I think JR..

..dictated part of the RN to PR.Look at numbers 7 and 8 in the RN analysis here: www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
I've always thought some parts sound like they were written by a man,although overall, it mostly shows a feminine touch and a style just like PR's.

No offense to the integrity of your question and this thread, but this is the most illiterate analysis of a piece of written text I have ever seen. Would you trust linguistic analysis from a guy who can't string a proper sentence together himself? The points are interesting, but fairly textbook, and he's missed a lot as well. When I checked his 'credentials' (see home page) I was sadly not surprised. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

I think what a person has to say is more important than how they say it, don't you?

This is interesting reading. Thanks for the link JMO8778.

I've read the article twice now. Great points made.

JMO8778 said:

..dictated part of the RN to PR.Look at numbers 7 and 8 in the RN analysis here: www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
I've always thought some parts sound like they were written by a man,although overall, it mostly shows a feminine touch and a style just like PR's.

Click to expand...

Very interesting reading, Thank you for posting the link.

You're welcome

SuperDave said:

I think what a person has to say is more important than how they say it, don't you?

Click to expand...

No. Not when they purport to be a linguistic analyst.

luckyeight said:

No. Not when they purport to be a linguistic analyst.

Click to expand...

He did? Where?

Interestingly, to hear Clint Van Zandt tell it, the great majority of profilers are on his side.

Regardless,I thought he made some very good points,which is why I posted it.

Thanks for posting this. It was very interesting, indeed!

luckyeight said:

No offense to the integrity of your question and this thread, but this is the most illiterate analysis of a piece of written text I have ever seen. Would you trust linguistic analysis from a guy who can't string a proper sentence together himself? The points are interesting, but fairly textbook, and he's missed a lot as well. When I checked his 'credentials' (see home page) I was sadly not surprised. :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Click to expand...

Could you provide us with specifics?

There is nothing worse than someone who makes a sweeping criticism like "Your theory has many flaws in logic"... or "This guy can't string a proper sentence together" and then fails to provide an example to prove their point.

ETA. I see you are from the UK. I am a teacher in the UK and I'm afraid that if your post were a piece of work which you submitted to me to mark, I'd have had to use my red pen (tsk, tsk)

luckyeight said:

No. Not when they purport to be a linguistic analyst.

Click to expand...

Nowhere on his website does Mark McClish claim to be a linguistic analyst. He analyses statements for deception - quite a different thing. He looks for particular word usage and types of response which are commonly used in deception.

JMO8778 said:

Regardless,I thought he made some very good points,which is why I posted it.

Click to expand...

Yes it is an interesting website. I've often been tempted to purchase the software and have some fun with it!

Jayelles said:

Yes it is an interesting website. I've often been tempted to purchase the software and have some fun with it!

Click to expand...

rofl...me too.I'd like to put in a few lines my in-laws spit out.Esp. some of those generic lawyer lines.I wonder if it recognizes those?
I don't recall where, but you can even get a font that's made from the ransom note.

Jayelles said:

Could you provide us with specifics?

There is nothing worse than someone who makes a sweeping criticism like "Your theory has many flaws in logic"... or "This guy can't string a proper sentence together" and then fails to provide an example to prove their point.

ETA. I see you are from the UK. I am a teacher in the UK and I'm afraid that if your post were a piece of work which you submitted to me to mark, I'd have had to use my red pen (tsk, tsk)

Click to expand...

Actually I did try to copy and paste the parts that prompted my outburst at the time, to illustrate, but quite amusingly the site contrives a 'Deception Detected' pop up! If I get time, I'll quote the parts that I thought were badly written. It's probably just an English language thing (as opposed to American usage).
You do have me intrigued, Jayelles, with your red pen poised over my post. What do you think is wrong with it?

JMO8778 said:

..dictated part of the RN to PR.Look at numbers 7 and 8 in the RN analysis here: www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
I've always thought some parts sound like they were written by a man,although overall, it mostly shows a feminine touch and a style just like PR's.

Click to expand...

I think both Ramseys concocted the note together, 'and hence' the mix of masculine and feminine elements in the note.

[Luckyeight]The points are interesting, but fairly textbook, and he's missed a lot as well.

Click to expand...

Luckyeight, what exactly do you think Mark McClish missed in his ransom note analysis?

Jayelles said:

Nowhere on his website does Mark McClish claim to be a linguistic analyst. He analyses statements for deception - quite a different thing. He looks for particular word usage and types of response which are commonly used in deception.

Click to expand...

To quote Mark's own text from the homepage of his website:
"I call my method for examining a person's words 'Statement Analysis'."
Seeing as linguistic analysis is a general term for the examination of someone's words, I really don't agree that this is 'quite a different thing'. I appreciate that his work is specifically focussed on determining deception in language, and I understand his definition of 'statement analysis' but while we're layering on the pedantry, I still think that this craft comes under the general term of 'linguistic analysis' because it is concerned with analysing language and meaning.

My general (original) point is that for a guy who is analysing people's language in statements and looking for false or true meaning, he doesn't seem to have great communication skills himself. That's all, but fair enough if you want to point out that he has never described himself as a linguistic analyist. You're right, that was me!

Quick bit of copying to illustrate then:

"Even though they may want to withhold information, people will give us more information than what they realize. Unfortunately, they sometimes give us more information than what we realize."
"The problem has been they have not found a match."
"Line #19 continues on stating...."


IMO this is not sophisticated use of language to describe his ideas or understanding.

The comments I made about this analysis of the RN being textbook, obvious and missing a lot is, I think, self evident if you read his account. (Although I suppose he is looking at the text from a fairly one- dimensional perspective, ie to qualify truth/deception). And what on earth is all that stuff about 'watching over your daughter' when he goes off on one about God watching over the earth, and a friend asking you to water your plants?! Sorry, I just don't rate him. Which is also why I made the comments about his credentials - he's been teaching interviewing techniques to federal law enforcement officers!

Again, though, I want to emphasise that I'm not slating this post, which I think raises interesting points and source materials. This is just my opinion of this Mark McClish guy's interpretation of the RN.

rashomon said:

I think both Ramseys concocted the note together, 'and hence' the mix of masculine and feminine elements in the note.

Click to expand...

That would explain why a frantic PR (whom I'm guessing was more frantic than JR) would be able to put concoct such a note under severe stress..he helped guide her on it. ie- "Don't worry honey,we'll just come up with a kidnapping note to deflect attn off ourselves"... 'and hence',the note is born. (I'm from the south, too,but I would've thought she would have used the work 'thus' instead).
As far as the 'rested' part and the 'early' part,I'm guessing it was to buy them some time one way or the other,depending on how the whole thing came down.
Is it just me,I don't know,but even being a woman,I would've thought they would have thought to be much meaner than that. ..as in big letters...GOT YOUR KID.1 MILL GETS HER BACK.WILL CALL.DON'T CALL POLICE!
iow,short,to the point,mean n simple.