Forensic linguist & Jonbenet Ransom study group

[voynich]

HI,

for those who want to know more about modern forensic linguistics and the Jonbenet letter,

Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics
pdf

go to

http://rapidlibrary.com/

type in
McMenamin

you'll be taken here
http://rapidlibrary.com/download_fi...guistics+Advances+In+Forensic+Stylistics+.pdf

Please ENTER CODE to download this file, enter code,
download, need adobe acrobat

Server: rapidshare.com
Size: 59.55M

first several chapters on who he is, what he testifies, what courts accept, how and what of forensic linguist methodology, and one chapter on JB RN.

A must read for anyone seriously interested in JB and the question: "Did JR or PR write the RN, using methods of forensic linguistics?"

What does an academic forensic linguist think of Donald Foster's method, and "psycholinguist" that the RN was written by an middle age, white female mother dying of cancer?

and was written several years prior (around 2000) to the announcement of touch DNA results.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It really is the definitive work on the ransom note vs. PR or JR.

I would call RDI to task, come up with anything even remotely similar that portrays a match. I would like to see that but I don't think it exists for some reason.

Maybe they're afraid, don't want to be sued?:chicken:

 

[voynich]

It really is the definitive work on the ransom note vs. PR or JR.

I would call RDI to task, come up with anything even remotely similar that portrays a match. I would like to see that but I don't think it exists for some reason.

Maybe they're afraid, don't want to be sued?:chicken:

Handwriting experts agree JR did not handwrite the note. They seem evenly divided over PR.

Forensic linguists also exclude JR as the author of the note. It also excludes PR, and exclusion is more straightforward than inclusion.

So since neither PR nor JR wrote the RN, in combination with touch DNA and unidentified fiber evidence, and a similar assault on Amy 9 months later (the CASKU analysis did not factor related crimes) the conclusion is inescapable: IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

What does an academic forensic linguist think of Donald Foster's method, and "psycholinguist" that the RN was written by an middle age, white female mother dying of cancer?

Just to add, that "psycholinguist" wasn't the only one who thought so. Far from it.

I would call RDI to task, come up with anything even remotely similar that portrays a match. I would like to see that but I don't think it exists for some reason.

If it does exist, I know nothing of it.

Maybe they're afraid, don't want to be sued?

I would imagine that's EXACTLY it. I would go so far as to say that's the only reason.

Handwriting experts agree JR did not handwrite the note. They seem evenly divided over PR.

That's not quite accurate. A slight majority think she did, and NONE say she didn't (not even the ones they paid to say she didn't).

Forensic linguists also exclude JR as the author of the note. It also excludes PR, and exclusion is more straightforward than inclusion.

ONE forensic linguist, who was never even part of the investigation.

So since neither PR nor JR wrote the RN,

I'm at a loss to figure how you could come to that conclusion with what we've got.

in combination with touch DNA and unidentified fiber evidence,

Both highly questionable.

and a similar assault on Amy 9 months later (the CASKU analysis did not factor related crimes)

Actually it DID. There WEREN'T any at the time. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only reason Amy got attacked is because the JB's death put ideas in some random freak's head.

the conclusion is inescapable: IDI.

That's funny. I've come to the exact opposite conclusion, based on an holistic approach.

 

[voynich]

Too bad that psycholiguist wasn't the only one who thought so. Far from it.

Allow me to show you the subtleties of the Force. My mentor, taught me everything I know about the Force, even the nature of the Dark Side.

Davakin, if one wants to understand the great mystery, one must be prepared to study it in all aspects, not just the narrow dogmatic view of the RDIST. If one wants to be a wise and complete rule, you must to take a larger view of the Force. Break through the fog of lies the RDIST have created. Don't continue to be a pawn of the RDIST.

Only through me can you achieve a power greater than any RDIST. Learn to know forensic linguist and you will be able to save this investigation, from certain misdirection. Use Gerald's knowledge, I beg you.

If you decide to download and read it, it's section 4.4. "Hodges" (2000)

He also catalogs a variety of errors Donald Foster makes and asserts that Foster's pronouncement is outside his area of expertise, and learn about Gudrati and psycho-linguist "threat analysis" of Dave Koresh (which falls flat on its face)

Chapters 1-11 discuss in detail the way he evaluates the JB RN in chapter 10.

 

[BBB167893]

Davakin, if one wants to understand the great mystery, one must be prepared to study it in all aspects, not just the narrow dogmatic view of the RDIST. If one wants to be a wise and complete rule, you must to take a larger view of the Force. Break through the fog of lies the RDIST have created. Don't continue to be a pawn of the RDIST.

If I didn't know where you were coming from, I'd resent that, just for the record.

Moreover, you've got it backwards. I DID break through the fog of lies. How do you think I got where I am?

Only through me can you achieve a power greater than any RDIST. Learn to know forensic linguist and you will be able to save this investigation, from certain misdirection. Use Gerald's knowledge, I beg you.

