>> 
Thank you, Ellen. Am I
live here?
Can you hear me?
As I'm very fond of saying,
I'm one of the very few
people in the world who has
worked with both the FBI and
the Grateful Dead. And it
was actually quite a
difficult thing for me to
decide to work with the FBI,
back when I started, because
I went from having a folder
on me to working with them.
And... But I worked with the
Behavioral Analysis Unit,
and they are the folks that
are made famous by Criminal
Minds. As a matter of fact,
my FBI partner is the
technical advisor for that.
And I got involved with some
of their cases, and
especially the unit that
deals with sex, serial sex
crimes against children, I
figured they were a good
bunch to be able to support.
And they also, during the
Bush Administration, went
and testified, before
congress, to complain about
the treatment of
interrogates at Guantanamo,
during the Bush
Administration, and they
complained about the
terrible things that the
military and the CIA were
doing. The FBI had been
there, interrogating the
Guantanamo prisoners before
and were not pulling out
their fingernails or water
boarding them, and they were
actually getting very useful
information as well. So
anyway... Usually I begin
with a resume of my legal
qualifications. And I'll
talk about that. But this
being the Polyglot
Conference, I was born into
a Spanish-speaking
neighborhood in Brooklyn. As
a matter of fact, I was the
only English speaker in my
first grade class. One of
the first phrases I learned,
because the teacher only
spoke English, there were no
bilingual aides -- it was
just an English speaking
teacher, me, and 20 Puerto
Rican kids. So one of the
first phrases I learned was
Que dico la bruja. I didn't
know what that meant either.
It meant... What did the
witch say now?
I managed a
(inaudible) in San Juan. But
I can barely speak Spanish
now, because I studied
Swahili so long. And in the
middle of all this, I
discovered linguistics. I
mean, many of us are
polyglots because we love
language. What better also
to study linguistics, which
tells us how language works?
And it was fantastic. And
that's what I have all my
degrees in. So during my
undergraduate days, I wanted
to take a new language, but
as I say here, all the intro
level courses at Columbia
were Monday through Friday
in those days, and out of 55
languages, they were all
taught Monday through
Friday, except for...
Swahili. And as I love to
tell my Swahili students
these days, when I walked
into class the first day, I
couldn't have found Africa
on a map. But I wound up
living there for 7, 8 years,
and it was a great
experience. Also, Swahili --
I just fell in love with it.
Has 15 grammatical genders.
The negative tenses are
different than the positive
tenses. And on like that.
Just fantastic. So I studied
Swahili, I got a Fulbright
fellowship to go to Kenya
for one year and lived there
for 7 years. I studied a lot
of other Bantu languages, I
ran a school out in the
hinterland, in Eastern
Province, with the Akamba
people, and because I
represented the students in
my school, I was forced to
sit on the Elder's Council,
of the Kathigakai, which
means dangerous forest
location of elders. I was a
junior elder at the time.
And I couldn't get enough
Kikamba, and I'm sure a lot
of us have had this
experience. You go to a
place, you try to learn the
local language, but there's
some other language that
it's so much easier for you
to communicate in. Like my
friend -- a guy who studied
Dutch. He could never get
any Dutch people to speak
Dutch to him because they
all spoke such good English.
And it was the same with my
elders. They said -- come
on, let's just speak
Swahili. So I never learned
Kikamba very well. So when I
went to Bangkok, I decided
to study Thai, because I
wanted to go from this
agglutinative language to
this tonal language. But you
know... If you don't
practice, it's hard. So in
England... Now we'll go to
the forensic linguistics.
Once you're qualified, you
can testify. But here, every
single time a court case
happens, you have to prove
yourself again, and of
course, the other side never
wants you to testify. So
these are some of the things
that that we adduce to
qualify. And one of the
reasons I bring this up is
because it's a difficult
thing. You can testify
without a doctorate. You can
testify without all sorts of
stuff, if you're an expert
on a specific topic. But
it's a lot easier. Because
as I said, they fight like
mad. And the last sentence
here is really important.
We're dealing with language.
The other side always
says -- judge, you speak
English. The jury speaks
English. You see?
As if that
meant that they were able to
analyze it. And again, since
we're polyglots, we know
just how much mechanics
there are in language.
Because we've compared them.
I started the only graduate
program or undergraduate
program in forensic
linguistics in the Western
Hemisphere. My British
friends have three programs.
