Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight

[voynich]

I find that impossible to believe.As the parent of more than one former 6 yo,a child of that age is pretty much going to conk out cold after a long day.John himself said JB was 'zonked'.
I also don't think that esp. in such a large,dark house,that she would have ventured around by herself at night.

It was Christmas

 

[JMO8778]

Yes,I know it was Christmas,and by the R's own admission,JB had gotten up early and it had been a long day for her.IMO it's expecting too much of a child that age to be able to plan and stay awake,waiting on someone....even going downstairs in the dark alone,eating pineapple while she waited.

 

[Sophie]

Yes,I know it was Christmas,and by the R's own admission,JB had gotten up early and it had been a long day for her.IMO it's expecting too much of a child that age to be able to plan and stay awake,waiting on someone....even going downstairs in the dark alone,eating pineapple while she waited.

Agree, JMO. Being a kid, she had very possibly waited up hours the night before hoping for a glimpse of Santa or out of sheer excitement for Christmas..


Just had the sickening thought, though, that we all know who plays Santa in most families...

 

[Sophie]

Heck, I've said it myself: if IDI weren't so fixated on the DNA, they might actually be able to build a case against an intruder.

*Applause*

There are two IDI candidates in this case whose neglect by IDI is nothing short of staggering given how well they would fit the bill (certainly the bill as written by IDI theorists) but they have been cleared on DNA, I'd assume.

 

[JMO8778]

Agree, JMO. Being a kid, she had very possibly waited up hours the night before hoping for a glimpse of Santa or out of sheer excitement for Christmas..


Just had the sickening thought, though, that we all know who plays Santa in most families...

yes and the R's were questioned about a santa suit *they owned...

 

[voynich]

Yo.



I couldn't say for sure.



For me or against me?



He admits it. That's a good sign.



We've pretty much established the feeling by now. All I can say is that, when involving something like this, I would find it very hard to resist getting inside the subject's head.



Pretty much.



Yeah, I suppose we could. Might be interesting. That assumes of course that something like that was not done to begin with. Here's what I mean: you start out looking for the differences, like everyone's taught to do here (ideally, anyway). But you're not going to ignore the similarities either, are you? Actually, I'll go further than that. Like I said, even if everyone has 10 or 20 common similarities, that's a far cry from 200+.



On the other side of it, how often do the two Rs use words like "victory," "country," "not particularly," "and hence," etc? You get what I mean?

It's not really on subject, but I have to know. I heard somewhere that linguistics was invented by Noam Chomsky. Is that true? Because if it is, I've got a whole new set of problems.



Well, that's kind of what madeleine was saying, voynich: that theory has been around long before the "psychics" got to it. That's the Lou Smit theory. Don't forget for a minute that I used to be a follower of that very idea. Until certain things failed to add up.



You've got me interested. Please go on.



I think I've done you a disservice, voynich. Specifically, I keep hammering at this notion of the holistic approach, but I don't think I've ever explained what I mean by that. It refers to taking the case as a whole, not just one bit here and one bit there. It's a question of how everything fits together. You feel the DNA is valid. I respect that. The problem is, like so much of the IDI "evidence," it's just sort of random. It doesn't really fit into a larger framework. Certain people around here talk about the "Gumby and Pokey" syndrome, but to me, that's a big case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I guess what I'm saying is that not everything you find at a crime scene is part of the crime. And I know a fair number of LE professionals who will tell you just that (Tom Haney I know will). Only in Hollywood does every single thing "click" together all kosher. I've been studying true crime since I was in middle school, and I have yet to find a case where literally every single element fit together like they do in the movies. If you think you can find one, be my guest.

If you're alluding to Noam Chomsky's radical left politics, well politics aside he is a contributor but the field itself predates him, and is related to "philology" or the scientific study of human languages.

""victory," "country," "not particularly," "and hence," etc?" really depends on the context. Country is pretty common. Keep in mind that I started using word "midichlorians" and "we're gonna die" "sith" "at last we will reveal ourselves to the jedi, at last we will have our revenge" "we'll handle this" after watching that wretched awful Phantom menace.

Within the JIDI, maybe PR was telling the truth she didn't recall the pineapple, and either BR took it out, or JB helped herself, and maybe she did eat it on the table in the kitchen after everyone fell asleep "waiting for a secret visit from Santa Claus"

Ever hear of cookies for Santa?

Is there any way to trace her final movements from the bedroom to the basement? Which specific rooms were she in, when, for how long, in what sequence, from bedroom to basement?

 

[BBB167893]

If you're alluding to Noam Chomsky's radical left politics, well politics aside he is a contributor but the field itself predates him, and is related to "philology" or the scientific study of human languages.

