Forensic linguist & Jonbenet Ransom study group

  • #21
Too bad he's in the minority.

So was Einstein and Newton.

I've heard that before, but I never thought I'd hear it from you.

Sounds like spin-doctoring to me. Do you have any evidence that other forensic linguists of comparable stature and training, serving as faculty and testified in court, using comparable methodology (i.e variance in style) have published papers citing McMermin and then refuting him?

Gerald McMermin dispenses w/DF in section 4.4, and courts have accepted Gerald McMermin testimony in more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He does footnote and cite references to his work.
He unlike Donald, is a professor of linguistics, not literature, and does teach this Univ of Delaware, UCLA, and California Univ at Fresno.


In science and statistics, exclusions (say this blood type is type O, suspect is type A) are always more definitive than matches (suspect is type O, blood stain is type O -- lots of people w/type O walking around!) and any attempt to match PR to the RN would have to wrestle w/stylistic and linguistic markers McM identified as exclusionary.


Obviously another linguist using the same methodology and theory and same evidence should draw the same conclusion. At best they can show inconclusive, but mostly likely they would agree, PR nor JR wrote the RN.

You've not answered to HOTH's objection:

It really is the definitive work on the ransom note vs. PR or JR.

I would call RDI to task, come up with anything even remotely similar that portrays a match. I would like to see that but I don't think it exists for some reason.


Not if anything to say about it, I have.

Master Davobi, wait a moment. In your solitude on websleuths, training I have for you. An old friend has learned the path to forensic linguistics. One who has returned from the netherworld of the Academia to train me. your old Master, Gerald McMermin. How to commune with him. I will teach you. How to join the Forensic linguists, he will train you. Your consciousness you will retain, when one with the IDI-ARDI

Sure, what do you think of The Author and the Introduction Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics?


Oh, I don't think so. .

As you can see, my Jedi powers far exceeds yours, now, back down.


Every single IDI is now an enemy. I will do what must be done. I will not hesitate. I shall show no mercy.

It's over, Davakin. I have the high ground. Don't try it.
 
  • #22
So was Einstein and Newton.

I've heard that before, but I never thought I'd hear it from you.

You'll find I'm full of surprises.

Sounds like spin-doctoring to me. Do you have any evidence that other forensic linguists of comparable stature and training, serving as faculty and testified in court, using comparable methodology (i.e variance in style) have published papers citing McMermin and then refuting him?

No, I haven't. But then, could be no one's thought to ask.

Gerald McMermin dispenses w/DF in section 4.4, and courts have accepted Gerald McMermin testimony in more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He does footnote and cite references to his work.
He unlike Donald, is a professor of linguistics, not literature, and does teach this Univ of Delaware, UCLA, and California Univ at Fresno.

I know who he is.

In science and statistics, exclusions (say this blood type is type O, suspect is type A) are always more definitive than matches (suspect is type O, blood stain is type O -- lots of people w/type O walking around!) and any attempt to match PR to the RN would have to wrestle w/stylistic and linguistic markers McM identified as exclusionary.

I guess it helps if you're ready to just write off the handwriting analysts and profilers who said PR is the most likely author. I'm not, not on your life.

Obviously another linguist using the same methodology and theory and same evidence should draw the same conclusion.

I have my doubts about that.

At best they can show inconclusive, but mostly likely they would agree, PR nor JR wrote the RN.

The future is hard to predict, voynich.

You've not answered to HOTH's objection:

Far as I go, he answered his own question. For all I know, there are those who use the method you describe who have come to different conclusions but don't want to say anything because they don't want to get sued. More likely, I'd say they've never been asked.

Master Davobi, wait a moment. In your solitude on websleuths, training I have for you. An old friend has learned the path to forensic linguistics. One who has returned from the netherworld of the Academia to train me. your old Master, Gerald McMermin. How to commune with him. I will teach you. How to join the Forensic linguists, he will train you. Your consciousness you will retain, when one with the IDI-ARDI

Surely I have made my feelings plain?

Sure, what do you think of The Author and the Introduction Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics?

Haven't gotten around to it.

As you can see, my Jedi powers far exceeds yours, now, back down.

Never.

It's over, Davakin. I have the high ground. Don't try it.

As always, you underestimate my power.

Folks, am I ALONE here?
 
  • #23
  • #24
  • #25
Haven't gotten around to it.