There's one in Spain, in
Barcelona. We also have this
institute, which is our
research arm in special
projects, and a private
consulting group. And
something we're extremely
proud of... I kept getting
letters from prisoners,
asking me... Could I help
them?
They never wrote that
confession that put them in
jail. They didn't write the
text that the police say
they did, and put them on
death row. I was just in
Waco, Texas, a couple of
months ago, on a case like
that. The original Innocence
Project from Yeshiva Law
School mostly does DNA, but
nobody did language
evidence. So I felt mostly
unable to navigate appeals,
so I teamed up with a great
law professor,
constitutional law, a guy
named Eric Freedman at
Hofstra. Now we have an
ongoing forensic linguistics
capital case. Of course we
give first call to people
who are actually on death
row right now. So forensic
linguistics is a combination
of two words that nobody
knows what they mean. It's
really great. And we're not
only forensic. We really do
all sorts of legal stuff.
But it became known as
forensic. So it's the
application of linguistics
to these things. What, you
might ask yourself, in the
law, is not language?
You
testify. You have decisions.
You supposedly confess.
You're interrogated, all
with language. And yet,
people don't analyze it
scientifically. And that's
what we're trying to do. So
we help people who are
not linguists to gain the
maximum intelligence. Expert
witnesses -- their task, as
opposed to fact witnesses,
are to help the trier of
fact, the judge, jury,
whatever, to weigh the
evidence before them. If
they're not experts in
fingerprints, DNA, an expert
comes and explains. And now
we're making a lot of
inroads so that we explain
language evidence to people.
Just in the past ten years,
I've collaborated with every
single one of the categories
that you see on the slide.
And many more. As I keep
saying... What in the law is
not language?
Everything
from patents and trademarks
to multiple homicides. These
are some of the outfits that
I've participated in
training. Including special
units. That's all we're
allowed to call them. In the
UK and Canada and the US.
And Denmark now. And a lot
of defense, as well as
prosecution. I'm very lucky.
Most forensic linguists, and
a lot of experts, are either
defense or prosecution. And
I came in through the case
that you guys are holding,
that Hummert case. Into --
with the prosecution. So I'm
hired by both sides. And
it's actually very, very
good, I must say, for my
understanding of the way
things work. So we do a lot
of civil cases too. An
English contract between
Turkey and Turkmenistan
brought me to Paris to
testify in front of the
World Bank. I was Apple's
expert against Microsoft and
Amazon. Some criminal,
counterterrorism,
intelligence cases. This is,
again, just like the past
two years. 
Look at the
second to the bottom.
Perjury and other language
crimes. That's what Roger
Shuy, the greatest of the
forensic linguists in the
United States, and my mentor
-- he wrote a great book
called Language Crimes.
Realize that there are so
many crimes you can commit
by uttering language.
Perjury, solicitation of
murder, attempted bribery.
Very interesting. And how
are these analyzed in the
courts?
Well, not
scientifically. So we have
developed many, many methods
of dispassionately analyzing
them.
My FBI partner and I, as we
would do training, we would
always say -- language can
solve and prevent crimes.
And every time we would give
a presentation or training
to agents or detectives,
somebody would come out of
the audience and say...
Could you guys look at these
letters we found at the
scene of the crime?
It never
occurred to us they might be
able to be helpful. So in
our intelligence
gathering -- and this,
again, won't be a surprise
to you all -- we can help
identify all these
characteristics of the
person who wrote or spoke.
And what we can do is narrow
the suspect pool. Whether
it's corporate intelligence,
whether it's
counterintelligence. Very,
very useful. That's the
JonBenet Ramsey case, which
I got dragged into when a
guy named Carr came out of
Thailand and claimed to be
involved with the little
girl's death, and I analyzed
the ransom note, I analyzed
his language, and said there
was no connection. Everybody
went berserk. The people who
hired me begged me to say
there was a connection.
Handwriting experts said
there was a connection. And
the DNA came and there was
no connection. He was just
trying to get out of
Thailand ahead of the cops.
And the Boulder police
helped him. This is a famous
case within forensic
linguistics, which means
it's not famous at all. But
it's a well known example
for aficionados, and not
only are we going to look at
this, because it's all over
the web, but some other
stuff. This is just a little
sample menu of the kinds of
things that we need to look
at, when we analyze. But the
most important one is the
bottom one. Unlike most
linguistic analyses, when we
are dealing with ransom
notes or anything that
someone might not willingly
write his own name on the
bottom, we're going to have
to expect disinformation. So
this is my transcription
from a crumpled up piece of
brown paper bag. This is
what the ransom note was
written on. So what do we
see here, instantly?
