It probably is. Is there a way to evaluate this scientifically? How many similarities would any random handwritten document produce? What is the variance?
Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight
- Thread starter voynich
- Start date
It probably is. Is there a way to evaluate this scientifically? How many similarities would any random handwritten document produce? What is the variance?
If I find any, I'll let them know!
Just as a reminder to anyone interested, I mentioned earlier that a lot of the preliminary analysis was done before it was known that PR could write with either hand. What I forgot to mention was:
4) As it was explained to me, the feeling is that whomever wrote the captions in the R family photo album wrote the RN.
5) Her own mother and sister said it looked like her writing.
6) Like the people I spoke to said, most of the time it's not a question of being able to say "this person wrote it for sure." It's a question of saying "we've eliminated everyone else."
Take those for what they're worth.
Excellent. Now we're talking.
How do you mean?
I couldn't say just off the top of my head. "Not many," would be my guess. But, let me lay this one on you, purely hypothetically: let's say that a random sample would produce 10-20 similarities. That's a pretty far cry from 243 or even 100 or 50. In this particular instance, it's not just the number, it's the kind of similarities. So, qualitative and quantitative, I guess you'd say.
Let me put it to you this way: for a little while now, you've asserted that any number of people using this particular writing implement would produce the same results. The problem with that assertion (as I see it) is that the police seem to have covered that base. If what you say were true, there would have been quite a few people out of the 70+ who were tested who would have set off alarm bells. I think Tadpole mentioned something about that a while ago, but I can't remember the exact wording just now. Except there weren't a lot of people who aroused interest. ONE PERSON.
It's times like this that I REALLY regret not being able to scan those charts into my computer and show them to you, because you're really missing out.
I'm not sure.
But, allow me to say this: I just read what Professor Coulthard said in his review. I think he mentioned something like 18 variances. Okay, I admit that sounds pretty good. All of this linguistic analysis sounds really good, in and of itself. But--again, as I see it--that's the problem: looking at it in a vacuum. You really can't do that in this case, just the way it's set up. You have to take that holistic view I keep hammering. I imagine that's what Sophie was trying to say.
To sum up:
On your end you've got impressive linguistic talent in a vacuum. It doesn't seem to take into account the many (and I do mean MANY) instances where the Rs have used "ransomspeak." Moreover, for it to really do any good, you'd have to establish firmly that someone else was in the house to begin with. And that's something that, to date, cannot be done. That's the problem I have with a lot of this: the experts seem to be operating in a vacuum. (I could be wrong on that. If they considered other evidence, please DO NOT hesitate to tell me!)
From my end, we've got several well-established document examiners, the fact that it was written in their house on their paper with their pen (which was even put back in its proper place), and it can be established beyond a doubt that they were there that night. PLUS, we know that people operating on their behalf tried to sabotage one of those examiners so he couldn't testify against them and there was a possible attempt to scare off another one (if what Wong said is accurate, and I have no reason to think it wasn't).
Even if you don't consider anything else about it, that's the vital core. cynic is right about that: those elements would have to be considered.
So, if you were in my position, where would you come down? Think about it, okay? (I know it may not seem like it, but I consider everything you say.)
Greetings,
well is there a way to scientifically assess the handwriting characteristics and compare it with a population, esp one using a marker, including differences.
But to use your examples, I would say yes that would be strong.
regarding the holistic approach, Alan Perlman, Univ of Chicago linguistics prof (and in the department of linguistics) states:
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.
He takes exception to psychologizing "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 psychologizes about his subjects. "
taken from here http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000931.php
This particular video
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/solved-forensic-linguistic.html
sounds like what you saw on courttv with McM am I right?
by variance i mean,
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance[/ame]
In probability theory and statistics, the variance of a random variable or distribution is the expected square deviation of that variable from its expected value or mean. For example, a perfect die, when thrown, has expected value 7/2, expected deviation 3/2 (the mean of the equally likely deviations 1/2, 3/2, 5/2), but expected square deviation or variance 35/12 ≈ 2.9 (the mean of the equally likely squared deviations 1/4, 9/4, and 25/4). As another example, the two roots of the quadratic ax2 + bx + c have mean the root of its derivative 2ax + b, namely x = −b/2a, and variance its discriminant b2 − 4ac divided by 4a2, this being the square deviation of each root from the mean.
We could flip Cina Wong's analys around and ask the other experts how many differences do they find between PR and RN, and ask what is the likelihood that so many differences would be present from a random handwritten sample, also written with a marker.
if the distribution is normal, then they can use z-scores or t-scores, to compute p-value,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-statistic
n statistics, a t-statistic is, broadly speaking, a statistic whose sampling distribution is a Student's t-distribution. These are a parametric statistic, most frequently used in statistical hypothesis testing in Student's t-tests, but can be defined and used independently of hypothesis testing.