The Author

Gerald McMenamin lives with his wife, Marguerite, on a small Tivy Valley citrus ranch near Sanger, CA. He benefited from an intense elementary and secondary education at Salesian schools in California and New Jersey. In
1968, he received a B.A. in philosophy, with minors in classical languages and English, from the University of California at Irvine, and in 1972 an M.A. in linguistics from California State University, Fresno. In 1978, he received his doctorate in Spanish linguistics from El Colegio de México. Part of his doctoral program was 2 years study of linguistic variation at the University of Pennsylvania. His other study and research venues include the University of California at Santa Cruz, the UCLA Medical Center, and Oxford University.
Dr. McMenamin has taught a variety of courses in English and Spanish linguistics in positions at the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, the University of Delaware, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Professor of Linguistics at California State University, Fresno, and is a former chair of the CSUF linguistics department. His interest in linguistic stylistics began in 1976 with an authorship study of the picaresque novel, Lazarillo de Tormes; this experience quickly extended to forensic applications. Since that time, Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.


Introduction

The first questions I am presented with on direct examination are always to describe and explain what I do. This requires a series of brief and clear responses defining the theory and the nested array of analytical tools used in cases of questioned authorship: language, linguistics, linguistic variation, forensic linguistics, style, stylistics, and forensic stylistics.
Consequently, I have used these questions to define the aims and struc- ture of this book: to provide an introduction to language, linguistics, and linguistic variation for nonlinguists (e.g., attorneys) who need to understand what linguist-witnesses do; to introduce the discipline of forensic linguistics; and to situate forensic stylistics as a field of language study and forensic analysis within the discipline of forensic linguistics. Chapters 1 through 6 will approximate this sequence.
Although the linguistic study of language is well established, linguistics is something new for many jurors, judges, attorneys, and other forensic specialists. In addition, many linguists must learn how to talk about what they do in nontechnical terms, something accomplished to some degree here, I hope.
Forensic linguistics is not a new field, but over the past few years it has become more structured and better defined within the academic and forensic communities. Is it the accused killer’s voice on the 911 recording reporting the crime? What exactly does it mean to die by accident, e.g., is sudden infant death an accident? Is it a request for drugs if a kid asks an undercover police officer, “What’s chillin?” Does it make any sense to say that someone did not commit genocide, just acts of genocide (The New York Times, August 26,
2001)? Who did, or did not, write that ransom note found in the JonBenét Ramsey home? If a detective asks a suspect, “… do you want to speak with us about why you were arrested?” is the suspect waiving his right not to speak by answering, “Yes, I would like to know why I was arrested”? Does McDonald’s own the Mc at the beginning of my last name (Liptak, 2001:10)?
These examples illustrate a few of the questions for forensic linguistics: phonetics (911 call), semantics (meaning of accident), pragmatics (intended meanings of “What’s chillin’?” and genocide), stylistics (authorship of the ransom note), discourse analysis (suspect waiver of rights), and trademarks (McDonald’s Mc).

An understanding of language, linguistics, and the field of forensic lin- guistics will enable the reader to develop a more informed understanding of recent advances in the theory and method of forensic stylistics for authorship identification. Style is a reflection of individual and group variation in written language. Linguistic stylistics is the scientific study of individual style-mark- ers as described for the idiolect of a single writer and of class style-markers identified for language and dialect groups. Forensic stylistics is the applica- tion of the science of linguistic stylistics to forensic contexts and purposes. “Advances” in forensic stylistics refers to the progressive development of
a deeper understanding of why and how present approaches work, as well as changes being made in the application of style analysis to cases of questioned authorship. Such advances have several sources: recent casework, new federal requirements for scientific evidence in the U.S., reexamination of the theory of style and its application to the forensic context, and critical response to documented approaches such as those presented in Forensic Stylistics (McMe- namin, 1993). Advances in forensic stylistics are the matter of Chapters 7 to
11. Chapters 12 to 15 reflect new work in the stylistics of languages other than English.
Clarification of the theoretical underpinnings of stylistic analysis is an important step forward because, first, it helps explain and reduce differences between practitioners (linguists) in the forensic application of stylistics, and second, it provides a stronger theoretical foundation for the actual forensic application of stylistics to authorship questions.
Although linguists will not need the chapters of this book that outline the basics of language and linguistics, the chapters on forensic linguistics, authorship identification, and forensic practice are meant for linguists, as well as others. One goal of this book is to convince more linguists to “come in from the outside,” i.e., become involved in the actual casework of forensic linguistics, or what Roger Shuy (2000:1) refers to as “insider linguists”:

… I will divide this work that forensic linguists do into two types: work that is done without becoming involved in specific litigation, which I will call outsider work, and work that is carried out within individual law cases, which I refer to as insider work.

