Too bad we won't see how this investigative tool works in a courtroom,there is no intruder,there will be no charges.This case will stay cold.For good.
imo
Did you get a chance to read appendix a and b?
Appendix 1: Possible Questions and Responses for Direct and Cross Examination
A.1 Direct Examination of Linguist (Example)
A.1.1 Qualifications
What is your profession and how are you employed? Would you review your educational background?
Would you outline where and what you have taught during your academic career?
What is the scope of your forensic work?
How many and what types of cases have you testified in before? Do you have a record of publications in linguistics?
What professional organizations are you active in?
A.1.2 Language and Linguistics
What exactly is linguistics, and how is it related to language? In what ways is linguistics a science?
What are some subfields or branches of linguistics?
A.1.3 Forensic Linguistics and Stylistics
What is forensic linguistics and what kinds of problems do forensic linguists solve?
What is stylistics, and what is forensic stylistics? What is linguistic variation and why is it important?
How do linguists approach cases of questioned authorship?
A.1.4 This Case
What were you asked to do in this case?
What steps did you follow to analyze the writings in this case? What is your conclusion in this case?
Would you outline the general scope of your findings in this case?
Now, specifically, what formed the basis for your conclusion in this case? What is your opinion regarding the authorship of the questioned letter?
A.2 Cross Examination of Linguist (Example)
A.2.1 Education
What universities did you attend?
What undergraduate and undergraduate degrees do you hold? What were your areas of specialization (majors) for each degree? What subspecialties (minors) do you have?
What is your work history?
What is your present work activity?
What classes have you taught at your university? Have you taught any courses in linguistics?
Have you taught any courses in linguistic variation?
Such as sociolinguistics (variation related to social variables)? Such as geographical linguistics (variation related to region)? Such as historical linguistics (variation related to time)?
Such as stylistics (variation in written language)? What is your research and publication history?
What publications do you have on linguistic variation? What publications do you have on stylistics?
What is the focus of your present research?
To what professional organizations do you belong? What professional journals do you receive and read?
Any related to the analysis of style?
Any related to forensic applications of linguistics?
A.2.2 Experience
Have you done studies of literary authorship?
Have you done authorship studies in any forensic contexts? Have you ever testified as an expert linguist?
In what areas of linguistics?
Have you ever testified in the area of authorship identification?
When, where, who, and outcomes of these cases?
A.2.3 Areas of Expertise
What is your general area of expertise, e.g., linguistics?
Why do you work in an English (not linguistics) department? What is linguistics?
What does a linguist do?
What are the major subfields of linguistics? In your opinion, is linguistics a science?
What is the nature of scientific knowledge (both terms)?
A.2.4 Specialization
What are your areas of specialization in linguistics?
Does authorship identification require any particular expertise? Are you an expert in the particular field known as stylistics? What about in forensic stylistics?
A.2.5 Methodology
How would you generally define style in human behavior? How do you define style in language?
What is the field known as stylistics?
Is author elimination possible using stylistic analysis?
Is author identification possible using stylistic analysis? How are literary studies of authorship done?
How are forensic studies of authorship done?
What is your procedure for doing authorship cases? What are some examples of style-markers in writing?
How do you relate descriptive and quantitative observations? How do you identify class vs. individual features in writing? How do you exclude or identify a possible suspect author?
A.2.6 Analysis
Describe how you organize your work in an authorship study. Do you analyze questioned and known writings independently? Do you use a computer? In what ways?
In this case?
Describe your complete involvement in this case. Did you do your own study?
Please describe it and how you did it.
Have you read all the questioned and known writing in this case? How did you decide on the methodology of this case?
Do you have notes that you made during your analysis of the writings? How did you analyze the questioned and known documents?
What style-markers did you find in the questioned writings? What style-markers did you find in the known writings? How did you identify the markers of style in this case?
What was the outcome (conclusion) of your analysis in this case?
Have you formed an opinion regarding the questioned writings of this case? Have you written a report of your findings and conclusions?
On what basis do you relate your findings to your opinion? Did you study and evaluate the other experts work?
Do you have notes that you made for your study of the other experts report? Have you formed an opinion regarding the other experts analysis and opinion?
