Forensic linguistics as investigative tool on RN

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well:

RDI has a CO federal judge, a prosecutor with a winning record, and THREE US Gov't document examiners. That what you're looking for?

A CO federal judge is a US District Judge? What was the ruling in favor of RDI?

What case did the prosecutor with a winning record win that favored RDI?

Who are the three US Govt document examiners?

C'mon SD. Are you for real on this?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1.I wouldn't put M.Lacy on my list of honour .
2.You're already twisting it

"What does RDI have that is on a similar level and not just some dude that quit his job to write a book before the facts were in?"

turned into

"Have I got this right? Has there ever been any acting government official that has done anything that favors RDI? "

Government simply clarified the 'similar level' request. What you're accusing me of is twisting when really I only elaborated.

RDI has no government official (person on a similar level as US District Judge, Boulder County DA, US Govt Document Examiner) that has sided with them, so it appears. SD wants to throw unnamed US judge, prosecutor, and three document examiners onto RDI without affidavits.


Correct me if I'm wrong, SD. What was the ruling, case, letter, or statement that places even one of your government officials squarely on the side of RDI? Where's the beef?

 

[Ravyn]

Well a US District Judge in Atlanta...And didn't have all the evidence to make a correct ruling...Now IDI show me on US District Judge that had all the files from LE and everyone surrounding this case that ruled to the intruder...

 

[BBB167893]

A CO federal judge is a US District Judge? What was the ruling in favor of RDI?

All I know is that the judge's name was Figa, and he ruled on a lawsuit brought by the Rs against FOXNews. The judge not only dismissed the lawsuit, but told the Rs that if they wanted to prove their innocence, they'd be better off doing it in the public arena rather than trying to silence everyone.

What case did the prosecutor with a winning record win that favored RDI?

His name is Michael Kane from Pennsylvania. He was brought on to the case ostensibly because of his record, but soon realized he was little more than window-dressing.

Who are the three US Govt document examiners?

One is Gideon Epstein, former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Question Documents division. Another is Larry Ziegler, who worked for the FBI. The third is Richard Williams, who taught handwriting analysis for the FBI.

RDI has no government official (person on a similar level as US District Judge, Boulder County DA, US Govt Document Examiner) that has sided with them, so it appears. SD wants to throw unnamed US judge, prosecutor, and three document examiners onto RDI without affidavits.

Look up. They have names, and they've made their statements. Many of which can be found on www.acandyrose.com

Correct me if I'm wrong, SD.

I think I just did.

What was the ruling, case, letter, or statement that places even one of your government officials squarely on the side of RDI? Where's the beef?

Well, I provided some of that information above. More to come.

C'mon SD. Are you for real on this?

You ought to know by now that I'm for real 24/7.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

All I know is that the judge's name was Figa, and he ruled on a lawsuit brought by the Rs against FOXNews. The judge not only dismissed the lawsuit, but told the Rs that if they wanted to prove their innocence, they'd be better off doing it in the public arena rather than trying to silence everyone.

Where's the "evidence of Ramsey involvement" statement? This seems pretty neutral. Doesn't squarely side with the R's on RDI vs IDI. Carnes did!


His name is Michael Kane from Pennsylvania. He was brought on to the case ostensibly because of his record, but soon realized he was little more than window-dressing.

This adds nothing. No affidavit.


One is Gideon Epstein, former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Question Documents division. Another is Larry Ziegler, who worked for the FBI. The third is Richard Williams, who taught handwriting analysis for the FBI.

Gideon Epstein was hired, and not a government official or employee at the time he evaluated the note. He was hired and his employer was wanting a 100% certain result.

There are no independent affidavits from Ziegler or Williams. Epstein consulted them and they are said to have agreed with Epstein methodology. There is no affidavit to this effect. There are no independent affidavits by Ziegler or Williams that PR wrote the note.



Look up. They have names, and they've made their statements. Many of which can be found on www.acandyrose.com



I think I just did.



Well, I provided some of that information above. More to come.



You ought to know by now that I'm for real 24/7.