The discipline and science of forensic linguistics will not develop the way it should from “outside” study, commentary, and observation. Linguists must take some of Shuy’s hints about how to immerse themselves in the problems presented by actual cases, then develop their linguistic and forensic perspec- tives based on that work.
Many colleagues have helped me during the preparation of this book. While any and all deficiencies in my work are my sole responsibility, I would

like to acknowledge and thank those who have worked through this project with me. First and foremost, my wife Marguerite, is a safe harbor of constancy and encouragement. She says that she missed me during this project but seems to have enjoyed single handedly finding a diesel-powered lift and painting our big barn under the wide-eyed and very solicitous supervision of half a dozen neighboring farmers. Karen Mistry read the typescript, com- bining the mind of a perceptive linguist with the eye of a meticulous reader and editor. Ray Weitzman prepared the phonetics demonstrations in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Cecilia Shore sent me references on individualization in the acquisition of writing. A Forsyth and Holmes (1996) article directed me to the 1817 words of Coleridge: “Every man’s language has, first, it individ- ualities; second, the common properties of the class to which he belongs; and third, words and phrases of universal use.” Roger Gong, Merlyn Price, Kerala Serio, Alan Shows, and, especially, John Telles joined their skilled forces to keep me alive and well, at work, and (almost) on time. Zachary Scheufele and Chasse Byrd frequently reminded me of other things in life. Deans Luis Costa and Vida Samiian of the California State University (CSU) Fresno School of Arts and Humanities provided periodic financial assistance for research.
Roger Shuy evaluated my initial prospectus and also provided me with the written version of his Georgetown University Round Table in Linguistics (GURT) 2000 keynote address so that I would not have to depend on my notes for reference. Fred Brengelman, Duane Dillon, and Roy Huber also took the time to comment on the initial plan of this book. Kristina Perez did the identification of variables from the as yet undigitized corpus of written American English, reflected in Chapter 10. Shannon Bills classified and counted the variables from the 80 authorship cases reviewed in Chapter 11. Alejandra Herrera analyzed the Spanish language data from student e-mails reported on in Chapter 12. Rekha Dayalu did the research necessary for me to understand the field of software forensics outlined in Chapter 4. CSU Fresno Librarian Jan Byrd patiently and efficiently ordered and returned books in the continuous year-long flow of interlibrary loan materials needed to complete this project. Lynnette Zelezny provided a critical review of Chapter 8, and Phyllis Kuehn a statistical perspective on parts of Chapter 10.
All my associates in the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners, especially the late professor Dean Ray, have provided me with nearly 20 years of training in forensic science, and individual document examiners have provided help with cases and issues reported on here, namely Martha Blake, Lloyd Cunningham, Bill Flynn, Sandy Homewood, Dave Moore, Janet Masson, Sue Morton, Dave Oleksow, Howard Rile, and Peter Tytell.

I am particularly indebted to the contributors of this volume who gen- erously provided reports of their own research in the style analysis of lan- guages other than English and Spanish: P. J. Mistry for Gujarati, from Northern India (Chapter 13), Dongdoo Choi for Korean (Chapter 14), and Wakako Yasuda for Japanese (Chapter 15). Another contribution is the insightful essay found in Appendix 2, Expert Testimony, by Susan Morton of the San Francisco Police Criminalistics Laboratory, wherein she shares with forensic specialists what she has tried to make me understand for years.


References

Forsyth, R. S. and Holmes, D. I., Feature-finding for text classification, Lit. Linguistic
Comput., 11:4:163–174, 1996.
Lewis, N. A., Did machete-wielding Hutus commit genocide or just “acts of geno- cide,” The New York Times, August 26, 2001, Sec. 4, p. 7.
Liptak, A. Legally, the alphabet isn’t as simple as A, B, C, The New York Times, September 2, 2001, Sec. 4, p. 10.
McMenamin, G., Forensic Stylistics, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1993. Shuy, R., Breaking into language and law: the trials of the insider-linguist, paper
presented at Georgetown University Round Table in Linguistics (GURT): Lan-
guages of the Professions, May 4, 2000.
 
  • #26
Folks, am I ALONE here?

As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational pdf. Fire at will, Commander.

"The probability of all six variables occurring in one writer is 0% or just over 1 in 13,000 The likelihood of all six variables appearing together by chance is also zero."

How PR could have possibly disguised her stylistics ... could she easily have done this? Was her format and language and spelling so consistent, that she could so easily attempt to disguise her writing?