Come
on. A lot of misspellings.
And what are the
misspellings?
Ks for Cs.
So... You're always testing
competing hypotheses. Maybe
the guy's underlying
language always uses Ks
instead of Cs. But wait a
minute. Then there's
Carlson. There's cash. So
what's going on. What are
some other irregularities or
non-standardisms you see?
Daughter is misspelled. What
else is misspelled?
>> Capitalization.
>> Right. So there's a lot
that... You know, okay. But
what is spelled correctly?
>> The 10,000, having a
comma instead of a period.
>> This is America, so it
makes sense. Right. But very
good. That's exactly the
kind of detail that we look
for, and hold on. Because
the next few slides after
this example, we're going to
get into that kind of thing.
Precious. I can't spell
precious. So this is
somebody who can spell
precious. Okay?
Now, what
else?
What else is telling
us that maybe... This is not
somebody who can't even
spell cops?
>> The lines are all put
together... The dealing is
off... It's not on the same
line.
>> That may be masked from
me doing the transcription.
But very good. And at these
stages, there is no detail
that is not going to be
useful. Because what happens
is... We're profiling now.
Narrowing the suspect pool.
And then if there is a
suspect, we will have all
these things ready to
compare to exemplars.
>> Put it in the trash can?
Instead of all these other
expletives.
>> What else, guys?
Devil
strip. You're all good
readers. That's why you
didn't notice devil strip.
Because devil strip didn't
mean anything to you. It's
not an oversight. It shows
that you know how to read.
Because the better reader
you are, you're more trained
to read instantly. He had a
while to look at this. It
did only take him a minute,
but it doesn't -- you were
going fast. So what is devil
strip?
>> The part of the grass
between the --
>> Oh, go away. You're from
Akron. Exactly. All right.
So Roger Shuy, my mentor...
>> Is that true?
>> It's true. So Roger takes
a look at this. Now, they're
used to us taking five
weeks. You know, the thing I
gave you guys, the
handout... It took us five
weeks. You're going to get
five minutes. So Roger looks
at this and says almost
instantly... Do you have on
your suspect list a
well-educated person from
Akron, Ohio?
They said...
Oh, Roger, does he walk with
a limp?
Does he have a
ripped left sleeve?
Like
Sherlock Holmes. And he said
just look. 
We're hearing
some little kid yell,
"Daddy!"
Having children
myself, my ears perked up
from the old days. Okay, so
what other markers were
there?
Right in front of
your eyes, that would have
told us that this is not
somebody who can't spell
cops?
And this is... I
always use this when I'm
training agents, or defense
lawyers. But mostly agents.
It's that people aren't
trained to analyze language.
They're trained to use
language. And just like with
the reading, it means we
ignore stuff. We take the
lowest hanging fruit. We
assume people are
cooperating with us, and
bang, we go off to the
races. But linguists have to
slow down and try to peel
off... Even though it's
right in front of us.
>> It's very correct. The
instructions are very clear.
Do you ever want, for
example...
>> Yes, it reads very
nicely. Wah!
>> There is coherence. There
is cohesion.
>> Hm.
>> Which is not usual.
>> Hm. It's funny. I was in
London, training people
before... Well, anyway. Here
it's a high-tech place. And
that happened. And these
three guys come up. And they
look at it, and they kick
it. You know. You think
James Bond is going to fly
in. But it doesn't happen.
But here it does. Okay.
Punctuation. Look at the
punctuation. It's perfect!
It's perfect!
See, again,
that was something Roger
noticed instantly too. Good.
More punctuation. Take a
look at that, guys. Is this
writer likely an L1 speaker
of English or French?
English?
Why?
>> The spaces?
>> That's true, but there
are other things that might
run counter to that.
>> I would say the
apostrophes?
>> Well, again, I'm giving
you guys 30 seconds -- not
even -- to take a look at
this. Take a look. Read it
to yourself. Who says...
Come on. The French
pronunciation?
The?
In
English, we'd say... French
pronunciation. We wouldn't
say the French
pronunciation. See?
And also
notice... Punctuations.
