Gerald R. McMenamin on Donald Foster pg 84-88

voynich

Former Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
3
link
http://books.google.com/books?id=oF...sZHXCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

you can find Forensic linguistics By Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi

on google books,

page 85-88

since it's pdf I can't cut and paste but quotes include

"[Foster] presenting no clear methodology" p87

"a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing....Donald Foster's academic preparation is literature " p85

he also critiques psycho-linguistics p84


"this kind of psycholinguistics is not forensic linguistics"

Dave, you're coming with me. I'll not leave you behind. I got to save you.

"you already have, voynich" "you were right about me. tell your sister, you were right"
 
link
http://books.google.com/books?id=oF...sZHXCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

you can find Forensic linguistics By Gerald R. McMenamin, Dongdoo Choi

on google books,

page 85-88

since it's pdf I can't cut and paste but quotes include

"[Foster] presenting no clear methodology" p87

"a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing....Donald Foster's academic preparation is literature " p85

he also critiques psycho-linguistics p84


"this kind of psycholinguistics is not forensic linguistics"

Dave, you're coming with me. I'll not leave you behind. I got to save you.

"you already have, voynich" "you were right about me. tell your sister, you were right"

Voynich, you're consistent, I'll give you that. You're not like a lot of the people who claim that ALL linguistic analysis is jabberwocky, then turn right around and use the words of the jabberwockey-mongers themselves to attack another one.

That said, I'll remind you yet again that one had access to the actual case materials and the other did NOT.
 
Voynich, you're consistent, I'll give you that. You're not like a lot of the people who claim that ALL linguistic analysis is jabberwocky, then turn right around and use the words of the jabberwockey-mongers themselves to attack another one.

That said, I'll remind you yet again that one had access to the actual case materials and the other did NOT.

Well, I was once a Jedi Knight, same as your father.

You can make of McM.. what you like but he outlines his methodology as involving statistical analysis (which can be independently done) and he feels his sample size of PR's known writing is large enough, and the RN long enough, to draw the conclusion, in the language of statistics p-value >0.001

to rule her out as author.
 
Well, I was once a Jedi Knight, same as your father.

Fortunately, my father saw the true power.

You can make of McM.. what you like but he outlines his methodology as involving statistical analysis (which can be independently done) and he feels his sample size of PR's known writing is large enough, and the RN long enough, to draw the conclusion, in the language of statistics p-value >0.001

to rule her out as author.

I get all of that (I think). But what I'm saying is that there is a lot more that is denied to him as an outsider.

A lot of myths repeated in those pages, BTW.
 
The biggest issue with Foster is that:

a) he himself said that being wrong just once would make any future finding suspect and he was then found to be apparently wrong about a couple of his high-profile findings:

b) he is always up against the insurmountable problem that while he may have found the person whose writing best matches the sample, he may not have come across the person whose writing is even closer to the sample. This was exactly what happened with the elegy that he attributed to Shakespeare. It *was* close to Shakespeare but it was even closer to John Ford whom he never studied. Henceforth, his critics will always be able to point out that someone else's writings etc may be closer to the RN and that he just hasn't come across them yet.

IOW, there are enough academics in that field who will argue that every one of his findings is suspect that his otherwise incredibly useful work in the Ramsey case is wasted. A very sad waste IMHO.
 
IOW, there are enough academics in that field who will argue that every one of his findings is suspect that his otherwise incredibly useful work in the Ramsey case is wasted. A very sad waste IMHO.

Well said. It might not have been so bad if the DA had actually known how to use him or had stood by him. But he came back with the one answer the DA's office did not want. That sealed his fate, provided they ever intended to us him at all.
 
If his conclusion is valid, but RDI is still true, I wonder if the reason is

1- Burke wrote it,
2- PR + JR wrote it together, confounding statistical analysis
3- another R wrote it.
 
If his conclusion is valid, but RDI is still true, I wonder if the reason is

1- Burke wrote it,
2- PR + JR wrote it together, confounding statistical analysis
3- another R wrote it.

And it's a very BIG "if." But regardless, I've often wondered about #2.
 
If his conclusion is valid, but RDI is still true, I wonder if the reason is

1- Burke wrote it,
2- PR + JR wrote it together, confounding statistical analysis
3- another R wrote it.


Re nr.1

I don't think so but it would say a lot re his relationship with his daddy :D "Don't grow a brain John" ?
 
Well said. It might not have been so bad if the DA had actually known how to use him or had stood by him. But he came back with the one answer the DA's office did not want. That sealed his fate, provided they ever intended to us him at all.

The worst of it is, people like Foster are incredibly valuable to LE: you'd have expected Hunter et al to have done all they could to preserve his credibility for future investigations. People with his ability aren't ten a penny..
 
The worst of it is, people like Foster are incredibly valuable to LE: you'd have expected Hunter et al to have done all they could to preserve his credibility for future investigations. People with his ability aren't ten a penny..

Instead, he did the exact opposite.
 
I definitely wonder about #2,considering Patsy revealed in DOI how she and JR came up w the liturgy of the day (the one that contained the words 'and hence').She said that she and John each wrote a version,then merged the two into one final version.perhaps the reason so many pages were missing from her writing tablet?
 
The worst of it is, people like Foster are incredibly valuable to LE: you'd have expected Hunter et al to have done all they could to preserve his credibility for future investigations. People with his ability aren't ten a penny..

no love for Gerald R. McMenamin?
 
I definitely wonder about #2,considering Patsy revealed in DOI how she and JR came up w the liturgy of the day (the one that contained the words 'and hence').She said that she and John each wrote a version,then merged the two into one final version.perhaps the reason so many pages were missing from her writing tablet?

I'd like to see samples of Burke's writing, both written and typed.
 
I think #2. I don't see BR involvement in the note at all. Or the staging, for that matter.

PR physically wrote the note, but the content was contrived by she and JR together. JMO.
 
no love for Gerald R. McMenamin?

To be honest, I know very little about the subject and what I do know is refracted through the light of my Shakespearean linguist sister's cynicism about the academic egos operating in the field. However, I do think that Foster is a tragically overlooked victim of this case...
 
I think #2. I don't see BR involvement in the note at all. Or the staging, for that matter.

PR physically wrote the note, but the content was contrived by she and JR together. JMO.

Do you base your conclusions on BR's handwriting and linguistic samples?
 
To be honest, I know very little about the subject and what I do know is refracted through the light of my Shakespearean linguist sister's cynicism about the academic egos operating in the field. However, I do think that Foster is a tragically overlooked victim of this case...

In the link I provided, Gerald himself doesn't put much credence in psychological profiles of the RN nor in literary analysis type linkage.
 
I'd like to see samples of Burke's writing, both written and typed.
BR was only 10,not quite 11,when JB was killed.I don't see him as being capable of writing a note with such content at that age.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,232
Total visitors
2,399

Forum statistics

Threads
589,966
Messages
17,928,456
Members
228,022
Latest member
Jemabogado
Back
Top