I have always read that the murder of JBR was unsophisticated, but PR would have had to have been very coherent that night to perform all the manipulations that are assumed for her to be marked as the perp.


The precrime request samples, but the construction of the rn itself would have to well conceived and masterful for PR to have been its author.

She would have had to conceptualize, categorize and effectuate each potential modification with consistency, in the rn piece, in order for the rn to reflect stylistics that would exhibit these patterns, far removed from her own 'core' stylistics.

Stylistics, the math is solid. PR and JR are excluded,

It is pointless to resist, my apprentice. Give yourself to the dark side. It is the only way you can save your friends.
 
  • #27
To me,the non-expert,it looks like the writer's hand was shaking when she/he wrote it.

Did you ever try to write something while being drunk?Does it alter your writing?I think it does.I don't think that the writer was drunk but maybe heavy medicated.Or panicked+heavy medicated.
 
  • #28
As a layperson I cautiosly write that the trouble with statistics is that we don`t know if the RN writer disguised his/her handwriting or if Patsy disguised some of her handwriting after December. However the big picture seems to indicate that there are significant differences between the RN and PR`s handwriting, differences that are consistent and don`t seem to be disguised, and are enough to exclude Patsy as the writer of the RN. The most interesting part was, I think, the differences that were present in the RN and Patsys pre + after December writings.

It reads:
"In Patricia Ramsey’s
natural writing, markers P9, P11, P14, and P18 occurred, and the last three
occurred as they do in her request writing
. Mrs. Ramsey’s marker P9, the
abbreviation of
a.m. with periods present, is the single contrast to the
am/pm abbreviations without periods found in her nonrequest writing.

PR11: Absence of periods after capitalized initials
SBTC

PR14: Use of two words without hyphen for
pick up

PR18c Q1:14 Use of word
dollar
without dollar sign: $
PR18d Q1:15 Use of
decimal point
without cents marker in KP3
PR18e Q1:15 Use of word
dollar
without dollar sign: $

Style-markers PR11, PR14, and PR18 were found in Patricia
Ramsey’s pre-12/26/96 (i.e., precrime) natural writing, and they appear just as
they do in the samples of her post-12/26/96 requested writing."

About the absence of periods after capitalized letters I`m a little unsure about. She did use periods in F.B.I. and in a.m. before December (I wonder how common that is), you`d think using periods after capitalized letters would fit her style.

About "advize", I so wish there would be an example of that (as well as buriel and scruitiny) from Patsy before December.

In the RN "bussiness" and "possession" might represent an authentic difference to PR`s writing style as well as differences in compound words like "countermeasures" (this is just my gut feeling).

Anyway, here`s what McMenamin concludes:
"Patricia Ramsey is excluded as the writer of the questioned ransom letter.
This conclusion is based on three facts:
1. There are substantial and significant dissimilarities between her range
of variation and that of the ransom letter.
2. Limitations present in the available data (i.e., lack of more than one
contemporaneous, dictated request sample, nonoccurrence of some
variables in the nonrequest samples, and chance of disguise in evidence
or reference writings) do not diminish the significance of reliable
available data or indicate language disguise.
3. The range of variation measured in the questioned letter constitutes
sufficient basis for comparison to any suspect writer, given that the
probability of replicating it by chance in other than its own writer is
near zero."

Alrighty, then.
 
  • #29
As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational pdf. Fire at will, Commander.

Your overconfidence will be your undoing.

"The probability of all six variables occurring in one writer is 0% or just over 1 in 13,000 The likelihood of all six variables appearing together by chance is also zero."

How PR could have possibly disguised her stylistics ... could she easily have done this? Was her format and language and spelling so consistent, that she could so easily attempt to disguise her writing?

Well, assuming that one has an abundance of faith in stylistics (which I don't at present, because it just seems to leave out too many human considerations), it might be simpler than all of that, voynich. I happen to think that madeleine has it pegged. PR's pre-and post-crime samples were written by someone who was (more or less) very cool and calm. If she wrote it, she most likely was extremely agitated and very possibly on medication. I know I don't write the same when I've had a few too many.

I have always read that the murder of JBR was unsophisticated, but PR would have had to have been very coherent that night to perform all the manipulations that are assumed for her to be marked as the perp.

Or extremely lucky. I've often said that the Rs got by on dumb luck. I honestly believe that (and I'm not the only one).

Not only that, but let's us not forget that there was only one person whose writing changed after the killing...

The precrime request samples, but the construction of the rn itself would have to well conceived and masterful for PR to have been its author.
She would have had to conceptualize, categorize and effectuate each potential modification with consistency, in the rn piece, in order for the rn to reflect stylistics that would exhibit these patterns, far removed from her own 'core' stylistics.