Which certainly isn't native
English. It isn't
particularly French. But it
certainly ain't native
English. That was what I was
talking about. Look at this
one. This was from a real
threat case that we had. I
challenge that you have the
right to have her to
yourself. I have known her
since a very long time
myself.
>> Since.
>> Yes. What's the matter
with since?
>> Not English.
>> Not English!
What would
be English?
>> For.
>> Or since 1997 or
something. Right?
Or for a
long time. Absolutely. I
knew you guys would be good.
depuis longtemps maybe. Or
maybe some other language.
We had one French speaker in
our suspect pool, and it
really accelerated the
analysis. I missed it. My
partner got it. 
So now we go
from profiling to authorship.
And this is the case that
you all are holding.
This poor woman was
murdered. Threatening
stalker letters. And you
have one of the... The most
complete stalker letter. Was
written. The woman was
killed. Then during the
course of the ensuing
investigation, a serial
killer, self-professed,
wrote letters to the cops in
the newspaper. So the police
came to me and said... What
can I tell them about
whoever wrote this?
So
again, you only have five
minutes. We took more than
five weeks. But take a look
now. And remember this
information.
>> Did she get the letter
before she was murdered?
>> Yes, the first letter.
Well, I should be more
precise. The first letter
was put on the windshield of
her husband's car. Because
it's written to the husband.
>> Is it author or authors?
>> That's one of the
questions. And one of the
reasons it's important is
because the judge was
balking at giving the cops
all of the writings of their
suspects. Because it's an
invasion of privacy. So the
judge has to be convinced
that there is a good reason
to do that. 
This is what the
stalker one actually looked
like. And it's reproduced
perfectly. Precisely. And
this is what the serial
killer one looked like. Handwritten. And I
have kept
some of the features in my
transcription.
Let's start with this one.
The serial killer letter.
Look at the difference in
correct... For want of a
better word... Grammar.
>> The lack of articles.
>> Okay. Where?
>> She told story.
>> Yep. And cops have no
idea how easy it is to...
Pin husband. Pin it on the
husband. Okay. Now go above
that. And see if you find
any of that.
>> A white nylon rope.
>> And printed up should be
printed out.
>> This is the fifth woman
that I have killed.
>> Well, you could say
either one and be
quote-unquote grammatical.
You have that complementizer
deletion. That's one of the
things we use very often in
authorship cases. Good,
though.
>> It gets worse as you go
down, right?
Do not ask me
why this is. But it happens
all the time. I mean, they
start out grammatical. They
get near the end and they
say... I'd better dumb this
down. I mean, couldn't they
rewrite it?
And this happens
in case after case. I'm not
kidding. It's just
ridiculous. Now... By the
way... See, you guys are
great linguists, but when I
do this for murder
detectives, they read the
first line and then they are
rolling in the aisles.
They're just laughing their
heads off. As my partner,
Benji Walt said... Oh, he
left out a clause. I killed
Charlene Hummert, not her
husband... Because I'm not
the husband!
Because they
were getting very close to
the husband. And this is
what's called, in FBI talk,
a POMIC. It's the
government. They love
initialisms. Or acronyms. So
that's post-offense
manipulation of
investigation
communications. In other
words... Dragging a red
herring across the trail.
And we have case after case
like this. You get too close
to somebody. Some
information comes. In one
case we had, in New Jersey,
that I worked with the FBI
on, a woman, according to
the jury, did do all these
things. She drugged her
husband. Then she shot him
in the head. Then she cut
him into pieces, then she
packed him into three pieces
of matching luggage, and
threw him in the Atlantic
ocean. But she didn't do a
very good job and he rose to
the surface and came in. A
plastic bag expert from
Princeton showed that she
had given her brother-in-law
a lot of her now dead
husband's clothing in a
plastic bag that came from
the same lot that the body
parts were wrapped in. Yeah.
And, you know, she had
searched for how do you kill
people?
How much chloral
hydrate do you need?
Gun
stores in New Jersey. So be
careful about that, if
you're planning anything
ever. And in the middle of
the trial, a letter was sent
to the court, with the
actual shells that were from
the bullets that killed the
husband. And the letter was
trying to inculpate... Make
look guilty... The
defendant's sister-in-law,
who now had her kids. And
it's very important that you
have to be very believable.
You have to give the cops
something to make you
believe that you did it.
Right?