Don't get me wrong, voynich: if I came on a bit strong in my response, I apologize. But this case has taught me the value of not trusting any one expert too much, especially in a field like this one.

If you decide to download and read it, it's section 4.4. "Hodges" (2000)

Got it. I have no reason to trust Hodges. But there are a few things I'd like you to have a look at, if that's okay.

He also catalogs a variety of errors Donald Foster makes and asserts that Foster's pronouncement is outside his area of expertise

Well, he was a first timer. What bothers me is he came so highly recommended.

and learn about Gudrati and psycho-linguist "threat analysis" of Dave Koresh (which falls flat on its face)

Gudrati wasn't the only one with egg on his face in that one.

Chapters 1-11 discuss in detail the way he evaluates the JB RN in chapter 10.

Got it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Handwriting experts agree JR did not handwrite the note. They seem evenly divided over PR.

Forensic linguists also exclude JR as the author of the note. It also excludes PR, and exclusion is more straightforward than inclusion.

So since neither PR nor JR wrote the RN, in combination with touch DNA and unidentified fiber evidence, and a similar assault on Amy 9 months later (the CASKU analysis did not factor related crimes) the conclusion is inescapable: IDI.

I'd say they're not evenly divided over PR. Thats because altough there are experts here and there that say this or that, the litmus test was when BPD collected various experts at their own discretion. There was by no means a consensus that PR wrote the note among those experts. They were not 'evenly divided'.

 

[BBB167893]

I'd say they're not evenly divided over PR. That's because although there are experts here and there that say this or that, the litmus test was when BPD collected various experts at their own discretion. There was by no means a consensus that PR wrote the note among those experts. They were not 'evenly divided'.

Given the limited information they had to work with, especially in a non-scientific field, I wouldn't expect there WOULD be.

 

[Sophie]

Voynich, I am trying to persuade my sister to come on here. She has views on the Ramsey case but her field is remarkably similar to that of Donald Foster and I think you'd all enjoy her thoughts. She's not in Foster's league yet, BTW

She can't stand teh interwebby thing for discussion purposes but I may be able to extract a short essay from her....

 

[BBB167893]

Voynich, I am trying to persuade my sister to come on here. She has views on the Ramsey case but her field is remarkably similar to that of Donald Foster and I think you'd all enjoy her thoughts. She's not in Foster's league yet, BTW

She can't stand teh interwebby thing for discussion purposes but I may be able to extract a short essay from her....

Sounds interesting!

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi Sophie.

That would be great ... please do, your sister's input is welcomed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Given the limited information they had to work with, especially in a non-scientific field, I wouldn't expect there WOULD be.

The ransom note was over 300 words, over 1500 characters. Practically an unlimited supply of writing. One of the biggest if not the biggest collection of writing from a kidnap for ransom crime. I can't imagine a CDE that would be whining 'not enough ransom note'.

They knew who the suspect was. They had access to her exemplars before and after the crime. The suspect was available for years and years. Had numerous sittings with right and left hand. Even had her copy all the ransom note words and the ransom note itself word for word, using the same pen. I can't imagine a CDE that would whine 'not enough exemplars'. It simply doesn't get any better than that.

An absolutely unprecedented level of information was made available to handwriting experts for the comparison.

It wasn't even a one-shot thing. There is no double jeopardy. If BPD wanted to do it all over again they could. But, I can understand why there has been no LE effort to form a consensus since the first attempt.

U.S. Secret Service: "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

 

[BBB167893]

The ransom note was over 300 words, over 1500 characters. Practically an unlimited supply of writing. One of the biggest if not the biggest collection of writing from a kidnap for ransom crime. I can't imagine a CDE that would complain 'not enough ransom note'.

You misunderstand. Among other things, it wasn't initially known that PR could write left-handed. By the time that was discovered, the rice was fried, as it were.

They knew who the suspect was. They had access to her exemplars before and after the crime. The suspect was available for years and years. Had numerous sittings with right, left and even had her copy all the ransom note words and the ransom note itself word for word, using the same pen. I can't imagine a CDE that would complain 'not enough exemplars'.

Actually, I would be extremely surprised if they had her write it out with the EXACT same pen. Pens like that aren't uniform. They change with use.
Indeed, someone here mentioned that not too long ago. It certainly bears repeating. Moreover, a lot of what you rely on comes from preliminary reports. More on that in a second.

An absolutely unprecedented level of information was made available to handwriting experts for the comparison.

Sometimes it's not how much information you have. It's how you use it.

It was not a one-shot thing. There is no double jeopardy. If BPD wanted to do it all over again they could. But, I can understand why there has been no LE effort to form a consensus since the first attempt.

No, I don't think you do. The original note doesn't exist anymore. Moreover, from what I can gather, there wasn't any real attempt to "gather a consensus."

U.S. Secret Service: "no evidence to indicate that Patsy Ramsey executed any of the questioned material appearing on the Ransom Note." (SMF P 200; PSMF P 200.)" (Carnes 2003:26, note 14).