Tell you what: when Mr. McM is actually hired in an OFFICIAL capacity in this case and makes an analysis in that capacity, maybe some of my doubts will be assuaged. But until then, I cannot in good conscience (and make no mistake, that's PRECISELY what it is) jump off this bridge with you just yet.

Stylistics, the math is solid. PR and JR are excluded,

Too bad you can't say the same for anything else! Which is the point I'm trying to make.

It is pointless to resist, my apprentice. Give yourself to the dark side. It is the only way you can save your friends.

You know NOTHING of the dark side.
 
  • #30
As a layperson I cautiously write that the trouble with statistical significance is that we don`t know if the RN writer disguised his/her handwriting or if Patsy disguised some of her handwriting after December.

Thank you!

Folks, the problem as I see it is that a LOT of the people who came out on the side of the Rs are people who wanted to prove everybody else wrong and show that "their way" was the best. Now, I have no proof that happened here. But I have no proof it DIDN'T, either.

However the big picture seems to indicate that there are significant differences between the RN and PR`s handwriting, differences that are consistent and don`t seem to be disguised, and are enough to exclude Patsy as the writer of the RN.

Actually, the BIG picture says otherwise.

Let me quote from another book...my own:

Roger L. DePue is a former head of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit. In 2006, he told reporter Ronald Kessler that Patsy Ramsey fit the profile of the person who wrote the ransom note. Apparently, he was making public what he and psychiatrist Dr. Bertram Brown had told Alex Hunter.
"Since her body was in the house, a kidnapper would have had to realize that she would be found before any ransom was paid. The note appears to be an effort to obfuscate why she died." The fact that the note was two and a half pages long "suggests that the killer was not hurrying out of fear of being caught, as one might expect," Depue said. "To kill a child and then write a note of that length suggests that either the killer was so bold that he was mentally deranged or that he was a member of the family and had no reason to be concerned. The killer even had the time to start a previous draft and discard it." "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested," the note says. Depue called that an unusual instruction. "The statement sounds caring, motherly," he said. "That fits in with the relatively small amount of money demanded. The writer only wants John Ramsey's bonus, something he can part with easily. Interestingly, at this point the writer switches to the pronoun 'I.' The pretext of a group demanding money has been dropped." The idea of "gentlemen watching over" has a feminine tone, Depue said. "Watching over" is also a caring concept, he said. In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-aged female. The writer used the term 'fat cat,' suggesting that the person is middle aged. 'Fat cat' is a term used in the 1960s and 1970s. The writer," Depue said, "is a close relative, friend, or business associate, in that order."


Robert K. Ressler, founder of the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit, echoed many of DePue's sentiments:
"There's an almost maternal quality to comments like, 'the delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms. He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was 'FBI.' Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was 'To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J.' That meant 'To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.'"


I hold a few cards of my own.
 
  • #31
SuperDave wrote:
"He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was 'FBI.' Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was 'To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J.' That meant 'To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.'"

That was interesting since I wondered, how common it is to write F.B.I. I think there`s basis to rule out marker 11: "Absence of periods after capitalized initials SBTC".

This post is from A.K.S.B.S.S.A.S.T.B.M.S.S.

:D
 
  • #32
SuperDave wrote:
"He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was 'FBI.' Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was 'To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J.' That meant 'To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.'"

That was interesting since I wondered, how common it is to write F.B.I.

From what I understand, it's not very common. I've never written it with periods in my life.

I think there`s basis to rule out marker 11: "Absence of periods after capitalized initials SBTC".

You have me at a disadvantage.

This post is from A.K.S.B.S.S.A.S.T.B.M.S.S.

:D

A riddle, eh?
 
  • #33
I wrote:
I think there`s basis to rule out marker 11: "Absence of periods after capitalized initials SBTC".

SuperDave wrote:
You have me at a disadvantage.

This is were my English skills fall short.

A riddle, eh?

A mysteeri not to be solved.
 
  • #34
I wrote:
I think there`s basis to rule out marker 11: "Absence of periods after capitalized initials SBTC".

SuperDave wrote:
You have me at a disadvantage.

This is were my English skills fall short.

I'm just not sure what you meant.

A riddle, eh?

A mysteeri not to be solved.

All right. Keep your secret.
 
  • #35
Hi SD.

Well. when you jump off a bridge, you take the chance that there might be some dead wood floating, partially submerged ..... beneath the placid waters.


voynich .....

as SD mentions, what could be that chance .... blind luck .... that a writer adopting a personna counld not be recognized; that is the concession McMenamin does make.