So that's why those
bullets were in there. But
this one was funny. Because
I thought that she was
killed with a dog collar,
and she was strangled so
hard that a piece of dog
collar made an imprint in
her neck that the medical
examiner just matched
perfectly. And I asked the
cops about this, and they
said... Uh... Yeah, well...
Don't know. But eventually
we all figured it out. One
of the things that was
linking the chief suspect,
who was, of course, her
husband, was the dog collar.
So he wanted to drag the
cops away from the idea of a
dog collar. So that's why he
has a white nylon rope. So
do you see any underlying
similarities?
It's unfair of
me to ask you, because it
took us months. But I
thought I'd ask. Well,
they're both in English.
That narrows it down a bit,
right?
>> The spelling in the first
letter is great. Fiancee is
spelled right, dyed in the
sense of hair.
>> Yeah, but as
investigators, let's
remember that there are
different purposes of these
letters. See?
One is... A
bit over the top, on
information that's damning
to her. Although I must say
forensic psychologists
always point out to me that
if you want to call a woman
all these bad sexual things,
you could have done a lot
worse than in this letter.
See, they see these all the
time. Just a barrage. So
that again supported the
theory... Maybe it was the
husband. But... So that's a
very literate thing. And the
other one is... You know,
hand written, bye-bye for
now, John. But you're 100%
right, of course. Yes?
>> What year was this,
approximately?
>> Very good question, and I
should have told you that.
The first trial was 2006. He
was tried again, 2012. So I
think this was around 2004.
So a good ten years ago.
What are you looking at?
>> Well, the stalker letter
-- I'm assuming this was
done at that time on a
computer as opposed to a
typewriter. So the computer
word processing program
would probably have
spellcheck and other devices
--
>> Could be. But it's pretty
well written, though, right?
>> That's why I'm saying as
compared to the other
letters... It doesn't have
spellcheck or...
>> True, but maybe he's
dumbing down, too. And just
one second. Also, everybody
look for something that
might give us an idea as to
his occupation. Yes, back
there?
>> I think that... Because
he spelled the word nite
N-I-T-E, he was an older
person. Old people spell it
(inaudible).
>> That's a very good thing
to look at. There are other
phrases. For example, how he
characterizes in the voice
of the rock guy... She was a
piece... And stuff... That's
also an older phrase. Yes?
>> (inaudible)
>> Yeah, it's true. There's
a big similarities. Like,
punchlines, summaries. Intro
lines. Yeah. Speak up?
Or
can we get a mic?
>> He seems to cover his
tracks, like he's giving
them all the reasons why
they couldn't figure out who
he is. He said... You
wouldn't find the cell phone
she used to call me because
it's in the river.
>> It's very nice of him to
give all this info, isn't
it?
Yeah.
>> There was another one
too, though. Because if you
read in the first letter --
assuming this is supposed to
be the same person...
>> Well, we're testing these
hypotheses.
>> In the first letter, he
couldn't have killed her
soon enough. In the second
letter, he's sorry he killed
her.
>> True. But you're looking
at the content. Which we
can't believe at all. But
it's true, the content can
also reveal a lot of stuff.
It's just that we can't
believe it. See?
And that's
the first thing that a good
language person does. Is we
read for content. What is he
trying to tell us?
But you
have to always assume total
disinformation too. Right?
Yes.
>> The transcribed serial
letter says that she wrote
it to her husband and
Detective Loper. Why would
he pick --
>> Loper was the lead
detective. Why would he
write it to Detective Loper?
Because he was trying to
drag Loper away from...
>> (inaudible)
>> That's right. She wanted
to break it off so I broke
her neck. See if you can
find some examples of that
in the first letter. Yes,
here?
>> He uses words which are
quite (inaudible).
>> Yes, it's pretty educated
stuff. Yes.
>> I'm really struck by the
collect spelling of fiancee.
>> Well, that could have
been the computer. It's
funny. I did my dissertation
of Swahili. Mostly I looked
at the narrative aspects of
Swahili, the special tenses
and everything. When I look
at these, I see tremendous
expertise in narrative. We
go... Now, flashback, flash
forward, back to now, step
outside the storyline -- in
both of these. And do you it
so well that you're not even
aware of it until you
analyze it. Yes, back there
you had something?
>> There were a lot of...
Both letters have these sort
of staccato exclamations.
Sorry it took so long. Do
what you will with it. The
first one... She wanted to
break it off. So I broke her
neck.