IDI has affidavits from a DA in office, a sitting US Judge, and the current US Secret Service Document Examiner (NOT a computer guy). They each have explicitly sided with IDI.

These are not hired guns, retirees, semi-retirees, or new authors.

Is there even one government examiner, specialist, agent, or official at any level who squarely sided with RDI, and who provided an affidavit to that effect, during the course of doing their regular job??

Cause IDI has three of those.

 

[Ravyn]

Carnes did not have all the evidence, she was in Atlanta not Colorado don't count neither...And Micheal Kane don't count cause he was RDI...But show me a Fereral Judge that have seen all the evidence that ruled IDI...

 

[BBB167893]

Where's the "evidence of Ramsey involvement" statement? This seems pretty neutral. Doesn't squarely side with the R's on RDI vs IDI. Carnes did!

RST claims that the Carnes dismissal was a victory. By that standard, I can claim the same thing.

This adds nothing. No affidavit.

Would an interview transcript help at all?

Gideon Epstein was hired, and not a government official or employee at the time he evaluated the note.

1) They were ALL hired in some form or another.

2) You didn't say they HAD to be employed by the government at the time. What, all that skill and expertise just goes away when you retire or something?

You keep this up, and Chubby Checker will be after you for royalties!

There are no independent affidavits from Ziegler or Williams. Epstein consulted them and they are stated to have agreed with Epstein methodology. They don't count as government officials who sided against the R's because there is no affidavit.

You didn't ask for affidavits, not at first. No good changing the rules now.

IDI has affidavits from a DA in office, a sitting US Judge, and the current US Secret Service Document Examiner (NOT a computer guy). They each have explicitly sided with IDI.

And there's plenty of problems with all. The assertion that his primary duty is operating a computer program did NOT come from me, btw.

Is there even one government examiner, specialist, agent, or official at any level who squarely sided with RDI, and who provided an affidavit to that effect, during the course of doing their regular job??

Somehow I doubt you would accept it. But if memory serves, there were three US Attorneys who made up the so-called "Dream Team" were still employed by their regular services. At least one of them was. And they were constantly urging an arrest.

Where's the beef? I'm still looking.

Says the man who just got run over by a steer.

 

[voynich]

You got me pegged.

I'm sure I would. But I doubt it would be any more enlightening in the larger sense.



You don't seem to get what I mean. The average layman, such as myself, is the kind of person who would be seated on a jury. And as such, they're most likely not going to read a long, technical book. They're going to need the various lawyers and experts themselves to explain in simple language what it is they do and why it should be accepted as authoritative, especially if you have dueling methods. So far, neither Foster nor McMenamin have done anything to impress me all that much. Now you will experience the FULL power of the dark side!

We aren't jury, though we are websleuths, online armchair detectives, and in my case JIDI. There is no a priori limitation on how deep we wish to investigate a particular subject, in order to draw valid forensic deductions. You are entitled not to pursue a particular avenue of course, that you don't find interesting. I can't say some certain issues interest me about JB.

In the first chapter McM gives an overview of fundamental linguistic concepts as the scientific study of human language. You can compare his description of linguistics with wikipedias, for example.


mmmm I can't wait.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm back where I started. IDI has three government level employees who, in the course of doing their regular work, explicitly sided with the R's.

I find this to be HUGELY significant because those in government have exclusive access to a higher level of information than those outside.

The three govt offices are the Boulder County DA, a US District Court Judge, and a US Secret Service Document Examiner.

Where, oh where, is ONE SINGLE govt office that explicitly sided with RDI and provided an affidavit to that effect??

 

[BBB167893]

Carnes did not have all the evidence, she was in Atlanta not Colorado don't count neither...And Micheal Kane don't count cause he was RDI...But show me a Fereral Judge that have seen all the evidence that ruled IDI...

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Ravyn]

Well the palmprints was indentifed as PR and MR on the winecellar door but according to Carnes in 2000 they was never indentified so see she didn't have the correct info from Lin Wood and we all know that BR owned a pair of Hi tech shoes but carnes said he didn't so how does this judge helps the IDI...