Appendix 2: Expert Testimony (Susan Morton)
Susan Morton, Criminalistics Laboratory,
San Francisco Police Department
Expert witnesses are perceived very differently from lay witnesses, both by the law and by the public. It gives you some rights and advantages but imparts added responsibilities. Juries will forgive fear, nervousness, and some confu- sion in a lay witness, but experts dont impress much if they show those conditions. An expert needs to be knowledgeable, polished, and professional, but not slick or rehearsed.
The rights of the expert are these: 1. you may state an opinion and give the supporting data and reasons for it, 2. you may testify in narrative form rather than question and answer (though some judges wont allow narrative),
3. you may demand to see and examine any published texts being used to cross-examine you, and 4. you may refuse to state your opinion until you have been compensated.
The following are lessons learned over the years that will allow the expert to make use of his or her rights and fulfill all responsibilities.
1. Know your mannerisms, e.g., if you fiddle with your hair, wear a headband, or fix hair in place some way. Make sure you are heard. A very soft voice can be perceived as indicative of a lack of confidence. And for sure if they cant hear you, they cant accept what you say. Watch videos of your moot courts to see if you have other habits that may distract a jury.
2. Attire, hair, make-up should be business-like and inconspicuous. Get noticed for your expertise, not your appearance. This is much harder for women than for men, as men can rely on the coat and tie to state their degree of seriousness. Women should study the attire of women execu- tives and politicians and pick one to emulate. Suits are perfect in Federal court, but a bit much for Superior Court. A blazer in a muted color (black, navy, or camel) can dress up an outfit without looking too stiff. Make sure that any accessories such as scarves or jewelry are well secured so that you do not have to fiddle with or adjust them. Think of any potential disaster, e.g., as you are being seated in the witness chair, your large pendant swings forward and collides with the microphone, creating a thunderous clang. And definitely wear sensible shoes. Sensible shoes bespeak serious intent and terrify attorneys.
3. Be wary of the incompetent or devious attorney, few in number as they may be. He or she will make you look like an idiot by asking idiotic questions and then blame you for looking like an idiot. Be prepared for this.
4. Be very careful not to change your body language when cross-exam- ination starts. I have seen witnesses fold their arms across their chests and look belligerent. Just keep in mind that you are an impartial witness. It also helps to remember the contents of number 3.
5. Listen very carefully to the question. Lawyers will often word a ques- tion so that it sounds like a familiar one, but has a very different implication. Or sometimes they get it mixed up and ask one thing when they really mean something else. Answer the question asked. If the question is tricky, you avoid a trap. If the question is mixed up, the lawyer looks foolish. This is equally true of both sides. If the question contains multiple questions, ask that they be separated. If the question is long and convoluted, ask that it be repeated. Even if you understand it, the jury may not. If the lawyer is blowing smoke, he wont be able to repeat the question. If it gets read back by the reporter, it is exposed for the shenanigan that it is.
6. If you dont know the answer to a question, say you dont know. Juries expect you to know your subject, but they dont expect you to be omniscient. Lawyers can dream up some pretty wild things to ask. Be up-front and dont let yourself be made to look defensive about not knowing something. This is a mistake that many experts make. They think that they cant admit that they dont know everything so they spin moonshine. Juries pick right up on that. It makes the expert look pompous and can cast doubt on other points he or she may have made. If an answer is more than a few words, turn to the jury to deliver it. They are the target. Find one or two that seem interested and make eye contact. It is very hard to learn to do this, as it is natural to get into an exchange with the person asking the questions. It feels very awkward at first, but the juries love it and cross-examining lawyers hate it.
7. Dont answer too quickly. It is okay to pause and look thoughtful. This also allows time for an objection. It looks better if you are not cut off by one.
8. It sometimes happens that you will have a legal question during tes- timony. It may be that you suspect that the answer to a question will bring out inadmissible information or something similar. Lawyers for the other side may be distracted at that moment. Technically it isnt your fault if you answer and cause a mistrial, but everyone will blame you, especially the lawyers. What to do? Consult your designated legal representative the judge. The judge is any witnesss designated legal
imo KNOWING from the start he didn't do it.