>> One of the things I
noticed... As he gets dumber
and dumber below, he stops
using the definite article
as much, and the first one,
he's still using the
definite article in the
lowercase -- and
>> No, he's not dumbing down
the first one. There's no
reason for him to. See?
Yeah. I think, anyway. Yes?
Back there and then you.
Thank you.
>> He starts many sentences
with I.
>> Could you stand up?
>> He starts many sentences
with I. Some kind of
arrogance.
>> And it's a linking
feature. Mm-hm. Good.
>> In the longer one, he
starts off -- here's proof
that your wife is a slut. So
you see, once a slut, always
a slut. So it's very -- five
paragraph essay.
>> That's it. You got it.
Maybe he went to the same
school I did. Okay.
>> So... She wanted to break
it off so I broke her neck.
That's the second one. And
the first one... I would
have loved to find out a
couple of days later. She
made sure my fiancee found
out.
>> Right, exactly. So those
are the links. We'll see any
second.
>> He uses specific dates.
October 6th and then capital
city mall and Picture
People. Instead of saying...
She went to the mall and
then the video store.
>> That's hard. You might
have a point there. I would
have to think about that.
This is also a really
good -- I have presented
these two letters 50 times,
70 times?
Every single time,
somebody comes up with
something that never
occurred to me before. And I
spent six weeks of my life
rereading these miserable
things. Yes?
>> There's a use of capital
Fs in the middle of words.
>> I think that's a
distractor. Yeah. But it is
a point, of course. And who
knows?
Maybe he's not doing
it on purpose, and maybe
when you get the suspect's
exemplars, he does that too.
>> He might be Christian?
>> Right, and then he says
X-mas in the other one.
>> There's a hyphen between
couple and of... A couple of
weeks later. At least, in
this version.
>> Oh, okay. See, I didn't
remember that, if I ever
noticed it. Let's look at
something that might tell us
something about an
occupation. Yeah. I don't
think... I'm talking about
something that he's not
doing on purpose. Yes?
>> Occupation?
He comes back
to the area on business, he
says?
>> No, that's content. I'm
talking about linguistic now.
>> I don't really
understand... On the
negative holder, she had
written that the photo is a
gift. And she did go into
the Picture People place.
But he says he went in and
got copies of the pictures.
>> Because it's very easy to
have done that. These things
weren't secured. You go in,
say my aunt Mabel took some
photos. She said to pick
them up. For her surprise
party. That's a very common
question, and a good one.
I'll give you a hint. Yes?
>> A cop?
>> Why?
>> Because it talked about
cops' mindset. It made me
think maybe he's...
>> Give me something
linguistic. Well, whatever
you're seeing, it was right.
Because he's not exactly a
cop.
>> In the first letter, the
way he talks about the dates
and the times, the different
things.
>> Okay, even more, though.
Yes?
>> He knows the abbreviation
Det.
>> Yes. He might have picked
that up because he was so
thoroughly investigated, but
as you'll see, there's more
of a link. Yes?
>> I was going to say the
use of all these rhetorical
questions at the end seems
very much like an
interrogation. Like a court
--
>> That's not bad at all.
That's not bad at all. No,
there's something else. I'll
give you a hint. It's two
letters. Not cop. Other
occupation. PC. Who calls a
computer a PC?
Apple, I
guess. He was -- the husband
was a computer expert for
the state police. Yeah.
Okay?
Now, you don't go and
arrest somebody on the basis
of this. All we're doing
here, first, is getting a
warrant. So now let's go to
what got the warrant.
Similar dialect. Education
level. Complex narrative
structure. Complex time
shifts. Still... So we've
narrowed it down to all of
the... What?
Oh, did you
have something to say?
>> I thought it was
interesting -- his use of
negation in this letter.
Seems to be always... He
negates... Contractions.
>> We'll get to that. Hold
that thought. I'm hurrying
along so we don't run out of
time. Good. Okay.
>> Ironic repetition!
>> We had to name it
something. I called up the
keeper of all rhetorical
devices at Brigham Young
University. There's this
fantastic compendium. And I
said what is this called.
First of course I did my
normal due diligence. I
walked across the hall to
the Latin and Greek teachers
and said -- what's this
called?
They said gee, we
don't know. It's uncommon.
So that was not a bad link.
And he didn't even have a
name for it, the guy from
BYU. So I wrote that up, and
they said... Okay. Here's
all this guy's writing.