Okay. (And I was referring to his politics.)

""victory," "country," "not particularly," "and hence," etc?" really depends on the context.

Granted. But keep in mind: that was just off the top of my head. There's more. I'm gathering it.

Country is pretty common. Keep in mind that I started using word "midichlorians" and "we're gonna die" "sith" "at last we will reveal ourselves to the jedi, at last we will have our revenge" "we'll handle this" after watching that wretched awful Phantom menace.

You and a few other people.

Within the JIDI, maybe PR was telling the truth she didn't recall the pineapple, and either BR took it out, or JB helped herself, and maybe she did eat it on the table in the kitchen after everyone fell asleep "waiting for a secret visit from Santa Claus"

BR taking it out I can buy, but he's never mentioned it. You'd think he would, considering how important it is. As for JB eating it herself at the table, several people have said that JB couldn't reach it. So how could she do it?

Ever hear of cookies for Santa?

Course I have! I was a kid once.

Is there any way to trace her final movements from the bedroom to the basement? Which specific rooms were she in, when, for how long, in what sequence, from bedroom to basement?

If there were, we'd be closer to breaking this thing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight, not clumsy or random like an RDI spin, a more elegant weapon from a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations the JIDI knights were the guardians of truth and justice in the old investigation. Before the dark times. Before the RDI spin team. Now the case has gotten so old that an intruder is about to get away with murder. The RDI was seduced by the dark side of spin.

YouTube - Yoda vs. Darth Sidious-Episode III

Here are some other forensic linguists


John Olsson The Forensic Linguistics Institute investigates the language of crime and ... John Olsson presented the faculty with his latest research on authorship. www.thetext.co.uk/

wrote

JOHN OLSSON. Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime and the law.

click here
http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

"The book is intended to be the core text for forensic linguistic courses at undergraduate level,"

speaks of McM methodology as scientific, accepted by linguistics, and empirical validated.

He also writes of RN

http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

rejects the null hypothesis of dual authors


Who is John Olsson?

John Olsson, the world's first full time forensic linguist, has been serving as an independent expert since 1994. He has handled more than 300 major cases, making him one of the world's most experienced in this field.

http://www.thetext.co.uk/john_olsson.html

Gerald R McMenamin himself has been citations include
# Attributing Authorship: An Introduction by Harold Love
* page 111, page 116, Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
# Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy
* page 138, and page 140

# Discourse Analysis: An Introduction by Alexandra Georgakopolou
# Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes by Roger Shuy
# Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp
* page 284

# Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System (Language in Society) by John Gibbons
* Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide by Roger W. Shuy on page 138
* Economics of Information Security (Advances in Information Security) by L. Jean Camp on page 284


Just as there are Jonbenet forum, there's forums for linguists and forensic linguists, here is one


http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000931.php

Alan Perlman states I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases. I'll probably be going to LA later this month to testify.

here are some quotes:

As a forensic linguist I find many (but not all) of the comments on this page quite fascinating. I suppose about as fascinating as a geneticist would find the comments of a group of forensic linguists who knew little or nothing about genetics. I'm particularly amused that people should think of Don Foster as a 'forensic linguist'. He certainly did some clever attribution stuff and has a 'theory' that we all use language uniquely, but he has published - to my knowledge - absolutely nothing on the subject. Unfortunately there are those in the FBI who think he's an expert. It's a joke. Some of your comments on this page were quite good. You correctly point out that a lot of this started with Jan Svartvik, and you correctly point out that people like Gerald McMenamin and Roger Shuy are very impressive in what they do, as is Kniffka. Do drop by my site at any time. I did a lot of work on the language surrounding Andrew Gilligan's claims about his 'source', also analyses of the 'anthrax' envelopes, the men accused of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, etc.
Posted by: John Olsson at November 18, 2003 11:14 AM


Hello, all. I'm delighted that I found this site.

I'm a forensic linguist (PhD, University of Chicago). I do both copyright and authorship work, and I've had quite a few interesting cases. I'll probably be going to LA later this month to testify.

I agree that Don Foster is not the real thing. He draws all kinds of indirect literary parallels on the basis of puns, allusions, subconscious references, and other matters that real linguists do not deal with. He psychloigizes about his subjects.

As Professor McMenamin has pointed out, he becomes fascinated with his own media glory (whereas in reality he's a classic case of being in the right place at the right time, with his timely identification a new Shakespearean sonnet right at the time when people were wondering about the author of "Primary Colors"); he vacillates wiith circumstances(instead of gathering data to confirm or support a hypothesis); he gets the linguistics wrong, and, worst of all, he takes credit for inventing a field that is hundreds of years old and had already been used in many legal cases.