Is it beyond reason to suggest ... that PR or the IDI would be capable of
such skill?

With forethought, could you alter your sylistic approach?

Flowers for Algernon

http://classiclit.about.com/od/flowersforalgernon/a/aa_flowersquote.htm


The majority of the words used in the rn are among those most commonly used in the English population .....

voynich ... check out how 'the classic format', the unexpanded version of a rn lies within the rn text, perfect in progression and transition of thought.

check out what percentage of the language in the note suggests nothing about the writer.

The key words of vocabulary .... can be characterized and grouped, their purpose, to add political overtones to 'the piece'.
 
  • #36
SuperDave wrote:
I'm just not sure what you meant.

Alright. "In Patricia Ramsey’s
natural writing, markers P9, P11, P14, and P18 occurred, and the last three
occurred as they do in her request writing. PR11: Absence of periods after capitalized initials
SBTC"

Patsy didn`t use periods in SBTC in her writing samples, but since she does use periods after capitalized letters sometimes, I wouldn`t put much emphasis on them missing in the samples.
 
  • #37
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom3.html

Hi Mysteeri.

please note, the absence of a period following the 'C'. in S.B.T.C,
and as such, appears incomplete (SG copy) and perhaps does not reflect a consistent stylistic form/pattern of the rn writer.
 
  • #38
SuperDave wrote:
I'm just not sure what you meant.

Alright. "In Patricia Ramsey’s
natural writing, markers P9, P11, P14, and P18 occurred, and the last three
occurred as they do in her request writing. PR11: Absence of periods after capitalized initials
SBTC"

Patsy didn`t use periods in SBTC in her writing samples, but since she does use periods after capitalized letters sometimes, I wouldn`t put much emphasis on them missing in the samples.

That's what I thought.
 
  • #39
SuperDave wrote:
"He also noted that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was 'FBI.' Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was 'To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J.' That meant 'To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism.'"

That was interesting since I wondered, how common it is to write F.B.I. I think there`s basis to rule out marker 11: "Absence of periods after capitalized initials SBTC".

This post is from A.K.S.B.S.S.A.S.T.B.M.S.S.

:D


Hi Mysteeri.

note that you placed a period following the final 'S' of your lengthy abbreviation.
 
  • #40
Well, assuming that one has an abundance of faith in stylistics (which I don't at present, .

So the prophecy says. PR-RN Shatterpoint. For your own good, stay out of this affair. I sense a great deal of confusion in you, there is much fear that clouds your judgment.


Forensic stylistics is the application of the science of linguistic stylistics to forensic contexts. The focus of forensic stylistics is written language and, sometimes, spoken language represented in writing, e.g., transcripts of tape recorded conversations, depositions, interviews, etc. The primary application of forensic stylistics is in the area of questioned authorship. Other frequent applications relate to the analysis of meaning in documents such as wills, insurance policies, contracts, agreements, laws, and the analysis of meaning in spoken discourse.

9.1.1 Questioned Authorship

Forensic authorship identification is accomplished through the analysis of style in written language, i.e., linguistic stylistics. Stylistics exploits the two principles of inherent variability in language (see Chapter 3): no two writers of a language write in exactly the same way, and no individual writer writes the same way all the time.
Forensic stylistic analysis makes use of stylistic analysis (stylistics) to reach a conclusion and opinion related to the authorship of a questioned writing within the context of litigation. Stylistics is the scientific study of patterns of variation in written language. The object of study is the language of a single individual (idiolect), resulting in a description of his or her identifying linguistic characteristics.
Typical cases of questioned authorship present a questioned writing to be compared or contrasted to the known reference writings of one or more can- didate authors. Such an analysis is accomplished by examining the writing style of all available questioned and known writings. The writing style is exhibited in underlying linguistic patterns internal to the habitual language used by the author. Results of this analysis may be 1) determination of resemblance of ques- tioned writings to a common cannon of known writings, 2) elimination or identification of one or more suspect authors, or 3) inconclusive with respect to data that support neither elimination nor identification. Models for the study of questioned authorship are presented in Chapter 6. Various types of author- ship cases are summarized in Chapter 11, and examples of style-markers from various authorship cases are provided there also.