Here's the ironic
repetition. Which we had
said... I would have loved
to have found out. A couple
of days later she made sure
my fiancee found out. She
wanted to break it off, so I
broke her neck. So here we
go now with a very
idiosyncratic link between
these two letters and
everything else. Negatives
were sometimes contracted.
Positives were never
contracted. I walked the
jury through. The green are
negatives. The red are the
positives. And it comes
out... In the... His known
documents. 0 out of 74
possibilities. Whereas we
have 15 and 25 in the
negative. And in the two
letters we just looked at,
another 0 in the lower left.
This is a very, very
interesting skewing. We
never looked at contractions
before that. But we do all
the time now. And we've
never found this exact
thing. Only Hummert. To his
detriment. He was tried
twice. Twice convicted. This
was the case that was on TV
last night. This hour-long
thing. 20/20. And I was
being filmed for a
documentary on the Discovery
Channel on it. And we did
the analysis of... God, a
thousand emails or so. So
just read this through.
Yeah, the baby was left in
the dead mother's arms for
hours and hours. But
somebody came in, because he
had his mail left there. So
the mom is on the left. The
daughter is on the right.
And the husband agreed... He
admitted to having killed
these people. To protect his
daughter. This is the
boyfriend of the daughter.
And she catfished him. She
made believe she was a CIA
agent named Chris. And she
told... As in the voice of
Chris... Both her mom and
Jamie that these people
should be killed. And that
the CIA had their backs.
Never occurred to him why a
CIA agent would use
Jenelle's Facebook pages to
communicate with him. But...
If you want to believe
something -- anybody who's
been the victim of a con
artist -- later you say...
How could I have believed
this?
Jamie was in love with
Jenelle. Not on the show...
Jenell was sending him
pictures of herself sans
clothing. And really trying
to inveigle him. That means
naked. So... These were some
of the most unique... I
mean, we just had dozens and
dozens of same series in the
question documents, the
unknown ones, and the known
ones. For example...
Beginning with a single
quotation mark and ending
with a double question mark.
In the mom's and in some of
the Q documents, the
question documents, the
subject documents. An
asterisk, sometimes one,
two, or three, to mark an
aside, in parentheses, no
less. I mean, that's pretty
unique, you see?
In addition
to all sorts of other
things, like beginning a
sentence with and. Hm.
Great. We fight back. Yeah.
One minute. That's fine.
Thanks. So... We have...
This is one of the things
that we had, and we gave to
the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation. They used
with the jury. Sorry to have
to go through it so quickly.
Very, very interesting
idiosyncrasies. So... The
last one is... Three bomb
threats to this one house
Beverly Hills. Quick. Well,
who knows, right?
The Bs are
big, et cetera. Finally, I
got something that gave me a
link to the outside world.
Jodie Foster, who is the
reason that Reagan was shot
by a guy who was in love
with her, and gas bomb.
Couldn't find gas bomb. I
wasn't allowed to use the
FBI's CTAD... Anyway, so
what the heck does this
mean?
And in 30 seconds...
29... 28... Come on, come
on!
Was there going to be a
bomb?
Yes!
But not at the
house in Beverly Hills. At
Studio City. Of course!
It
was right in front of you
guys. On Ventura Boulevard.
Look at these. Look at the
Jodie Foster one. What the
heck does this mean?
Why is
Jodie Foster out in the
middle of the left?
Why do
we have this house?
Why do
we have... Going to be a gas
bomb here and this house?
I
also studied Swahili
demonstratives. So I have an
eye for it. Well, I'm glad
you asked. A is Jodie
Foster's house. B is the
house where the bomb threats
were delivered. It wasn't a
letter. It was actually a
map. Studio City, Ventura
Boulevard, Ventura
freeway... Big, big shopping
area.
>> Is the idea that they
actually want to be found
out, and it's a game?
>> You got me. All I do is
analyze language, lady. I
changed the scale. I mean,
obviously I wasn't given a
Google map. But it explains
why these things are placed
the way they were. And no
bomb ever went off. He came
back. Head of security for
Jodie Foster came back the
next day. Said... Oh, that's
Joe. Picked up Joe. Never
talked about it. Because he
used to do this all the time
in Boston. Hang out with
people who protect
celebrities, if you really
want to know that the world
is an odd place. All right.
Thank you very much.
