Forensic linguist & Jonbenet Ransom study group

[Tadpole12]

what's your academic background?

If you use Morton's and Cusum analysis what conclusions do you draw, if the null hypothesis is that the sentence length, words used, vocabulary falls within PR's range, and rejecting the null hypothesis at 95% confidence interval (variation in RN exceeds PR's) what conclusion do you draw?

Fail to reject null hypotheiss "PR could have written the RN"
Reject the null hypothesis "Observed Cusum analysis of RN is outside PR's known samples"

Hey voynich ...

I was suggesting that the Cusum analysis could be applied to a sample from someone other than PR.

 

[BBB167893]

Whether JR intended to disguise his writing or not, there is enough differences to get a broad agreement among handwriting experts that even with intentional attempt at disguise and using a sharpie, he could be ruled out as the author.

And I've never argued that.

If PR wrote it, she obviously intended to disguise her handwriting, and making a handwriting match to disguised handwriting written using a sharpie is a rather uncertain enterprise.

Tricky, but not impossible.

But she would not have known how to disguise certain linguistic stylistic markers, since the subject was still not widely known. It stretches credibility to think she would be aware of the need to disguise both her handwriting and her stylistic linguistic markers. Gerald has shown that these markers are sufficiently different to rule her out as the author.

I guess it depends on how much credibility you put into it.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi voynich.

Maybe forensic linguistics was not a widely known field at that time, but maybe by chance the method of her alterations succeeded. Anyone can bastardize a language; I refer you to my posts ... ha

no, voynich, I know it is a stretch, but to eliminate that possibility, to examine and find no pattern that could be indicative of the Ramseys guilt, that would be the objective.

For it has now become a fantastical projection that the Ramseys authored the rn, given that the distribution of the IDI dna is typical of a sexual assault.

Except there WASN'T a sexual assault, not in the true sense. For my money, the idea that anyone except PR wrote it is fantastical.

 

[BBB167893]

Supposedly though PR did not do a good enough job to disguise her handwriting to fool Gideon Epstein, but good enough job to disguise her handwriting to fool Gerald McMeniman.

Epstein's the best. At least that's what I've heard.

So did PR attempt at a disguise or not? Isn't the first thing to come to mind in a disguise is disguising the handwriting?

Right on both counts, imo.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave, you will not stop me. Darth Tadpole will become more powerful than either of us. :crazy:

Faith in your new apprentice misplaced may be. As is your faith in linguistic "science."

It's not only that DNA was found but found where we would expect in a sexual assault, and not in other locations that would be likely if it was an "innocent transfer"

Then why the he** isn't there a lot more OF it? And why was it so degraded when JB's was fresh. As for other locations, like I told HOTYH before, I'm not aware that any other locations were CHECKED.

 

[Tadpole12]

Faith in your new apprentice misplaced may be. As is your faith in linguistic "science.".

Hi SD, yes it's a precarious balancing act. How much weight can one put into a specicific expert handwriting or linguistic analysis, when the limitations intrinsic in its form is the reason for its selection by a particular camp.

Faith
Then why the he** isn't there a lot more OF it? And why was it so degraded when JB's was fresh. As for other locations, like I told HOTYH before, I'm not aware that any other locations were CHECKED.

yes, but should it be everywhere?
or given the method of amplification?, the touch dna, maybe the dna would be just a few cells, as what was seen by reexamining her clothing?

 

[madeleine]

Faith in your new apprentice misplaced may be. As is your faith in linguistic "science."



Then why the he** isn't there a lot more OF it? And why was it so degraded when JB's was fresh. As for other locations, like I told HOTYH before, I'm not aware that any other locations were CHECKED.

I don't think Lacy even bothered to check nonessential spots.And I mean nonessential to her and HER theory.That's what I keep saying.Not only did she do a favor to the Ramsey's,she unfortunately also botched a future IDI investigation as well.(if it will be the case)

 

[Tadpole12]

re: linguistics

Introduction to meter:


http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tsteele/TSpage5/meter.html

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD, yes it's a precarious balancing act. How much weight can one put into a specific expert handwriting or linguistic analysis, when the limitations intrinsic in its form is the reason for its selection by a particular camp.

That's the problem as I see it.

yes, but should it be everywhere?

Perhaps I did not word that as well as I'd like. I think you would expect something more concrete in a sexual assault, such as semen, for example.

or given the method of amplification?, the touch dna, maybe the dna would be just a few cells, as what was seen by reexamining her clothing?