Ah, a perfect example. From what I understand, that analysis was very hastily obtained early on before the original expert had a chance to make his final decision. He wasn't too pleased about that. I quote from PMPT, pages 535-536:

The police had never bothered to ask Ubowski if he had put his entire analysis of the ransom note into his report and whether it was his final report. Either way, Ubowski was prepared to say, "Patsy wrote the note." The CBI saw this as one more example of the missed opportunities in this investigation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Ubowski was all ready, and these screw-ups get impatient, go off half-cocked, get a hasty analysis using incomplete information, and now the DA doesn't think he can testify because his own analysis is now compromised.

Just to add. PMPT, page 740:

experts from the CBI presented their evaluations of the evidence, including Chet Ubowski, the handwriting expert, who had reported to the police that Patsy could not be excluded as the writer of the ransom note. He had also told his boss, Pete Mang, that his gut told him it was her handwriting.

FOXNews later reported that Ubowski told the Grand Jury that the only thing that kept him from positively indentifying PR as the author was because the ink from the pen bled so heavily.

HOTYH, I've said many times that I'm not a betting man, and I'm not. But I wouldn't mind seeing the reports inside the actual police file. I'd be willing to stake a little money that those reports are a little closer to my end of it. But for now, that's just my feeling.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, I don't think you do. The original note doesn't exist anymore. Moreover, from what I can gather, there wasn't any real attempt to "gather a consensus."

Are you saying that their ability to perform another comparison with PR or anyone else is reduced because of the present state of the ransom note?

 

[BBB167893]

Are you saying that their ability to perform another comparison with PR or anyone else is reduced because of the present state of the ransom note?

Well, no, I'm not. I only brought it up to show that things aren't the same, is all. Truth be told, it wasn't really that important.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey voynich


http://books.google.ca/books?id=oFM...esult&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

creek in the neck, but interesting that PR's misspellings, 5 out of 6, are not found in the comparative sample,

 

[voynich]

Hi yall'

Sophie, sure but did you get to d/l Gerald's book? Section 4.4 discusses Foster.

Tadpole I can't see that section,

Darth Dave & Hoth system,

Enough of this! This bickering is pointless. Lord Gerald will provide us with the identification of the Ransom note by the time this investigation is operational. We will then crush the RDIST with one swift stroke.

I accept Gerald McMermin's conclusion as definitive. PR and JR did not author the RN, he explains his reasoning and evidence, and that leaves us with IDI.

The last remnants of the Old RDI have been swept away.

 

[voynich]

If I didn't know where you were coming from, I'd resent that, just for the record.

If into the security recordings you go, only pain will you find.

Moreover, you've got it backwards. I DID break through the fog of lies. How do you think I got where I am?.

He was deceived by a lie. We all were. You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist your mind until now, until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

got it

good. Experience the awesome power of the dark side! :crazy:

 

[voynich]

The RDI can benefit tremendously from a good read of Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics

since the most important RDI evidence is the claim that PR wrote the RN, and future debate on the merits of this claim will hinge on a discussion of subjects and methodology that Gerald R McMenamin discusses in chapters 1-11 of his book Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics. Fight fire with fire as it were. Forensic Linguistics provides a new dimension to the investigation.

 

[BBB167893]

Darth Dave & Hoth system,

Enough of this! This bickering is pointless. Lord Gerald will provide us with the identification of the Ransom note by the time this investigation is operational. We will then crush the RDIST with one swift stroke.

Not if anything to say about it, I have.

I accept Gerald McMermin's conclusion as definitive.

I don't. And before anyone casts any aspersions, I have my reasons.

PR and JR did not author the RN, he explains his reasoning and evidence, and that leaves us with IDI.

Too bad he's in the minority.

The last remnants of the Old RDI have been swept away.

Oh, I don't think so.

Our friend HOTYH is a big fan of the word consensus. He throws it around as if it meant something. Well, when Mark Beckner mentioned liguistic analysis, there was something in my gut that knew where he was headed there. And I don't think they're going to make the same mistakes again.

If into the security recordings you go, only pain will you find.

Pain and I are old companions.

He was deceived by a lie. We all were. You have allowed this Dark Lord to twist your mind until now, until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

Every single IDI is now an enemy. I will do what must be done. I will not hesitate. I shall show no mercy.

The RDI can benefit tremendously from a good read of Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics

since the most important RDI evidence is the claim that PR wrote the RN, and future debate on the merits of this claim will hinge on a discussion of subjects and methodology that Gerald R McMenamin discusses in chapters 1-11 of his book Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics. Fight fire with fire as it were. Forensic Linguistics provides a new dimension to the investigation.

Well said, sir. You may be right, for all I know. But right now, all we have is one man's opinion, and that one man was never even part of the investigation. From what Beckner said, there are several options open to him. Who knows what might come of that. My instincts have been wrong before, sure. But not often.