Forensic linguistics, correctly practiced, is part art and part science. As Rogey Shuy has pointed out, it is good linguistics practiced within a legal context. What I report to my clients is not literary or abstruse. It involves specific linguistic data and my impartial evaluation of them.

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan

Best regards to all...and comments welcome.

Alan
Posted by: Alan Perlman at February 23, 2004 06:50 PM

To S. Shaw:

Please see Foster's own book, Author Unknown, p. 5: "I was now [1996] presented with a fresh challenge: to develop a science of literary forensics...".

This statement, plus failure to acknowledge the vast body of forensic linguistic research and application, supports my claim (shared by Prof. McMenamin).

Alan Perlman, PhD

An introduction to forensic linguistics: language in evidence By Malcolm Coulthard, Alison Johnson reviews Gerald R McMenamin

http://books.google.com/books?id=RQ...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

and concludes that when another forensic linguist uses the same methodology as McMenanmin, in another case, the husband admitted to typing the letter. (Eagelton)



- Forensic Linguistics Advances In Forensic Stylistics , which you can download and read for yourself here: http://www.filestube.com/8ab5481c3a4ea64d03e9/details.html

or buy it here: Amazon.com: Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics (9780849309663): Gerald R. McMenamin: Books

or read it partially online here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oF...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Bumping this thread for Murri...

http://books.google.com/books?id=oFMW8RZmhSkC&dq=jonbenet%20An%20introduction%20to%20forensic%20linguistics%3A%20language%20in%20evidence%20%20By%20Malcolm%20Coulthard%2C%20Alison%20Johnson&source=gbs_similarbooks

Its one thing to say 'oh PR wrote the note' its another when we get to read and witness some actual methodology beyond 'it sounds like a southern woman to me'. McM's book and the study of PR vs. the ransom note author is by far the most definitive work RDI or IDI and guess what: According to this professor of linguistics there's no way PR wrote the note. No ax to grind, no vested interest, not paid for by RST.

 

[BBB167893]

Its one thing to say 'oh PR wrote the note' its another when we get to read and witness some actual methodology beyond 'it sounds like a southern woman to me'.

I'd be happy to show you the methodology behind it.

McM's book and the study of PR vs. the ransom note author is by far the most definitive work RDI or IDI

Are you kidding? A guy who was never even part of the investigation for either side and never saw all of the evidence produces "the definitive work?" That's pretty hard to swallow.

and guess what: According to this professor of linguistics there's no way PR wrote the note. No ax to grind, no vested interest, not paid for by RST.

And no point. Even if I felt that linguistic analysis were a real science, and not just a bunch of snake-oil salesmen trying to beat each other out of fame and contracts, I'd be hard-pressed to take the word of one who never even worked the case over one who did.

As for me, THIS is all I need:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4497793&postcount=101"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - To those of you sitting on the fence....[/ame]

And that's only a SMALL sample, but it was good enough to shake voynich to his core.

But if you want to play the game, pilgrim, I'll oblige ya:

http://alinguistic.blogspot.com/2007/10/becker-barbara-j.html

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As for me, THIS is all I need:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - To those of you sitting on the fence....

And that's only a SMALL sample, but it was good enough to shake voynich to his core.

But if you want to play the game, pilgrim, I'll oblige ya:

[URL]http://alinguistic.blogspot.com/2007/10/becker-barbara-j.html[/URL]

my bold

I'm sure you will. After all, its a nice safe comfortable game. Your bad guy is a mild mannered CEO with no criminal record whatsoever, right? Not turning over too many rocks, eh?

Pathetic.

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

I'm sure you will.

You know me: I aim to please.

After all, its a nice safe comfortable game. Your bad guy is a mild mannered CEO with no criminal record whatsoever, right?

The idea that my "bad guy" as you put it is a family member is in ANY way safe or comfortable is BEYOND ridiculous, HOTYH. I've told you that before. I guess it didn't take.

(And he doesn't seem all that mild-mannered to me.)

Not turning over too many rocks, eh?

I spent quite a few years "turning over rocks" as you put it. But the line between reasonable and ridiculous has to be drawn somewhere. As my father always said, "always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

Pathetic.

No, HOTYH; I'll TELL you what's pathetic: the fact that people would rather believe in some random bogeyman than face some unpleasant facts.

I have my reasons for believing what I do. So don't insult me, my friend, until you walk a mile in my boots.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I spent quite a few years "turning over rocks" as you put it.

Quite a few years turning over rocks, eh?