This approach to author identification is based on two well-documented facts: author-specific linguistic patterns are present in unique combination in the style of every writer, and these underlying patterns are usually estab- lished enough to be empirically described and measured by careful linguistic observation and analysis, making author identification possible.
A language is at one and the same time owned by its whole group of speakers and uniquely used by individuals from that group. Why one writer chooses one linguistic form over another is the result of differences in what each individually knows of the language, as well as differences in how each one uses the core linguistic knowledge shared by speakers and writers of English.
Individual differences in writing style are, therefore, due to the writer’s choice of available alternatives within a large, shared common stock of lin- guistic forms. At any given moment, a writer picks those elements of language that will best communicate what he or she wants to say. The writer’s “choice” of available alternate forms is often determined by external conditions and then becomes the conscious, semiconscious, subconscious, or (usually) unconscious result of habitually using one form instead of another.
Individuality in writing style results from a given writer’s own unique set of habitual linguistic choices. Identification and analysis of a writer’s choices, i.e., of his or her style-markers, constitute stylistic analysis, which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts.

9.1.2 Semantic and Pragmatic Interpretation of Meaning

The analysis of semantic meaning in words relates to the sense of a word vis- à-vis other words in the language, or to a word’s reference to things, actions, and situations in the world. The analysis of pragmatic meaning in words and sentences is the study of intended meaning, which is distinct from semantic meaning in that a given utterance is interpreted based on the intention of the speaker or writer.
Disputes about the meanings of words and phrases arise when different readers of the same document do not agree as to one or more of the following:

1. The relationship between a word and its defined sense
2. The relationship between a word and its referent
3. The meaning of a word in the context of the phrase, clause, or sentence
4. The meaning of words and phrases in language units beyond the sentence
5. The intended meaning of a word or phrase as different from its lin- guistic meaning

9.2 Legal Definitions of Stylistics

Definitions of forensic stylistics are found in Chapter 4 of McMenamin (1993), which cites two principal sources: Black et al. (1990) and Moenssens et al. (1986:579), both of which are based on the linguistic principle stated by Moenssens et al. that, “… while … a common language is very much rule- governed, there are a great number of underlying parts of the use of language that are characterized by idiosyncratic and individualistic factors and habits” (1986). (Note that the naming confusion between the overarching field of forensic linguistics and one of its subareas, forensic stylistics, is unfortunately reflected in these sources.)

Black et al. define comparative stylistics, and forensic linguistics:

Comparative stylistics. An evidential technique focusing on nonidentity of typist of questioned writings. Matter-of-fact solutions are premised on com- parisons of the numerous stylistic alternatives in grammar and format, and the individualized habits and routine practices inherent in the repetitive reduction of like writings to paper, with emphasis on typewritings. (Black et al., 1990:282)
Forensic linguistics. A technique concerned with in-depth evaluation of linguistic characteristics of text, including grammar, syntax, spelling, vocab- ulary and phraseology, which is accomplished through a comparison of textual material of known and unknown authorship, in an attempt to dis- close idiosyncrasies peculiar to authorship to determine whether the authors could be identical. (Black et al., 1990:648)

Moenssens et al. define forensic linguistic analysis based on United States v. Clifford (1983):

The discipline consists of an evaluation of linguistic characteristics of communications — either written text or the spoken word, including the grammar, syntax, spelling, vocabulary, and phraseology. The evaluation involves a comparison of one or more texts, or one or more samples of speech, that are of known origin for the purpose of disclosing idiosyncrasies peculiar to individuals in order to determine whether the authors or speak- ers could be identical. (Moenssens et al., 1986:578)

Legal precedents related to authorship identification and stylistic analysis may be found in McMenamin (1993, Chapter 5) and at 36 ALR4th 598 (1985).



9.3 Linguistic Stylistics as Evidence

To determine whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact so as to be the basis of admissible evidence under Rule

702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) proposes key questions to be answered, but “the inquiry is a flexible one, and the focus must be solely on principles and methodology ….” The questions are:

1. Can the theory or technique be tested?
2. Has it been tested?
3. Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review and pub- lication?
4. Is the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique known?
5. Can a relevant scientific community be identified?
6. Is there an expressed degree of acceptance of the theory or technique within that community?

