Forensic linguist & Jonbenet Ransom study group

[Sophie]

QUOTE=SuperDave;4087985]That's the problem as I see it.



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.



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.[/QUOTE]



:clap:

 

[voynich]

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.

The entire pdf or only chapter 10?

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD,

YO!

Hey SD ... I was wondering about this issue, within your book.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, Tadpole, but the issue doesn't get much mention at all. There's maybe three paragraphs that talk about it, and even then, I don't attack or defend it one way or another. I use it as an example of how Alex Hunter was undercutting his own witnesses. Basically, it tells how Hunter was perfectly willing to back linguistics to the hilt, UNTIL he got the one answer he didn't want. (voynich won't address that issue, but I'm hoping you will. I've got an excellent article on it.)

How to you weigh McMenamin vs other experts, is it a tally of sorts?

I don't weigh it at all. But if I did--and keep in mind that there's still time for rewrites--I'm not sure how I'd go about it.

Do you mention, consider McMenamin?

No, I don't. Haven't got any real reason.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Like I've said before, voynich, I believe my own eyes. I can't not see what my eyes see.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Sure sounds familiar.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD.



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

ya ... I've been wondering about a circumstance, where the outcome of both analysis would be correct; with the constraints of the 400 word sample size of the rn and the ransom note being written as a work of fiction, if that would somehow explain both set of findings.


just browsing through the summaries of some journal entries on linguistics, and it's a fascinating science.

 

[voynich]

Like I've said before, voynich, I believe my own eyes. I can't not see what my eyes see.

Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

If I might be serious for a moment, voynich, it's a bit more complicated than I may have let on up until now. Linguistics is a relatively new field, and very likely not perfected yet. So for one man who was never even part of the investigations (at ANY time) to say "this is this, and everyone else is wrong" just strikes me as a little too close to self-promotion than I'm comfortable with. To be fair, it wouldn't be the first time someone in the minority has had a leg up on everybody else. I admit that. But when I compare it to the extent of the handwriting analysis itself and the sheer weight of independent-minded expertise that agrees with me (which I note you've done much to become informed about, and I applaud you for it), it's extremely difficult for me to believe that this one thing has everything else outstripped.

Moreover, I've mentioned before how what I saw with my own eyes is often the decider. I've also mentioned the side-by-side comparison charts that pushed me over in a way that nothing else can. (Those charts aren't available anymore, and that's really a damn shame. At present, I have no way to re-introduce them, either. I'm working very hard on that.)

I realize that's probably not the answer you wanted, and even more likely not the one you were expecting, but it's the only answer I can give you.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.



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

ya ... I've been wondering about a circumstance, where the outcome of both analysis would be correct; with the constraints of the 400 word sample size of the rn and the ransom note being written as a work of fiction, if that would somehow explain both set of findings.


just browsing through the summaries of some journal entries on linguistics, and it's a fascinating science.

Well, I say godspeed. What I meant was it may not be me who finds such a person. It might be the police. I realize it's not "proof," but there was just something in the way Beckner said it...

 

[BBB167893]

Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.

I had a feeling you'd say that! But all I can say is that, with the life I've led, there's not much else I CAN trust.

 

[Tadpole12]

Moreover, I've mentioned before how what I saw with my own eyes is often the decider. I've also mentioned the side-by-side comparison charts that pushed me over in a way that nothing else can. (Those charts aren't available anymore, and that's really a damn shame. At present, I have no way to re-introduce them, either. I'm working very hard on that.)

I realize that's probably not the answer you wanted, and even more likely not the one you were expecting, but it's the only answer I can give you.

SD,

what's the original source of these charts, that were available online?

 

[voynich]

I had a feeling you'd say that! But all I can say is that, with the life I've led, there's not much else I CAN trust.

Come, Dave. See for yourself. Figures 10.1-10.12 From here you will witness the final destruction of the RDI Alliance, and the end of your insignificant R[DIST]ebellion.

 

[BBB167893]

SD,

what's the original source of these charts, that were available online?

If you mean who made them, it was Tom Miller, if memory serves.

 

[claudicici]

...I never knew that Bill McReynolds'handwriting could have matched the ransome note...how frail exactly was he?...other than patsy he's the only one I was suspicious of ,ever...

 

[anne11]

I wonder if its possible to age the writer of the RN by the use of an arial/typewriter style "a" (or even place them geographically).

 

[Tadpole12]

I wonder if its possible to age the writer of the RN by the use of an arial/typewriter style "a" (or even place them geographically).

Hi Anne.

Yes, interesting point.

add to that, a subgroup that would use an 'e' with an accent egout.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi voynich.

I graded, as best I could the rn, using the ESL sheet, and well ....
'Norman, failed miserably.

Reading McM, individual stylstics distinguish one from the norm, and prescriptive conformity sets the patterns within that norm.

Voynich, with each word or grouping within the rn, the writer removes himself from the norm. The errors are consistent and systematic.
The question is could they be purposefull.

 

[Sophie]

Voynich, finally got round to reading some of the McMenamin thing this afternoon and plan to finish it now.

It is certainly an impressive bit of scholarship but I think he falls down dramatically on one point. Sorry to leave you on a cliffhanger (LOL) but I'll just pass this point by my sister to see if I'm missing a point that would be obvious to linguists, then I'll get back to you.

Thanks for finding this, BTW: excellent addition to the body of work on JBR.

 

[Sophie]

...I never knew that Bill McReynolds'handwriting could have matched the ransome note...how frail exactly was he?...other than patsy he's the only one I was suspicious of ,ever...

Hi Claudici, Dave or DeeDee probably know more about this, but I gather he was pretty frail following heart surgery. The thing about him was that he was a biggish man and probably couldn't have used the Lou Smit method to get into the house. He was also a human bigfoot so I don't see how he could have failed to have left more evidence of his presence. Lots of people spoke of his sexuality, but the implications they were making more-or-less excluded him from consideration since homosexuals are much less frequently paedophiles than heterosexuals.

I know Ann Rule thinks he should have been looked at much more closely but, as I understand it, he was investigated inside out.

 

[voynich]

Voynich, finally got round to reading some of the McMenamin thing this afternoon and plan to finish it now.

It is certainly an impressive bit of scholarship but I think he falls down dramatically on one point. Sorry to leave you on a cliffhanger (LOL) but I'll just pass this point by my sister to see if I'm missing a point that would be obvious to linguists, then I'll get back to you.

Thanks for finding this, BTW: excellent addition to the body of work on JBR.

As HOTYH would say, it really is the definitive work