 

[BBB167893]

We aren't jury, though we are websleuths, online armchair detectives, and in my case JIDI. There is no a priori limitation on how deep we wish to investigate a particular subject, in order to draw valid forensic deductions.

Fair enough. I think it helps to remember that my whole "schtick" is that I'm the common man. That's the viewpoint I take most of the time.

You are entitled not to pursue a particular avenue of course, that you don't find interesting.

It's not that I don't find it interesting. It's quite interesting. I'm just skeptical, is all.

I can't say some certain issues interest me about JB.

Now you've got me curious. What specifically?

In the first chapter McM gives an overview of fundamental linguistic concepts as the scientific study of human language. You can compare his description of linguistics with wikipedias, for example.

mmmm I can't wait.

Okay.

 

[voynich]

Fair enough. I think it helps to remember that my whole "schtick" is that I'm the common man. That's the viewpoint I take most of the time.



It's not that I don't find it interesting. It's quite interesting. I'm just skeptical, is all.



Now you've got me curious. What specifically?



Okay.

Well here's a wiki article on linguistics, how much of this do you understand?

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics[/ame]

Linguistics is the scientific[1][2] study of natural language.[3][4] Linguistics encompasses a number of sub-fields. An important topical division is between the study of language structure (grammar) and the study of meaning (semantics and pragmatics). Grammar encompasses morphology (the formation and composition of words), syntax (the rules that determine how words combine into phrases and sentences) and phonology (the study of sound systems and abstract sound units). Phonetics is a related branch of linguistics concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds (phones), non-speech sounds, and how they are produced and perceived. Other sub-disciplines of linguistics include the following: evolutionary linguistics, which considers the origins of language; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and functioning of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at the representation of language in the brain; language acquisition, which considers how children acquire their first language and how children and adults acquire and learn their second and subsequent languages; and discourse analysis, which is concerned with the structure of texts and conversations, and pragmatics with how meaning is transmitted based on a combination of linguistic competence, non-linguistic knowledge, and the context of the speech act.

How does McM's testimony compare with the above description of linguistics?
I want to make it clear I have no formal college background in linguistics, but that McM and other sources provide an introductory account for a layman.

 

[voynich]

Didn't I make it obvious? The problem as I--a regular guy--see it, is that McM seems to change his methods and opinions depending on which way he thinks the wind will blow best.

Right now, that's not the ONLY problem around here, as I'm sure some of my colleagues would agree, but it's the one that speaks most directly to this subject.


I seem to recall that cherokee DID make use of it. That said, for me the issue is not whether or not I use it; the issue his how the DA's office used it or to be more accurate, FAILED to use it.

]

Actually those specific traits such as using contractions and using past perfect when just past tense would work, are the same methods he uses to show PR did not write the RN. As far as wind blowing,
in 2001 when the book was published, which means it was probably written 99-2000, would you say the wind was blowing IDI or RDI? I am of the opinion the wind blows RDI at least till the touch DNA results were announced.

I took Cherokee's analysis, compared his claims against the L&L and BM RN and found them wanting.

 

[voynich]

The fact that they were MISQUOTED shows me that the writer's own knowledge of those films was limited. As for what a 40-year-old mother would watch, you'd be amazed.
]

My mentor, taught me everything I know about the Forensics. Even the nature of the Dark Science

 

[Ravyn]

Actually those specific traits such as using contractions and using past perfect when just past tense would work, are the same methods he uses to show PR did not write the RN. As far as wind blowing,
in 2001 when the book was published, which means it was probably written 99-2000, would you say the wind was blowing IDI or RDI? I am of the opinion the wind blows RDI at least till the touch DNA results were announced.

I took Cherokee's analysis, compared his claims against the L&L and BM RN and found them wanting.

So JonBenet's was consider outside work...cause he wasn't on the inside...So could this mean if he was and was open to everything would he stand strong with his first opinion or find out like Donald Foster that PR wrote the RN...Really don't know which way it was blowing back then was IDI's around in the threads then boths ways I guess..

