Forensic linguist & Jonbenet Ransom study group

[DeeDee249]

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.

Santa Bill gave saliva, hair samples. There was NO evidence linking him to this crime. And there were many more people the Rs "suspected". LHP was immediately mentioned.
I'll admit that the novel written by Janet McReynolds gives me the creeps (WHY would anyone choose to write about that topic?) And the coincidences surrounding the date of the crime and what happened to their own daughter also seem strange. But with both McReynolds' DNA samples in LE databases, and to use Lacy's words: The DNA belongs to the "killer", the DNA was NOT Santa Bill's.

 

[madeleine]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/150171_douglas27.html

Gotta love his excuse.......

"I was still going through rehabilitation. Maybe I shouldn't have analyzed it then," said Douglas, who retired from the FBI in 1995 and now has a Web site and online store -- www.johndouglasmindhunter.com -- related to his work as a criminal profiler.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey Madeleine,

ty for the link:

Still, retired King County police Maj. T. Michael Nault, a former commander of the Green River Task Force, takes a dim view of profiles.
"It never has been an established tool leading to a suspect but always an interesting retrospective comparison," Nault said. "To my knowledge, there is nothing in the art of profiling that would allow a profiler to say this is or is not a note from the killer, either way."


interesting take on profiling.

 

[Tadpole12]

something for thought .... vocab in various grade level spelling lists and top 500 misspelled words,
rn words in SAT list:


Word Groupings:


Idosyncrasies:

attache

and hence

Listen carefully!

good southern common sense

try to grow a brain

gentlemen The two gentlemen/ The Two Gentleman

talking to a stray dog




Top 100 misspelled:

bussiness [business]
posession [possession]
foreign*
immediate*

150 more misspelled:

- •business
- deceive* •deceive
- particularly* •particular
- tomorow •tomorrow
- your* •you're/your


Top 500
advise/ [advize PR sample]
exhaust(ing)


Death and Terrorism:

beheaded
execution
killing
foreign faction
electronic devices
monitor
tactics
scanned



Compound words:

countermeasures*
out smart [outsmart]
pick-up [pick up]
under estimate [underestimate]

un harmed




Outcome:

she dies
under constant scrutiny



The Two Gentleman
http://hudsonshakespeare.org/Shakesp...n_two_gent.htm


100 Most Often Misspelled Words:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/misspelled.html
foreign - Here is one of several words that violate the i-before-e rule. (See "believe" above.)
immediate - The immediate thing to remember is that this word has a prefix, in- "not" which becomes [m] before [m] (or or [p]). "Not mediate" means direct which is why "immediately" means "directly."
its/it's - The apostrophe marks a contraction of "it is." Something that belongs to it is "its."
possession - Possession possesses more s than a snake.

150 More:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/150more.html
•business
•deceive
•particular
•tomorrow
•you're/your

Top 500 misspelled Words:
http://shadowridge.adams12.org/fmoye...n%E2%80%A6.pdf
advise
business
deceive
exhausted
foreign
immediately
individual
its
it’s
particularly
possessions
technique
tomorrow

Contractions
Don't
It is

Conjunctions
and
so




Fourth Grade Spelling Lists:
http://www.ecarter.k12.mo.us/dept/el.../spelling.html

UNIT 2
12. money
Unit 9
Homophones
9. two
17. Your
Unit 10
Vowels with r
13. serve
Unit 16
Words with sh, ch, tch, wh
watch
Unit 18
Easily Confused Words
2. of
3. our
10. are

Unit 20
Double Consonants
1. tomorrow
Unit 26
Correct Letter Order
17. only
Unit 29
Suffixes – less, -ment, -ness
13. business


Spelling List for Sixth Grade
http://www.all-about-spelling.com/sp...6th-grade.html
account
(advice)
business
carefully
delivery
(earliest)
(fiction fraction friction)
foreign
instruction
Mr.
(percent)
(respectful)


8th Grade Spelling List
http://www.yourdictionary.com/gramma...-List-old.html
•business
•country
•deceive

9th Grade Spelling List:
http://www.isle.k12.mn.us/highschool...ing%20List.htm
List 13
(3. gentleman)
List 29
4. technique


High School Level Spelling:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/gramma...ing-Words.html

http://www.pocketbasics.com/GetFile.aspx?ID=83
adequate
advise
device
electronic
familiar
foreigner
gentleman
monitor
per cent
remaining
tactic
(withdrawal)


SAT vocabulary:
http://www.freevocabulary.com/
account n. A record or statement of receipts and expenditures, or of business transactions.
(advisory adj. Not mandatory.)
arrange v. To put in definite or proper order.
attache n. A subordinate member of a diplomatic embassy.
deceive v. To mislead by or as by falsehood.
exhaust v. To empty by draining off the contents.
faction n. A number of persons combined for a common purpose.
foreign adj. Belonging to, situated in, or derived from another country.
possession n. The having, holding, or detention of property in one's power or command.
tactics n. Any maneuvering or adroit management for effecting an object.
__________________

 

[BBB167893]

Um, I have something. It doesn't really fit in here, but it's extremely interesting nonetheless:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/TalkForensics/2009/09/13/Cina-Wong-Forensic-Document-Examiner

So take a listen. I hope you enjoy it.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD.

