v Tracey de Paulie
January 2008, Aylesbury Crown Court
Charge of conspiring to smuggle heroin into a prison – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v David Robertson
December 2007, Aylesbury Crown Court
Charge of conspiring to smuggle heroin into a prison – voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

HMA v John McSween - Appeal
August 2007, High Court of Justiciary, Glasgow
Perjury case (Crown Appeal)
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Verdict: Guilty

R v John Hanmer
June 2007, Wrexham Magistrates' Court
Charge of malicious communication, analysis of audio tapes for voice identification
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

R v N.G.
May 2007, Oldham Magistrates' Court
Charge of reckless driving, analysis of police statements
Involvement: Commissioned by the defence
Outcome: Police statements not presented for evidence, case dismissed

Icarus College v MedEntry
April 2007, Supreme Court, Melbourne, Australia
Copyright infringement case
Involvement: Commissioned by the claimant
Outcome: Judgment not awarded to either party

R v Rehan Asghar
February 2007, Central Criminal Court, London UK, Case No: T20050083
Charge of Murder
Involvement: Commissioned by the prosecution
Verdict: Guilty

Mr B K v Brampton Flying Club
February 2007, Superior Court of Justice Ontario
Case No: 02-BN-10544
Authorship of Internet journal
Involvement: Commissioned by the claimant
Outcome: Claim upheld, damages agreed
Areas of practice

Authorship of questioned documents, including emails, letters, phone text messages (SMS), word-processed documents, books, academic papers, term papers, etc.
Interpretation of discourse, analysis of discourse for indications of meaning
Threat assessment of ransom demands and other extortion texts
Assessment of genuineness of suicide texts
Analysis of disputed meaning – either of spoken or written language
Voice identification – including audio enhancement to clarify speech
Click to expand...


voynich, I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, I don't question their abilities. It's just the whole everybody-quoting-everybody-else deal that I find off-putting. One of several things.

The Ramseys didn't write the RN note. We all know what that means. Justice for JB is Justice in IDI (JIDI)
Click to expand...

Afraid I'm forced to disagree. There's just too many other things.

IMHO sitting around discussing JR's sex games with JB or PR's PMS rage attack or DNA secondary transfer are all just mental masturbation while the real killer remains at large.
Click to expand...

What a gift for language you have. The implications are quite clear, and definitely NOT appreciated. I'll dispense with any attempts at a witty riposte and say simply that, for now, I believe those elements you list and so blithely (and vulgarly) dismiss are very likely CRUCIAL to breaking this case and FINDING the real killer.
 
Patsy's handwriting matches the RN. That trumps linguistics any day.
 
Sophie said:
I said that I would read the whole thing and discuss it but the Lord only He knows when I'll get round to it...


Feels a bit like homework, TBH.
Click to expand...

How passionate are you about securing justice for JB?
 
DeeDee249 said:
Patsy's handwriting matches the RN. That trumps linguistics any day.
Click to expand...

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1598&stc=1&d=1135885579

The two look nothing alike, sorry. As HOTYH pointed out, several letters have a box like drawing, which is not how PR writes.

You forget but writing w/a marker, any number of individuals can write in a manner vaguley resembling the question sample.

John Mark Karr produces letters that more closely match the RN, take a look

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/08/john_karrs_hand.html

The Zodiac Killer's writings also resembles RN. Give me a thick marker and I can make RN.


"As Professor Kam stated: 'It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me sic what's different'"

1. Ignoring Differences. "Ignoring differences between characteristics is a frequent cause of error in handwriting identification. (SMF P 233; PSMF P 233.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
2. Dismissing Differences as Disguised. "Similarly, dismissing differences as merely the product of intentional disguise is another common mistake made in the analysis. (SMF P 235; PSMF P 235.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
3. Analysis Should be Blinded. "In addition, an examiner should not know the identity of the comparators and should consult more than one comparator to increase the reliability of his or her analysis. (SMF PP 256-57 & 268-72; PSMF PP 256-57 & 268-72.)" (Carnes 2003:52-53).


Quality of RN Not Ideal. "Both parties agree that the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis, primarily due to the type of writing instrument, a broad fiber-tip pen, used to draft the note. This type of pen distorts and masks fine details to an extent not achievable by other types of pen, as for example a ball point pen. (SMF P 243; PSMF P 243.) In addition, the stroke direction used to construct certain letters and subtle handprinting features, such as hesitations and pen lifts, are difficult to ascertain because of the pen used in the Ransom Note.

