Linguistics

[Holdontoyourhat]

If the piece is published on the internet, as you imply, then excerpts are permissible. Practically anything is permissible, in fact, as long as you don't intend to make money off it.

PR and JR are, arguably, public personas now. So we can name them. Other potential suspects are considered private persons and cannot be named here. However, it doesn't count if you post writing excepts and someone else goes and looks up who it is.


edit: regarding your immediately previous post, you are the only person to suggest this person as a suspect?? if so, well.... knock yourself out with that. if not, then you are not "implicating" them in a crime. Actually, you aren't anyway.

OK bye.

 

[cynic]

Have you had any further opportunity to look at this?
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6404"]Analysis of the Linguistics and Handwriting in the Ramsey Ransom Note - Forums For Justice[/ame]

 

[tapu]

That's the one that is a post on a forum? I looked over it but I couldn't tell whether this was a lay person citing other people's work or... what.

It did not seem worth going through given how much there was of it, how it seemed to be second-hand analysis, and the garbled nature of some of it.

Did I miss something? If its the first-hand work of someone with cred, I would love to consider it again in that light.

 

[cynic]

That's the one that is a post on a forum? I looked over it but I couldn't tell whether this was a lay person citing other people's work or... what.

It did not seem worth going through given how much there was of it, how it seemed to be second-hand analysis, and the garbled nature of some of it.

Did I miss something? If its the first-hand work of someone with cred, I would love to consider it again in that light.

It's entirely the analysis of the poster "Cherokee."

 

[tapu]

I just went back there and I really don't think it's worth looking at.

The first part of his analysis in the first post starts with something like "As soon as I read the ransom note, I knew it was fake."

That tells me this guy has no idea how to approach a scientific analysis.

The second post purports to analyze "linguistically" the sentence about "we are a small group...." His says that we is the subject, are is the verb, and group is the object noun.

All right, so the guy doesn't know basic syntax. "Are" is the copula (to be) and it has no object. The relationship between the two nouns is one of reciprocity (or can be described as attributive), not subject-verb.

I'm not trying to be an with these explanations--that's just the language of linguistics.

 

[tapu]

It's entirely the analysis of the poster "Cherokee."

Well, it's not. Sorry, but it can't be entirely his. Nearly every point in it is something that's documented elsewhere. Cherokee did not independently assess language in the RN as "motherly," for example. Nearly every point he states is from elsewhere. He states this in his opening so I don't think i"m accusing him of claiming authorship falsely.

 

[cynic]

Well, it's not. Sorry, but it can't be entirely his. Nearly every point in it is something that's documented elsewhere. Cherokee did not independently assess language in the RN as "motherly," for example. Nearly every point he states is from elsewhere. He states this in his opening so I don't think i"m accusing him of claiming authorship falsely.

From my reading of the preface, the implication seems to be that the analysis is primarily their own, but I could be wrong.

Much of this same work has been presented by various linguists, graphologists and document examiners. I do not pretend to break new ground or make startling revelations. I am only posting my own analysis and research. Most of it was done before I ever came to the forums.

I have found people and web sites devoted to linguistic statement analysis, handwriting analysis, and exemplar comparison of the ransom note, but none that combine all three areas of analysis into a composite picture. Of course, opinions on the Ramsey case, and particularly on the ransom note, are a dime a dozen. All I can offer is what I have done with the knowledge I have.

Because this kind of analysis is a subjective science, there can be disagreement as to the correct interpretation and conclusion. Therefore, confirmation of a conclusion from multiple, and varied, approaches is the best way to insure an accurate interpretation of data. That is why I think it is important that more than ONE area of analysis be used to determine the authorship of the Ramsey “ransom note.” By itself, linguistics is not enough, graphology is not enough, and exemplar comparison is not enough ... but taken together, they offer a more complete picture of the truth.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

edit: regarding your immediately previous post, you are the only person to suggest this person as a suspect?? if so, well.... knock yourself out with that. if not, then you are not "implicating" them in a crime. Actually, you aren't anyway.

Maybe I dont understand what this means.

While you present yourself as an unbiased fence-sitter leaning this way and that, the only suspects that can be rationally considered are suspects already in the pool of known suspects? Isn't this rather limiting, what with 7 billion people on Earth?

Spoken almost in the same sentence as 'how to approach a scientific analysis'? :laugh:

Is this for real or what?

 

[tapu]

I do see how it can be taken the way you explain it, but it can be taken as his gathering what others have said (his research) and putting it in his own words. The additions he makes throughout are mostly unsupported opinions--not facts or independent reasoning.

Anyway, we know that gist of pretty much all the contents of that post appears elsewhere, after having been put forth by a variety of people considered to be experts, so Cherokee is presenting known info and organizing it in a way that is useful to himself and perhaps to others. Thass cool....

 

[tapu]

Maybe I dont understand what this means.