Most frequently, t-statistics are used by in Student's t-tests, a form of statistical hypothesis testing.
The key property of the t-statistic is that it is a pivotal quantity – while defined in terms of the sample mean, its sampling distribution does not depend on the sample parameters, and thus it can be used regardless of what these may be.
One can also divide a residual by the sample standard deviation:
g(x,X) = \frac{x - \overline{X}}{s}
McM for example states that 3 variables are present in a corpus of 300+ Colorado writers at 14-15% but that 6 it falls down to less than 1%
for example, how many slashes do you see $ in the RN, and how many in PR's samples? is it pickup, pick-up, or pick up? counter measure, countermeasure, counter-measure? a.m p.m, am pm, a.m. p.m.? is it advise or advize?
Malcolm Coulthard himself is a distinguished forensic linguist and a linguist, and he and other linguists have read and even cited McM's book as is John Olsson (who wrote the book introduction to Forensic linguistics)
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
The video alludes to Roger Shuy
http://www.rogershuy.com/ae_forensic.html
Distinguished Research Professor of Linguistics, Emeritus
Georgetown University,
Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University, 1962, English and Linguistics
M.A., Kent State University, 1954, English
B.A., Wheaton College (Illinois), 1952, English
and he has cited McM's books in some of his books like
Roger W. Shuy
Fighting Over Words, 2007: Oxford University Press
Roger W. Shuy
Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide, 2006: Oxford University Press
(amazon lets you find who has cited this book)
For me personally, the only IDI scenario that makes sense is the one that you sort of lampooned -- the psychic re-enanctment -- the intruder entered the R's residence while they were away, he explored their house and wrote the RN BEFORE they arrived. He evidently was thinking of killing JB in his mind. I do wonder if PR were truthful about not knowing about the pineapple and that JB wandered to the kitchen to eat pineapple on her own, waiting for a secret visit from Santa Claus. Obviously I regard DNA evidence as valid, and that I'm skeptical the R's would know how to tie the garrotte, so it's evidence of the killer's knowledge and psychology,
The part of entering the house first happened to Amy (though not the RN I admit)
well is there a way to scientifically assess the handwriting characteristics and compare it with a population, esp one using a marker, including differences.
But to use your examples, I would say yes that would be strong.
regarding the holistic approach, Alan Perlman, Univ of Chicago linguistics prof (and in the department of linguistics) states:
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.
He takes exception to psychologizing "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 psychologizes about his subjects. "
taken from here http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000931.php
This particular video
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/solved-forensic-linguistic.html
sounds like what you saw on courttv with McM am I right?
by variance i mean,
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance[/ame]
In probability theory and statistics, the variance of a random variable or distribution is the expected square deviation of that variable from its expected value or mean. For example, a perfect die, when thrown, has expected value 7/2, expected deviation 3/2 (the mean of the equally likely deviations 1/2, 3/2, 5/2), but expected square deviation or variance 35/12 ≈ 2.9 (the mean of the equally likely squared deviations 1/4, 9/4, and 25/4). As another example, the two roots of the quadratic ax2 + bx + c have mean the root of its derivative 2ax + b, namely x = −b/2a, and variance its discriminant b2 − 4ac divided by 4a2, this being the square deviation of each root from the mean.
We could flip Cina Wong's analys around and ask the other experts how many differences do they find between PR and RN, and ask what is the likelihood that so many differences would be present from a random handwritten sample, also written with a marker.
if the distribution is normal, then they can use z-scores or t-scores, to compute p-value,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student's_t-statistic
n statistics, a t-statistic is, broadly speaking, a statistic whose sampling distribution is a Student's t-distribution. These are a parametric statistic, most frequently used in statistical hypothesis testing in Student's t-tests, but can be defined and used independently of hypothesis testing.
Most frequently, t-statistics are used by in Student's t-tests, a form of statistical hypothesis testing.
The key property of the t-statistic is that it is a pivotal quantity – while defined in terms of the sample mean, its sampling distribution does not depend on the sample parameters, and thus it can be used regardless of what these may be.
One can also divide a residual by the sample standard deviation:
g(x,X) = \frac{x - \overline{X}}{s}
McM for example states that 3 variables are present in a corpus of 300+ Colorado writers at 14-15% but that 6 it falls down to less than 1%
for example, how many slashes do you see $ in the RN, and how many in PR's samples? is it pickup, pick-up, or pick up? counter measure, countermeasure, counter-measure? a.m p.m, am pm, a.m. p.m.? is it advise or advize?