 

[BBB167893]

Actually those specific traits such as using contractions and using past perfect when just past tense would work, are the same methods he uses to show PR did not write the RN.

Just checking.

As far as wind blowing, in 2001 when the book was published, which means it was probably written 99-2000, would you say the wind was blowing IDI or RDI?

I'd say it was 70-30 RDI, something like that. But to be honest, I should have rephrased that. It wouldn't be the first time someone took the view of "I'm right, everybody else is wrong" and then set out to prove it in order to inflate their own stock, as it were. Keep in mind that I don't know enough about him to say one way or the other whether this did or didn't happen. I'm not claiming that he did or didn't. I'm just spitballing here.

I am of the opinion the wind blows RDI at least till the touch DNA results were announced.

You might get some argument from some people. HOTYH leaps to mind.

I took Cherokee's analysis, compared his claims against the L&L and BM RN and found them wanting.

I know. And in my opinion, that's where you went wrong. It's apples and handgrenades.

 

[BBB167893]

So JonBenet's was consider outside work...cause he wasn't on the inside...So could this mean if he was and was open to everything would he stand strong with his first opinion or find out like Donald Foster that PR wrote the RN...

Ah, excellent! That leads me to another point I wished to bring up. I don't have much success with making predictions; that's why I don't make too many of them. But from my perspective, as it stands now I'm of the mind that if he WERE brought into the case officially, he might change his mind.

 

[BBB167893]

My mentor, taught me everything I know about the Forensics. Even the nature of the Dark Science

LIFE has taught me! Couldn't ask for a better teacher (or a crueler one)!

Let me give you an example. When I asked if he used transcripts of their speech, I wasn't asking at random. I had something specific in mind. If you go over certain interviews that the Rs have done, especially when they drop their guard a little bit, you'll see specific words, phrases, structuring and other elements that were used in the RN keep popping up again and again like poison mushrooms. I use the term "ransomspeak" to highlight this phenomenon. The implications there should be fairly obvious...at least they were to Tadpole12.

In fact, there used to be a website devoted to pointing out those instances, but it's gone now. C'est la vie.

 

[Sophie]

If PR did write it w/JR dictating, her stylistic choices as to whether to write pickup, pick up, pick-up would still show up.

Foster got other problems in other cases.

This is a brilliant thread, one of many brilliant ones in recent weeks. It'll take me days to get through all the good stuff on here and reply.

To your specific points, though:

1) Her stylistic tics wouldn't show up if John was dictating in a literal sense.

2) This is kind of a parenthetical meandering but I wonder how consistent people are with their writing. I mean, this doesn't help anyone's argument, and it's just a question, but are people 100% consistent in their punctuation? I mean, Patsy was known to have more styles of handwriting than a group of 6th graders (copyright, ST). Is it that much of a stretch to think that - certainly where the rules of grammar and punctuation are less-than rigid - Patsy may have been less-than consistent. Frankly, I'd look at inculcated habits - such as the use of journalistic carels - rather than at things like 'pick-up' or 'pick up', especially since the RN itself is less-than consistent in that regard.

3) Certainly, Foster's star has waned a bit and he has surely regretted the youthful statement that being wrong just once would compromise a scholar's credibility forever. He probably did start to believe his own publicity, too. That is probably the central problem with forensic linguistics: it's still in the province of the academic and nowhere are egos more destructive than in academia.

A question, Voynich. Think of an author whose works you know very well. Would you recognise his or her writing in other contexts do you think? I just ask because I had a Dean Koontz (sorry: we all have guilty pleasures) binge when I was bed-bound for the last month of my last pregnancy and I am 100% confident that I would recognise a Dean Koontz sentence anywhere..

ETA: I had always thought that it was Foster who essentially found the Unabomber. Admittedly, I have read very little about that case. Anyway, the Unabomber's brother has a book coming out soon and was interviewed in a UK newspaper this week (The Guardian). I honestly has no idea that it was the brother who broke the case and originally identified his brother's linguistic traits for the FBI... Got to admit that I thought that was 100% Foster's handiwork.