Who knows? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I keep hearing how this is "consistent with a sexual assault," when you have to believe that there WAS a real sexual assault in the first place.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't think Lacy even bothered to check nonessential spots.And I mean nonessential to her and HER theory.That's what I keep saying.Not only did she do a favor to the Ramsey's,she unfortunately also botched a future IDI investigation as well.(if it will be the case)

That's more or less what I've been trying to say!

 

[voynich]

Theories (i.e Foster) and speculation (hand writing) come and go, but

facts are facts, the misspellings to punctuation to her stylistics (i.e pickup versus pick-up versus pick up) are substantially different from RN to PR,

these facts, interpreted in the context of forensic linguistic science that both linguistics and courts agree


many courts accepted his methodology on the grounds

Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime, and the law
By John Olsson describes McM page 20-21

"technique is widespread and reliable"
"subject to peer review"
"general acceptance to relevant scientific community (linguistics)"

come see for yourself boy, from here you will witness the final destruction of the alliance, and the end of your insignificant rebellion

http://books.google.ca/books?id=i33...esult&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

So we have one academic forensic linguist John Olsson peer reviewing the work of another, McMenamin, in a textbook titled, Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime, and the law, stating that McMenamin's methodology passes scientific muster and peer review.

"In forensic linguistics we use statistics to measure probability"

I infer that Lord Dave will have to search far and wide to find a credentialed linguist who disagrees w/McMenamin's qualification



enough to rule PR out as the author.

 

[voynich]

I don't think Lacy even bothered to check nonessential spots.And I mean nonessential to her and HER theory.That's what I keep saying.Not only did she do a favor to the Ramsey's,she unfortunately also botched a future IDI investigation as well.(if it will be the case)

good point.

Where was DNA checked both the original using 1996 technology and newer BODE 2006 touch DNA?

 

[voynich]

For my money, the idea that anyone except PR wrote it is fantastical.

In my experience, there is no such thing as luck. Hokey religions and ancient RDIST theories are no match for a good forensic linguist at your side, Dave. Look, going good against amateurs is one thing. Going good against highly respected, peer-reviewed, academic forensic linguists. That's something else.

McM states that the odds of PR writing that note with all stylistic markers is 1 in 13,000.

 

[voynich]

I'm afraid you lost me, voynich.

I
I figured as much. But then, that's more or less my problem with these fields: not enough mavericks.

s!

"But then, that's more or less my problem with these fields: not enough mavericks" = I want more mavericks

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD,




I infer that Lord Dave will have to search far and wide to find a credentialed linguist who disagrees w/McMenamin's qualification - voynich


Hey SD ... I was wondering about this issue, within your book.
How to you weigh McMenamin vs other experts, is it a tally of sorts?
Do you mention, consider McMenamin?

 

[BBB167893]

speculation (hand writing)

???

I infer that Lord Dave will have to search far and wide to find a credentialed linguist who disagrees w/McMenamin's qualification

Did it ever occur to you that it's not ME who's doing the looking?

 

[voynich]

???

Whether the disguised writing on the RN belongs to PR or intruder is not definitive

 

[BBB167893]

Look, going good against amateurs is one thing. Going good against highly respected, peer-reviewed, academic forensic linguists. That's something else.

I suppose. But it's not like I haven't given my share, now is it?

McM states that the odds of PR writing that note with all stylistic markers is 1 in 13,000.

That might impress me if I believed in this whole bit. (If ANYONE should deliver that Han Solo line, it's me!)

"But then, that's more or less my problem with these fields: not enough mavericks" = I want more mavericks

I DO want more mavericks. By that I mean I prefer more independent thought, as opposed to one guy says something and everyone else falls in line because it's in their interest to do so. What I'm lost on is how that relates to my exchange with HOTYH. So I think we'd better go back to the beginning.

 

[voynich]

I suppose. But it's not like I haven't given my share, now is it?



That might impress me if I believed in this whole bit. (If ANYONE should deliver that Han Solo line, it's me!)
.

Blind we are, if the development of this forensic linguists we could not see.
I think it is time to inform the RDIST that our ability to use Forensics has diminished.

You don't believe in the [forensic] do you?

 

[Sophie]

Another tremendous thread. Hopefully will get to read it properly over the weekend.

One thing (and again, I've just scanned the thread so I may have missed a previous reference to this), didn't a statistician go through the note and the circumstances of the note being written and conclude that the chance of someone else having written it were almost statistically insignificant? Pretty sure that's somewhere on ACR's site.