Malcolm Coulthard himself is a distinguished forensic linguist and a linguist, and he and other linguists have read and even cited McM's book as is John Olsson (who wrote the book introduction to Forensic linguistics)
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
The video alludes to Roger Shuy
http://www.rogershuy.com/ae_forensic.html
Distinguished Research Professor of Linguistics, Emeritus
Georgetown University,
Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University, 1962, English and Linguistics
M.A., Kent State University, 1954, English
B.A., Wheaton College (Illinois), 1952, English
and he has cited McM's books in some of his books like
Roger W. Shuy
Fighting Over Words, 2007: Oxford University Press
Roger W. Shuy
Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide, 2006: Oxford University Press
(amazon lets you find who has cited this book)
For me personally, the only IDI scenario that makes sense is the one that you sort of lampooned -- the psychic re-enanctment -- the intruder entered the R's residence while they were away, he explored their house and wrote the RN BEFORE they arrived. He evidently was thinking of killing JB in his mind. I do wonder if PR were truthful about not knowing about the pineapple and that JB wandered to the kitchen to eat pineapple on her own, waiting for a secret visit from Santa Claus. Obviously I regard DNA evidence as valid, and that I'm skeptical the R's would know how to tie the garrotte, so it's evidence of the killer's knowledge and psychology,
The part of entering the house first happened to Amy (though not the RN I admit)
Sex, Lies, and Handwriting: A Top Expert Reveals the Secrets Hidden in Your Handwriting by Michelle Dresbold
http://books.google.com/books?id=kU...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"a" has a phallus that shows bizzare sexual habits.
"g" shows sex life incomplete of unfilled
"y" writer cruel and brutal hot temper
Use that good southern sense of yours,
Do you really believe there is a solid scientific basis for these psychologizing?
Wow, I guess RDI is too simple??!!
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Excellent stuff from Cynic and SD on here 
Will reply to all when I get time.
Voynich, you are doing an excellent job but you need to get a grip on two things:
1) You can depend that there are other experts who will oppose these views. And in fact, if someone other than a Ramsey is charged, you can depend on a highly-respected expert testifying that, in his view, Patsy Ramsey wrote the note and the accused couldn't possibly have done so.
That is the criminal system.
2) This stuff is hugely interesting but is of next to no value in proving who did write the note - what's the population of the English-speaking world? That's their pool of possibilities.
3) Tell me, what sort of note would Patsy have written?
4) Tell me, what sort of note would Patsy and John collectively have written?
5) Tell me, what exactly was in the carful of stuff Pam hauled away?
6) Tell me, why so many lies from the Ramseys?
7) Tell me, why do IDI show the Ramseys and their capabilities so little respect?
Hello and *advertiser censored* by the way.
ETA: What of Dr Hodges, BTW?
Will reply to all when I get time.Voynich, you are doing an excellent job but you need to get a grip on two things:
1) You can depend that there are other experts who will oppose these views. And in fact, if someone other than a Ramsey is charged, you can depend on a highly-respected expert testifying that, in his view, Patsy Ramsey wrote the note and the accused couldn't possibly have done so.
That is the criminal system.
2) This stuff is hugely interesting but is of next to no value in proving who did write the note - what's the population of the English-speaking world? That's their pool of possibilities.
3) Tell me, what sort of note would Patsy have written?
4) Tell me, what sort of note would Patsy and John collectively have written?
5) Tell me, what exactly was in the carful of stuff Pam hauled away?
6) Tell me, why so many lies from the Ramseys?
7) Tell me, why do IDI show the Ramseys and their capabilities so little respect?
Hello and *advertiser censored* by the way.
ETA: What of Dr Hodges, BTW?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5356818
But Bob Grant, who was also a former investigator for the Boulder district attorney's office, believes someone close to the family is more likely.
"What intruder is going to take the time to write a practice note and then write a real note?" Grant said.
BUT
"I think I fall more towards a more random intruder, only from the standpoint that most of the people around the Ramseys have been checked out," Smit said.
Can you see the point(errr,spin) here???
I never understood why the RST claimed RANDOM RANDOM intruder..........I get it NOW!
Now,the people around the Ramsey family were cleared and investigated to death so.........no point trying to blame THESE again.
BUT a random intruder DOESN'T MAKE SENSE and everybody knows it.
So...............who's MORE LIKELY the note author then?HM?Who WAS in the house at the time of the murder,who CAN'T be excluded,who failed the poly and the list is endless.