That was a treat; 254 significant similarities. Its quite tell tale.

Darn stattic.

Have you seen CW's material, Wong's comparisons which were included in Dresbold's book?

CW: The Ramseys attorney has been very vigilant in suing those that have been negative about the Ramseys, in CW opinion, the Ramseys had PR people, early on, to disperse information.

 

[cami]

Handwriting experts agree JR did not handwrite the note. They seem evenly divided over PR.

Forensic linguists also exclude JR as the author of the note. It also excludes PR, and exclusion is more straightforward than inclusion.

So since neither PR nor JR wrote the RN, in combination with touch DNA and unidentified fiber evidence, and a similar assault on Amy 9 months later (the CASKU analysis did not factor related crimes) the conclusion is inescapable: IDI.

I don't see any inescapable conclusion that an intruder wrote this note, nor was ever in the Ramsey home.

 

[anne11]

My internet connection is dial-up and i cannot download the McMenamin book, can anyone tell me the conclusion on the ransom note, thanks in advance!

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.

That was a treat; 254 significant similarities. Its quite tell tale.

Darn stattic.

Excellent!

Have you seen CW's material, Wong's comparisons which were included in Dresbold's book?

YUP! I was lucky: I bought an early edition of the book before those charts had to be taken out. With any luck, maybe I'll be able to convince her to let me use them in mine.

CW: The Ramseys attorney has been very vigilant in suing those that have been negative about the Ramseys, in CW opinion, the Ramseys had PR people, early on, to disperse information.

It's not just her opinion. MANY people have remarked on them doing that. Did you catch the part where she said she noticed suspicious cars following her? When I heard that, all I could think of was what happened to Tom Miller. It was deja vu all over again.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't see any inescapable conclusion that an intruder wrote this note, nor was ever in the Ramsey home.

Ah, that's the dealbreaker right there, isn't it? In order to prove someone else wrote it, you have to prove someone else was there.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi SD.

YUP! I was lucky: I bought an early edition of the book before those charts had to be taken out. With any luck, maybe I'll be able to convince her to let me use them in mine.

That's cool, wouldn't hurt to ask, would make an excellent inclusion for your book.

It's not just her opinion. MANY people have remarked on them doing that. Did you catch the part where she said she noticed suspicious cars following her? When I heard that, all I could think of was what happened to Tom Miller. It was deja vu all over again.

Yes. Very unnerving for Cina Wong, especially since she's been a victim of harassment in her past.

 

[madeleine]

Ah, that's the dealbreaker right there, isn't it? In order to prove someone else wrote it, you have to prove someone else was there.

:clap: same with the pineapple,cord,tape and everything else!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HI,

for those who want to know more about modern forensic linguistics and the Jonbenet letter,

Gerald R McMenamin - Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics
pdf

go to

http://rapidlibrary.com/

type in
McMenamin

you'll be taken here
http://rapidlibrary.com/download_fi...guistics+Advances+In+Forensic+Stylistics+.pdf

Please ENTER CODE to download this file, enter code,
download, need adobe acrobat

Server: rapidshare.com
Size: 59.55M

first several chapters on who he is, what he testifies, what courts accept, how and what of forensic linguist methodology, and one chapter on JB RN.

A must read for anyone seriously interested in JB and the question: "Did JR or PR write the RN, using methods of forensic linguistics?"

What does an academic forensic linguist think of Donald Foster's method, and "psycholinguist" that the RN was written by an middle age, white female mother dying of cancer?

and was written several years prior (around 2000) to the announcement of touch DNA results.

There's DNA in JBR's underwear that PR/JR doesn't own. There's linguistics in the RN that PR/JR doesn't own either.

Just thought I'd bump this thread up because McMenamin, a linguistic expert, took a stand before ML and there was no political motivation.

 

[tapu]

Hey, I didn't know all this was here!


I see someone else posted about exposing the baseless nature of profiling....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hey, I didn't know all this was here!


I see someone else posted about exposing the baseless nature of profiling....

I don't think anybody knows what you're talking about.

 

[tapu]

Sorry. I commented on the posts in this thread that question the validity of criminal profiling.

On your "Linguistics" thread, I, too, criticize profiling.

Better?

 

[claudicici]

I knew what you were talking about tapu
I think profiling is really interesting,of course it's not always exact and sometimes doesn't even come close,it's not even really a "fair" thing to do,it's really the same as stereotyping....anyways I still think a profiler with a lot experience and common sense can really help crack a case...

 

[tapu]

Seems like the "evidence" for profiling is always along the lines of, "Well, we said he'd be in his 20s, and he was in his 30s, so that's close"; and "We told you he'd be a male who lived nearby." Etc.

Even the story of the Mad Bomber case, touted as the first major triumph of "profiling" (before it was named), has been proven false. Only the most general of characteristics, e.g., male, matched the Bomber. The oft-cited specific details, the best example of which is that he'd be "wearing a double-breasted suit, isn't true. Newspaper photos show that.

I have print articles where academics explain the debunking of profiling. I will see if I can find anything online.