The answer to these questions as they relate to linguistic stylistics is yes, with some qualification: the process of testing the theory and practice of authorship identification is continuous (e.g., Brengelman and McMenamin,
2000), and the study of error rates is just beginning, with the first serious attempt in a forensic context to be Chaski (2001).
Since the appearance of Daubert, there have been many interpretations of exactly how to apply it to particular sciences and cases. One example is Risinger and Saks’ (1996:31) specification of questions for the field of forensic document examination. What follows is an adaptation of this list of questions to language and linguistic stylistics, most of which have been discussed in other parts of this book:

1. What characteristics of the language are relevant to specific identifi- cation (individuation)?
2. Which of these characteristics can be separated one from another?
3. Is it possible to assess interdependence among characteristics that are not separable?
4. Is it possible to assess interdependence among those that are separable?
5. Have base-rate incidences been established for each of those charac- teristics in the population of candidates for the source of the writing?
6. Is it possible to distinguish intra- from intersource variation, given: source variation, i.e., that writings from the same source may differ each time, and intercandidate similarity, i.e., different sources may be capable of producing a writing indistinguishable from the writing in question?
7. Can the linguist separate important from unimportant characteristics?
How is this done?

8. Is there a means for gathering and publishing observations?
9. Is there an established taxonomy for organizing observations that lends itself to their systematic description and quantification?
10. Is there a process for generating new hypotheses (to answer the above questions) consistent with all known observations, and potentially able to be falsified through empirical observation?
11. Is there an established protocol for attempting to empirically falsify new hypotheses?
12. Do the linguists who perceive similarities and differences in writings use standardized measurements of some precision?
13. Is the database of examples that defines which characteristics are com- mon and which are unusual open for inspection and evaluation by other linguists or by any interested person?
14. How do linguists explain their findings? (The authors note that describing similarities and differences, asserting that they are common or uncommon, and assigning some to interwriter difference and oth- ers to intrawriter variation do not suffice as a scientific explanation of these same phenomena.)

There are three possible reactions to Daubert; the last of these is the most responsible and constructive direction to follow at present:

1. Settle for the status of linguistic stylistics in federal court to simply be “expert nonscientific testimony” and continue professional and research activities as currently practiced.
2. Resist the suggestions that accompany Daubert’s very narrow defini- tion of science, then attempt to change (broaden) the federal court’s notion of science to include as sufficiently scientific the traditional activities of observation, identification, classification,description, and demonstration, in addition to experimental investigation and theo- retical explanation.
3. Take the position that this is a call to action for forensic linguists, which would mean examining closely the Daubert test with questions like those posed by Risinger and Saks (1996), and setting about doing the research necessary to completely meet the test.

It is also important to take advantage of every possible case that would serve to demonstrate the increasing scientific reliability and validity of lin- guistic stylistics. At present, U.S. v. Van Wyk has been cited as a case demon- strating the weakness of forensic stylistics, so it bears examination.
In Van Wyk, it is clear that the principal focus of the Court’s objections to forensic stylistics was on the witness, an FBI agent who: 1. was not a

linguist, 2. had no undergraduate or graduate degree in anything related to language, 3. had no training in linguistic stylistics, 4. had experience only in Foster’s (2000) text analysis, rejected as nonscientific by linguists, 5. was pointedly proffered as an expert in text analysis, not forensic stylistics, 6. had “attended threat assessment, psychotherapy assessment, and risk assessment seminars that have involved matters related to the assessment of text, taught and conducted research in text analysis, analyzed text …” i.e., all unrelated to stylistics, 7. and in the judge’s words, “relie[d] on ‘external’ and back- ground information, the sum of which is to cast Defendant as a ‘terrorizer’ of women, or as a ‘very bad’ person. [The agent] in effect states that Van Wyk is the author because he is the aggressor, whereas the issue is whether he is the aggressor because he is the author. … [his] testimony regarding these external or extratextual factors is barred.”
It is also important to note that, while the witness was not permitted to testify to his conclusion as to the identity of the author of the unknown writings in U.S. v. Van Wyk, the Court did in fact admit his testimony regarding “the comparison of characteristics or ‘markers’ between writings known to have been authored by Defendant and the writings in which authorship is ‘questioned’ or unknown.”
Allowing such testimony has been repeated in at least one other recent case, U.S. v. Spring (2001), wherein the Court’s response to a request for a Daubert hearing was as follows:

The distinctiveness of any individual, whether it’s a term of expression, tone of voice, accent, vehicles of expression, peculiar words, words attributable to his or her profession or peculiar expertise, all of those … are things that can be considered by a jury in determining the identity of a person … I think it’s absolutely legitimate, and that’s what I’m going to rule.

There will be more opportunities to present the scientific strength of linguistic stylistics, but it must be done by experienced linguists who have a strong background in the analysis of linguistic variation and in the require- ments (discussed here) for scientific evidence (McMenamin, 2001b).
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
46
Guests online
1,539
Total visitors
1,585

Forum statistics

Threads
632,539
Messages
18,628,122
Members
243,189
Latest member
kaylabmaree32
Back
Top