And I'd love to quote the investigator for the Boulder district attorney's office AGAIN :"What intruder is going to take the time to write a practice note and then write a real note?"
But Bob Grant, who was also a former investigator for the Boulder district attorney's office, believes someone close to the family is more likely.
"What intruder is going to take the time to write a practice note and then write a real note?" Grant said.
BUT
"I think I fall more towards a more random intruder, only from the standpoint that most of the people around the Ramseys have been checked out," Smit said.
Can you see the point(errr,spin) here???
I never understood why the RST claimed RANDOM RANDOM intruder..........I get it NOW!
Now,the people around the Ramsey family were cleared and investigated to death so.........no point trying to blame THESE again.
BUT a random intruder DOESN'T MAKE SENSE and everybody knows it.
So...............who's MORE LIKELY the note author then?HM?Who WAS in the house at the time of the murder,who CAN'T be excluded,who failed the poly and the list is endless.
And I'd love to quote the investigator for the Boulder district attorney's office AGAIN :"What intruder is going to take the time to write a practice note and then write a real note?"
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
OH THE IRONY.
The RST would LOVE to pin it on a Ramsey friend/acquaintance(because it's obvious that's the only IDI scenario that makes sense) but that would mean to admit that the DNA could have been innocently transfered and maybe it's not relevant to the case.
And THIS would mean then that the R's were exonerated based on ......nothing.Lacy just shut the RST's favourite door right in their noses.She basically eliminated their own favourite suspects.The only possible IDI suspects out there.I just don't see how a RANDOM intruder could have done this.Nope.And it seems that the few bright ones on the RST agree with me on this one.DA's office investigators,John Douglas and LOL John Ramsey himself!!!
What was that?Do I hear the JIDI knight sobbing?
The RST would LOVE to pin it on a Ramsey friend/acquaintance(because it's obvious that's the only IDI scenario that makes sense) but that would mean to admit that the DNA could have been innocently transfered and maybe it's not relevant to the case.
And THIS would mean then that the R's were exonerated based on ......nothing.Lacy just shut the RST's favourite door right in their noses.She basically eliminated their own favourite suspects.The only possible IDI suspects out there.I just don't see how a RANDOM intruder could have done this.Nope.And it seems that the few bright ones on the RST agree with me on this one.DA's office investigators,John Douglas and LOL John Ramsey himself!!!
What was that?Do I hear the JIDI knight sobbing?
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Lol Madeleine!
Voynich, it wasn't a garrote. It was a ligature. John was a very good sailor. If he couldn't have tied that knot he was a negligent father in taking his children out to sea in a vessel for which he was responsible. There were ex-Eagle Scouts in the family. Similarly, there were people in the family and connected with the family who were excellent at arts and crafts. I'm satisfied that with her knitting, crochet, macrame etc that my mother could tie that knot and I see no reason to see why any other reasonably arty-crafty person couldn't have done it. Similarly, we know JonBenet was alleged by Patsy to be looking at rock climbing. Who had encouraged her in that? Who knew about rock climbing? Who would know the parapahernalia involved?
Frankly, anyone could have tied that ligature. More interesting is the knot from the scientific point-of-view - it would have absorbed most of the energy from twisting so it is unlikely that the ligature was used as a 'twister' (see Delmar's excellent note on this) in the sense IDI like to portray, with P or J having to slowly twist the life out of the child.
Voynich, it wasn't a garrote. It was a ligature. John was a very good sailor. If he couldn't have tied that knot he was a negligent father in taking his children out to sea in a vessel for which he was responsible. There were ex-Eagle Scouts in the family. Similarly, there were people in the family and connected with the family who were excellent at arts and crafts. I'm satisfied that with her knitting, crochet, macrame etc that my mother could tie that knot and I see no reason to see why any other reasonably arty-crafty person couldn't have done it. Similarly, we know JonBenet was alleged by Patsy to be looking at rock climbing. Who had encouraged her in that? Who knew about rock climbing? Who would know the parapahernalia involved?
Frankly, anyone could have tied that ligature. More interesting is the knot from the scientific point-of-view - it would have absorbed most of the energy from twisting so it is unlikely that the ligature was used as a 'twister' (see Delmar's excellent note on this) in the sense IDI like to portray, with P or J having to slowly twist the life out of the child.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Totally true. One of my favourite ever debate with an IDI was where s/he said there were definitely defence scratches on JBR's neck whatever anyone might say. So, the RDI asked how given that JBR's hands were 'tied together.'
'Well, they weren't tied very well so maybe she escaped the knot or they were tied after she died.'
'So a pro would do such cr@p knots or stage the wrist ties?'
