I've got it! Okay, here's how it went down:
The victim's name was Denise Witham (not sure the spelling). She was 11-y/o and living in the home of her foster mother, Sally Witham. One day Sally Witham called 9/11 to report that her daughter wasn't breathing. From the first moment, things didn't seem right. The other children in the home spoke of all kinds of abuse in the home. After that, Sally Witham produced two items that the police had not found when they first searched the house. One was the suicide note I mentioned. The other was a diary where Denise wrote about how despondent she was getting. When the note and diary were compared, it was found they matched Denise Witham's writing perfectly..
never send a handwriting expert to do the work of a forensic linguist.
Then things got interesting. Another daughter, Crystal Witham, came forward and said that she had seen Sally Witham grind up several pills and mix them into a pudding which she fed Denise. The DA, David Lee, had no physical evidence to corroborate Crystal's story. But he did have a theory: Sally Witham had forced Denise to write the documents.
Now, this is the part you should pay attention to. At first, Lee didn't know that forensic linguists existed..
Doesn't that sound familiar.
But when he found out, he brought McM in. As the narration says, forensic linguistics is based on a simple premise: people write the same way they speak (what does THAT sound like?). .
It sounds like you've not read Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics in its entirety.
McM himself said that each person who speaks English has their own manner of expressing themselves. In fact, I quote from his OWN mouth: "my task was to compare the writing on the note and diary with samples of the mother's known speech and writing." .
Yes McM uses a term to describe this, in chapter 1. If you read it you'd know the term. It's there, just as Dun Moch is on the star wars wikipedia and star wars encyclopedia (which makes it a star wars canon term)
The first person who can provide this term shows they've read chapter 1.
Isn't that what Foster did? Just asking. .
Well if you read McM's book to its entirety you can see what Foster did and what McM does.
To continue, he used personal letters to find her writing style and transcripts of Sally Witham's police interviews. Now, if memory serves, isn't that exactly what Foster used? And didn't Mysteeri say that McM doesn't find transcripts of speech useful? This is getting interesting! .
Have you read McM's book to compare what Mysteeri says v.s what McM says for yourself? Obviously not.
The specific traits McM used to make his case were that Sally Witham almost never used contractions. The only one she was known to use was "don't" in place of "do not." The note and diary were the same. Also, the past perfect tense was used where the past tense would have been sufficient. Instead of "he wrote me," the note said "he had written me." Instead of "he touched me," it said "he had touched me," and so on. .
Which is what he did w/RN "pick up" vs "pickup" or "pick-up" misspells advise and advize etc. (this is the easiest example to type out)
That was all David Lee needed. Sally Witham was tried, convicted and sent to prison for life. Now, I'm sure you can see the problem here, based on what you've been telling me.
Which problem do you allude to?
That the RDI does not make use of forensic linguistics? Well that's obvious. And yes it is a problem and yes I've been telling you and other RDI's to download and read Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics to its entirety.
That courts and academic linguists accept foresnic linguistic to the extent they will send a perp in prison for life despite a vigorous cross-examination from Sally's defense team?
That they accept McM's analysis as valid?
That this is a problem for RDI spin theories which links PR to RN? (As I have argued before, there are plenty of other reasons to reject a PR-RN or JR-RN link, it makes no sense for PR to write a note in her own handwriting in front of JR w/pen there on her own note pad, where she knew would be attempts to match handwriting from her to the RN. It makes no sense. I don't believe a 40 y.o mother would watch and then quote from movies like Ransom and Dirty Harry, and there's no reason for the RN to really DUN MOCH JR by calling him a fat cat and telling him to use that good Southern Sense)
That McM's peer-reviewed research methods helped investigators, detectives, prosecutors, and defense attorneys with a criminal MURDER investigation?
That a judge and jury accepted McM's testimony and convicted on it?
Or that McM's testimony regarding our RN is not being used to guide our investigation into the murder of JB as it did Sally Whitman/Denise Whitman?
That handwriting may not be enough so we can turn to forensic applications of the science of linguistics?
Or is it, "The JIDI and the RDIST is alike in almost everyway, including their quest for greater power. The difference is that the JIDI is not afraid to use the dark side (forensic linguists), and the RDIST are.
Or that you didn't read McM to its entirety? I did suggest that before re-watching it so you better
pick-up his testimony. Read his book to its entirety, then re-watch the video clip and you'll see many of your questions are answered as well as the importance of his testimony in that trial and for JB.
" based on what you've been telling me" As Yoda said, "Much to learn you still have". You can read McM for yourself.
I do want to say thanks for taping it and re-watching it and posting it here. The questions you ask show you have NOT read McM's book. I would recommend you do so and most of your frequently asked questions (FAQ) are addressed.
The story basically spells out that the DA, prosecutor, investigators, Sally's defense attorneys, judge, jury, etc., accept McM's testimony, methodology and conclusions to the extent they would send Sally to life in prison (for murder). And by now he probably has testified over 500 cases, plus he's published in peer reviewed journals in linguistics plus other forensic linguists study and apply his methods.
Bottom line, forensic linguists is a valid scientific research tool that DA's, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and the scientific community accept,investigators and there's no reason not to use it in this murder investigation due to some misguided attachment to RDI spin theories
JB deserves the very best forensic and investigative tools we can use such as DNA and forensic linguistics to bring her killer to justice, not spin theories.