While you present yourself as an unbiased fence-sitter leaning this way and that, the only suspects that can be rationally considered are suspects already in the pool of known suspects? Isn't this rather limiting, what with 7 billion people on Earth?

Spoken almost in the same sentence as 'how to approach a scientific analysis'? :laugh:

Is this for real or what?

Oh, good, you're back. I certainly don't want you to leave--despite that pointing and laughing little thing there.

I'm not unwilling to accept a new suspect. But I am quite reluctant to accept a newly suggested suspect if no evidence has been presented to me, if the person suggesting the suspect is someone that--as far as I know--has no connection to the crime other than what they read, and if the suspect is not one that has been considered by others--such as detectives and investigators.

I could be factually wrong on a lot of things I just said; nonetheless, my point is that it would take some convincing before I'd give such a claim any credence. In short, you wouldn't have seen me running off to Thailand to arrest John Mark Karr.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not unwilling to accept a new suspect. But I am quite reluctant to accept a newly suggested suspect if no evidence has been presented to me, if the person suggesting the suspect is someone that--as far as I know--has no connection to the crime other than what they read, and if the suspect is not one that has been considered by others--such as detectives and investigators.

I'm not unwilling to accept a new suspect.

OK you're willing to accept a new suspect but you're 'quite reluctant' to accept a new suspect:

1. if no evidence has been presented to me (this seems fair).
2. if the person suggesting the suspect is someone that--as far as I know--has no connection to the crime other than what they read (this is reaching. do you think I might have a connection to the crime beyond what I've read? Really?)
3. if the suspect is not one that has been considered by others--such as detectives and investigators.(I should hope that actual LE isn't applying this kind of discrimination. Of course it would answer a LOT of questions. Maybe they should try profiling, psychics, internet theorists, or whatever works.)

I'm not unwilling to accept a new suspect.

Quite reluctant?

A bit picky considering 14 years and no viable suspects in sight. In fact, the lack of a DNA match suggests the pool of known suspects isn't valid.

 

[tapu]

Hat, we're debating on a forum. There is no need to get in a snit.

Anyway, show me some evidence, or explain how you came to your conclusions, and/or what your other connection is to the case (I think you may have left a word out in what you said about that, but I'm not sure).

At least describe what details you've been considering to arrive at this new suspect. It can't be the writings you have, as you say you want an analysis of them. Although... if they might provide some evidence, cough them up please.

 

[tapu]

Sleepy time....

See you all tomorrow.

~tap

 

[DeeDee249]

There may be 7 billion potential "suspects" on this planet, but only THREE of them were in the house the night JB was killed. And only TWO of them left fibers from clothing worn THAT NIGHT on the victim. So I'd say that narrows the pool just a bit.

 

[tapu]

Three of them? I thought the presence of other(s) was the main point of contention here.

Nonetheless, your point is well-taken. I personally think we can rule out all children under 5, and the inhabitants of Luxembourg. Just for starters.

 

[MurriFlower]

Three of them? I thought the presence of other(s) was the main point of contention here.

Nonetheless, your point is well-taken. I personally think we can rule out all children under 5, and the inhabitants of Luxembourg. Just for starters.

DD believes if she states her case strong enough and often enough, it will convince everyone that she has the facts right. BTW I wouldn't rule out the Luxembourgeners completely LOL.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

DD believes if she states her case strong enough and often enough, it will convince everyone that she has the facts right. BTW I wouldn't rule out the Luxembourgeners completely LOL.

How does a fat cat get fat anyway? From eating too many mice. And where are there lots of mice? Where theres a lot of cheese. And where is there lots of cheese?

Luxembourg.





\

 

[DeeDee249]

How does a fat cat get fat anyway? From eating too many mice. And where are there lots of mice? Where theres a lot of cheese. And where is there lots of cheese?

Luxembourg.





\

Oh, brother.

 

[DeeDee249]

DD believes if she states her case strong enough and often enough, it will convince everyone that she has the facts right. BTW I wouldn't rule out the Luxembourgeners completely LOL.

Thank you. That is exactly what I believe. As a matter of fact, I also believe I do have the facts right anyway. Three "suspects" were present in the house while JB was being killed. Her mother, father and brother. These people were KNOWN beyond a doubt to have been there at that time, which is what makes them suspects.
Were there others there as well? I'll add one more possibility. Her half-brother.

 

[MurriFlower]

Thank you. That is exactly what I believe. As a matter of fact, I also believe I do have the facts right anyway. Three "suspects" were present in the house while JB was being killed. Her mother, father and brother. These people were KNOWN beyond a doubt to have been there at that time, which is what makes them suspects.
Were there others there as well? I'll add one more possibility. Her half-brother.

Her half-brother was not in Boulder that night and has an alibi. Many others who were in Boulder that night and DO NOT have an alibi should be considered also. Merely because you did not KNOW they were in the house, does not mean they WERE NOT in the house. There are unidentified fibers and DNA on the crime scene that indicates the likelihood of other(s).