'Yes. To pin it on the Ramseys.'
All over neck scratches that most experts agree weren't there!
This question tells me you've not yet read chapter 4 of McM.
btw this essay
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cach...ew&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Director, Forensic Linguistics Institute by John Olsson
describes "Notable cases included appealing against the convictions of Derek Bentley (posthumously pardoned) the Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, the Bridgewater Three, and so on. These last four cases all relied on the work of Britain’s most distinguished forensic linguist, Professor Malcolm Coulthard of Birmingham University, a discourse analyst who had first taken an interest in forensic questions following an inquiry from a colleague."
is lectured here,
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z6Krsjwc84"]YouTube - Forensic Linguistics: Linguist as detective & expert witness[/ame]
and peer-reviews specifically Gerald McM's analysis of Jonbenet RN letter here:
here
http://books.google.com/books?id=RQ...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Allan Perlman Univ of Chicago linguistics, John Olsson, Roger W. Shuy have peer reviewed it and they have weighed in on Donald Foster.
Sex, Lies, and Handwriting: A Top Expert Reveals the Secrets Hidden in Your Handwriting by Michelle Dresbold
http://books.google.com/books?id=kUN...age&q=&f=false
"a" has a phallus that shows bizzare sexual habits.
"g" shows sex life incomplete of unfilled
"y" writer cruel and brutal hot temper
Use that good southern sense of yours,
Do you really believe there is a solid scientific basis for these psychologizing? Don't try to grow a brain. It's up to you now!
Yo.
I couldn't say for sure.
For me or against me?
He admits it. That's a good sign.
We've pretty much established the feeling by now. All I can say is that, when involving something like this, I would find it very hard to resist getting inside the subject's head.
Pretty much.
Yeah, I suppose we could. Might be interesting. That assumes of course that something like that was not done to begin with. Here's what I mean: you start out looking for the differences, like everyone's taught to do here (ideally, anyway). But you're not going to ignore the similarities either, are you? Actually, I'll go further than that. Like I said, even if everyone has 10 or 20 common similarities, that's a far cry from 200+.
On the other side of it, how often do the two Rs use words like "victory," "country," "not particularly," "and hence," etc? You get what I mean?
It's not really on subject, but I have to know. I heard somewhere that linguistics was invented by Noam Chomsky. Is that true? Because if it is, I've got a whole new set of problems.
Well, that's kind of what madeleine was saying, voynich: that theory has been around long before the "psychics" got to it. That's the Lou Smit theory. Don't forget for a minute that I used to be a follower of that very idea. Until certain things failed to add up.
You've got me interested. Please go on.
I think I've done you a disservice, voynich. Specifically, I keep hammering at this notion of the holistic approach, but I don't think I've ever explained what I mean by that. It refers to taking the case as a whole, not just one bit here and one bit there. It's a question of how everything fits together. You feel the DNA is valid. I respect that. The problem is, like so much of the IDI "evidence," it's just sort of random. It doesn't really fit into a larger framework. Certain people around here talk about the "Gumby and Pokey" syndrome, but to me, that's a big case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I guess what I'm saying is that not everything you find at a crime scene is part of the crime. And I know a fair number of LE professionals who will tell you just that (Tom Haney I know will). Only in Hollywood does every single thing "click" together all kosher. I've been studying true crime since I was in middle school, and I have yet to find a case where literally every single element fit together like they do in the movies. If you think you can find one, be my guest.
Absolutely not! I fear that I have given you the wrong idea, voynich. And in that, I take full blame. I should have been more specific with you. Here goes. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of stuff is worthless. I'm talking about the chapter involving JBR. The rest of the book you could set on fire, but that one chapter alone is worth the price.
And here's why: because in that chapter, the author does not engage in that kind of psychologizing, not once. In fact, she explicitly states that will NOT do that. Instead, she merely provides the side-by-side comparisons with miminal commentary. Her purpose (as stated on Bill O'Reilly's show) was so people could see it themselves. Indeed, what she does say in that chapter is very similar to what you've been posting. You're probably reading from a later edition of the book, where the chapter on JBR was completely excised due to litigation (leaving it with nothing BUT that psychologizng stuff). That's why I wish I could scan them for you.
Hope that clears it up.
Heck, I've said it myself: if IDI weren't so fixated on the DNA, they might actually be able to build a case against an intruder.
And people say WE bend things to fit! LOL
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I find that impossible to believe.As the parent of more than one former 6 yo,a child of that age is pretty much going to conk out cold after a long day.John himself said JB was 'zonked'.
I also don't think that esp. in such a large,dark house,that she would have ventured around by herself at night.