Error Rates: Professionals vs. Non-Professionals. "A study by Dr. Moshe Kam indicates that professional document examiners had only a 6.5% error rate compared to an error rate of 38.3% for nonprofessionals. Dr. Kam concluded by stating that professional document examiners possess writer identification skills absent in the general population. Another study by Professor Kam indicated that professionals concluded that forgeries were genuine 0.49% of the time whereas lay persons did so 6.47% of the time. Professionals mistakenly concluded that genuine signatories were forgeries 7.05% of the time; lay persons did so 26.1% of the time. Another study by Jodi Sita, Brian Found and others found that forensic document examiners made errors in 3.4% of their opinions, while 19.1% of the control group gave erroneous opinions.

Deedee, you have not shown differences between RN and PR, and you have only focused on alleged similarities. You have a near 40% chance of being wrong. The standard of conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. Furthermore exclusions are always more definitive than inclusions, since it's entirely possible another individual could produce handwriting broadly similar.

If the incriminating blood sample is type A, and the suspect is type A, it's still possible another person has type A blood. 40% of 300 million. But if the sample is type A and suspect is type O, then the suspect is excluded.

Being nearly 40% chance of being wrong about your identification seems a rather shaky ground to definitively indict the R's.

# No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]


No BPD identified PR nor JR as RN author, and forensic linguists rule them out. What does that leave us with?
 
SuperDave said:
voynich, I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part, I don't question their abilities. It's just the whole everybody-quoting-everybody-else deal that I find off-putting. One of several things.
Afraid I'm forced to disagree. There's just too many other things.

What a gift for language you have. The implications are quite clear, and definitely NOT appreciated. I'll dispense with any attempts at a witty riposte and say simply that, for now, I believe those elements you list and so blithely (and vulgarly) dismiss are very likely CRUCIAL to breaking this case and FINDING the real killer.
Click to expand...

Alan Perlman (Univ of CHicago linguist wrote:
Forensic linguistics, correctly practiced, is part art and part science. As Rogey Shuy has pointed out, it is good linguistics practiced within a legal context. What I report to my clients is not literary or abstruse. It involves specific linguistic data and my impartial evaluation of them.

One example by John Olsson:
Julie Turner

Julie Turner, a 40 year old woman living in Yorkshire, went missing one summer evening in 2005. Relatives became concerned when she did not return after an appointment with a male friend. She was reported missing on 8 June 2005 and the following afternoon her partner received this mobile phone text: "Stopping at jills, back later need to sort my head out". Two days after Julie went missing another text was received: "Tell kids not to worry. sorting my life out. (sic) be in touch to get some things". Her partner thought it odd that she had not contacted the children. Police interviewed Howard Simmerson, a male friend, at his place of work on 10 June 2005. He denied any knowledge of her whereabouts. After analysis of many hours of close circuit television footage police observed Simmerson driving a four-wheel drive vehicle with a barrel secured to the rear of the vehicle. Similar references in letters Simmerson had written to the language of the mobile phone texts were found, as well as several unusual orthographic and punctuation features. Olsson suggested to police that this evidence indicated a possibility of Simmerson being aware of the contents of the text messages. On being confronted with this intelligence Simmerson admitted that Julie had been in his vehicle, but claimed that she had opened his glove compartment and found a weapon in there with which she had accidentally shot herself. Her body was in the barrel that had been on the back of his four-wheel drive vehicle. Police eventually found the barrel and recovered the body. Simmerson was found guilty at Sheffield Crown Court on 8 November, 2005, of Ms Turner's murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by Mr Justice Pitcher.
 
voynich said:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1598&stc=1&d=1135885579

The two look nothing alike, sorry. As HOTYH pointed out, several letters have a box like drawing, which is not how PR writes.

You forget but writing w/a marker, any number of individuals can write in a manner vaguley resembling the question sample.

John Mark Karr produces letters that more closely match the RN, take a look

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/08/john_karrs_hand.html

The Zodiac Killer's writings also resembles RN. Give me a thick marker and I can make RN.


"As Professor Kam stated: 'It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me sic what's different'"

1. Ignoring Differences. "Ignoring differences between characteristics is a frequent cause of error in handwriting identification. (SMF P 233; PSMF P 233.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
2. Dismissing Differences as Disguised. "Similarly, dismissing differences as merely the product of intentional disguise is another common mistake made in the analysis. (SMF P 235; PSMF P 235.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
3. Analysis Should be Blinded. "In addition, an examiner should not know the identity of the comparators and should consult more than one comparator to increase the reliability of his or her analysis. (SMF PP 256-57 & 268-72; PSMF PP 256-57 & 268-72.)" (Carnes 2003:52-53).