What rocks?

Keeping in mind that you were once IDI, the ransom note author himself claims belong to foreign faction with disrespect for the country JR's business was 'serving', has a problem with 'fat cats', the paintbrush says KOREA, and the ransom note ends with Victory! and SBTC.

Again, what rocks were those?

 

[BBB167893]

Quite a few years turning over rocks, eh?

What rocks?

Let's see. I entertained all kinds of ideas: pedophile creep, kidnapping gone bad, vengeful employee, child ring, local extremists, even a pageant mother angry that her daughter lost.

Keeping in mind that you were once IDI, the ransom note author himself claims belong to foreign faction with disrespect for the country JR's business was 'serving', has a problem with 'fat cats', the paintbrush says KOREA, and the ransom note ends with Victory! and SBTC.

Again, what rocks were those?

Sorry to disappoint you, HOTYH, but I never considered a foreign element, at least not the way you're thinking.

 

[Tadpole12]

http://alinguistic.blogspot.com/2007/10/becker-barbara-j.html

bump for reread.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Let's see. I entertained all kinds of ideas: pedophile creep, kidnapping gone bad, vengeful employee, child ring, local extremists, even a pageant mother angry that her daughter lost.



Sorry to disappoint you, HOTYH, but I never considered a foreign element, at least not the way you're thinking.

So we haven't turned over ANY foreign rocks? Zero? Herein lies the problem.

Not knowing what SBTC stands for plus unknown male DNA all over the place that can't be traced to anyone in a 200 man radius, you'd think MAYBE they'd turn over JUST ONE foreign rock. Know what I mean? Otherwise what if it DOES turn out to be SFF? They might all get fired due to lack of circumspection, laziness, and complacency. Havng been persuing the housecat instead of a real criminal.

 

[madeleine]

ST's book,chapter 13

".............,and contacted seventeen states and two foreign countries"....

does anyone know what foreign countries?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So we haven't turned over ANY foreign rocks? Zero? Herein lies the problem.

Not knowing what SBTC stands for plus unknown male DNA all over the place that can't be traced to anyone in a 200 man radius, you'd think MAYBE they'd turn over JUST ONE foreign rock. Know what I mean? Otherwise what if it DOES turn out to be SFF? They might all get fired due to lack of circumspection, laziness, and complacency. Havng been persuing the housecat instead of a real criminal.

ETA: turned over foreign rocks in the context of the ransom note and IDI, not exclusively in persuit of RDI as has been the typical behavior for LE.

 

[BBB167893]

So we haven't turned over ANY foreign rocks? Zero? Herein lies the problem.

Not knowing what SBTC stands for plus unknown male DNA all over the place that can't be traced to anyone in a 200 man radius, you'd think MAYBE they'd turn over JUST ONE foreign rock. Know what I mean?

Well, from what I understand, Mitch Morissey was game.

Otherwise what if it DOES turn out to be SFF?

I'm not laying money on it, if that's what you mean.

They might all get fired due to lack of circumspection, laziness, and complacency.

Boy, you just made THE single best argument I've ever heard for sacking the entire staff of the DA's office!

Havng been pursuing the housecat instead of a real criminal.

Come again, good buddy?

ETA: turned over foreign rocks in the context of the ransom note and IDI, not exclusively in pursuit of RDI as has been the typical behavior for LE.

I figured that's what you meant. And even if I agreed with this propaganda that LE "exclusively" pursued RDI, if I were you, I'd ask myself WHY LE pursued RDI so vigorously. In fact, when I was an IDI like you, I DID ask myself that! How do you think I got where I am?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Come again, good buddy?

Having persued a non-criminal for a crime overflowing with some deeply rooted criminal pathology. Its going to be an embarrassment, like having persued the housecat.

RDI's biggest most ridiculous and glaring mistake, in my view? Presenting the garrote strangulation as something done without an intent to kill, in a direct conflict with the autopsy report. Off the deep end, really.

 

[BBB167893]

Having pursued a non-criminal for a crime overflowing with some deeply rooted pathological criminality. Its going to be an embarrassment.

Well, we'll have to disagree on that, my friend. At least to a degree.

RDI's biggest most ridiculous and glaring mistake, in my view?

I can't wait to hear this.

Presenting the garrote strangulation as something done without an intent to kill, in a direct conflict with the autopsy report.

Except it's NOT in conflict with the autopsy report, HOTYH; directly or indirectly.

But you interest me. I'm suddenly very curious as to what makes you say that it is. Can you help me out?

Off the deep end, really.

If it were as you make out, then I'd have to agree. Either way, I won't get offended.