Quality of RN Not Ideal. "Both parties agree that the Ransom Note is not an ideal specimen for handwriting analysis, primarily due to the type of writing instrument, a broad fiber-tip pen, used to draft the note. This type of pen distorts and masks fine details to an extent not achievable by other types of pen, as for example a ball point pen. (SMF P 243; PSMF P 243.) In addition, the stroke direction used to construct certain letters and subtle handprinting features, such as hesitations and pen lifts, are difficult to ascertain because of the pen used in the Ransom Note.

Error Rates: Professionals vs. Non-Professionals. "A study by Dr. Moshe Kam indicates that professional document examiners had only a 6.5% error rate compared to an error rate of 38.3% for nonprofessionals. Dr. Kam concluded by stating that professional document examiners possess writer identification skills absent in the general population. Another study by Professor Kam indicated that professionals concluded that forgeries were genuine 0.49% of the time whereas lay persons did so 6.47% of the time. Professionals mistakenly concluded that genuine signatories were forgeries 7.05% of the time; lay persons did so 26.1% of the time. Another study by Jodi Sita, Brian Found and others found that forensic document examiners made errors in 3.4% of their opinions, while 19.1% of the control group gave erroneous opinions.

Deedee, you have not shown differences between RN and PR, and you have only focused on alleged similarities. You have a near 40% chance of being wrong. The standard of conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. Furthermore exclusions are always more definitive than inclusions, since it's entirely possible another individual could produce handwriting broadly similar.

If the incriminating blood sample is type A, and the suspect is type A, it's still possible another person has type A blood. 40% of 300 million. But if the sample is type A and suspect is type O, then the suspect is excluded.

Being nearly 40% chance of being wrong about your identification seems a rather shaky ground to definitively indict the R's.

# No BPD-Hired Experts Identified Patsy as RN Author. "During the investigation, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder County District Attorney's Office consulted at least six handwriting experts. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) All of these experts consulted the original Ransom Note and original handwriting exemplars from Mrs. Ramsey. (SMF P 205; PSMF P 205.) Four of these experts were hired by the police and two were hired by defendants. (SMF P 191; PSMF P 191.) None of the six consulted experts identified Mrs. Ramsey as the author of the Ransom Note. (SMF P 195; PSMF P 195.) [Emphasis added.]


No BPD identified PR nor JR as RN author, and forensic linguists rule them out. What does that leave us with?
Click to expand...

Hi voynich.

good points for discussion.

1. Ignoring Differences. "Ignoring differences between characteristics is a frequent cause of error in handwriting identification. (SMF P 233; PSMF P 233.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
2. Dismissing Differences as Disguised. "Similarly, dismissing differences as merely the product of intentional disguise is another common mistake made in the analysis. (SMF P 235; PSMF P 235.) (Carnes 2003:52-53).
3. Analysis Should be Blinded. "In addition, an examiner should not know the identity of the comparators and should consult more than one comparator to increase the reliability of his or her analysis. (SMF PP 256-57 & 268-72; PSMF PP 256-57 & 268-72.)" (Carnes 2003:52-53).

Hiya voynich.

Not professing any expertise, just a rudimentary interest, but one element of examination of the rn which I've omited a would be the differences; failure to attach any weight to the differences between the two. Within the RDI assumptions, I guess I have 'dismissed the differences as disguise' and operated under the assumption that the rn could have been a combined effort.

voynich, when C Wong referred to 243? 'significant' similarities, was that not a statistical comparison with consideration of the differences?
 
voynich said:
You're free to read the other authors and books I've listed ---
Click to expand...

You seem to be fixated on one single problem here and I don't think I have to remind you how complex this case is.You can choose to take the single piece of the puzzle you like so much and analyse it till you drop dead,won't solve this case.

And I can tell you the same thing....why don't you try reading some of the stuff that contradicts your opinions?Trust me,I've read what IDI experts (PAID experts) had to say.You on the other hand seem to IGNORE everything that doesn't sound like IDI and ridicule all experts who have a RDI point.

It takes two to tango.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 254 more.
Total: 3,928 (members: 255, guests: 3,673)

Online statistics

Members online
255
Guests online
3,673
Total visitors
3,928
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,727
Messages
17,958,000
Members
228,594
Latest member
woohoo3
Back
Top