Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

I don't need to be an expert to read English and see a near-perfect fit to an expert's simple list of "markers of deception", and sentence examples thereof. Therefore my statement is correct that "I now have support for my deduction" that it was lies...

Of course some other hypothetical expert might disagree. The onus is on the naysayers to produce such, surely? And even then it would be just one expert against another, which is a common enough scenario. We're not there yet, and even if we were my statement of support would still stand...

I have form for taking on and beating 'experts' anyhow. Like winning a court case single-handedly when everyone [including two incompetent judges] said I couldn't possibly win... Like changing the outcome for someone from "two years to live" to "world's-longest survivor, who lived 19 years and died naturally of 'Old Age'"

Perhaps I should have been ever so 'humble', listened to the 'experts', and denied the sovereignty of my own intellect instead...

[ColdCaseJury]

I don't need to be an expert to read English and see a near-perfect fit to an expert's simple list of "markers of deception"...

Rod, in which case don't invoke "hypothetical experts" to support to your position. And others don't need to be experts to question it. Let them make their own minds up. If your position is as strong as you suggest, and I believe your theory is good one, then others will see the argument. There is a shift of style in the paragraph you mention in Parry's statement - it contains more detail. Could this be because Parry was lying? Yes. Does it prove he was lying? No. Let's have the discussion.

[AmericanSherlock]

I don't need to be an expert to read English and see a near-perfect fit to an expert's simple list of "markers of deception", and sentence examples thereof. Therefore my statement is correct that "I now have support for my deduction" that it was lies...

Of course some other hypothetical expert might disagree. The onus is on the naysayers to produce such, surely? And even then it would be just one expert against another, which is a common enough scenario. We're not there yet, and even if we were my statement of support would still stand...

I have form for taking on and beating 'experts' anyhow. Like winning a court case single-handedly when everyone [including two incompetent judges] said I couldn't possibly win... Like changing the outcome for someone from "two years to live" to "world's-longest survivor, who lived 19 years and died naturally of 'Old Age'"

Perhaps I should have been ever so 'humble', listened to the 'experts', and denied the sovereignty of my own intellect instead...

This is really embarrassing.

[John G]

I don't need to be an expert to read English and see a near-perfect fit to an expert's simple list of "markers of deception", and sentence examples thereof. Therefore my statement is correct that "I now have support for my deduction" that it was lies...

Of course some other hypothetical expert might disagree. The onus is on the naysayers to produce such, surely? And even then it would be just one expert against another, which is a common enough scenario. We're not there yet, and even if we were my statement of support would still stand...

I have form for taking on and beating 'experts' anyhow. Like winning a court case single-handedly when everyone [including two incompetent judges] said I couldn't possibly win... Like changing the outcome for someone from "two years to live" to "world's-longest survivor, who lived 19 years and died naturally of 'Old Age'"

Perhaps I should have been ever so 'humble', listened to the 'experts', and denied the sovereignty of my own intellect instead...

If you consider Littlejohn and Metha you will discover that forensic linguistics covers a wide area. However, Witness/police testimony is probably the weakest element of the theory. Thus, "All the cases of second-hand verbal material can be considered unreliable...since human memory is incapable of retaining the exact wording even after a couple of seconds, not to speak of months or years (Ibid, p103).

This also has important implications for Parkes' testimony, made almost half a century after the event in question, which you also place so much reliance on.

[RodCrosby]

If you consider Littlejohn and Metha you will discover that forensic linguistics covers a wide area. However, Witness/police testimony is probably the weakest element of the theory. Thus, "All the cases of second-hand verbal material can be considered unreliable...since human memory is incapable of retaining the exact wording even after a couple of seconds, not to speak of months or years (Ibid, p103).

This also has important implications for Parkes' testimony, made almost half a century after the event in question, which you also place so much reliance on.

When you can show me you at least understand the difference between first and second hand, I might pay more attention...

Next!!

[AmericanSherlock]

When you can show me you at least understand the difference between first and second hand, I might pay more attention...

Next!!

You need to get away from this thread and fast. Your posts are casting doubt on your mental state.

[AmericanSherlock]

I can see Rod, that you are trying to report my post. I would warn you to think twice about that, considering you've used a "coincidental" mocking sign off for weeks now.

[AmericanSherlock]

When you can show me you at least understand the difference between first and second hand, I might pay more attention...

Next!!

Well I'm out of here, as I've been reported. I don't have the energy for this. This will be my last post. Even though "friendly" posts like this and mocking sign offs and complete disdain for everyone who doesn't share Rod's exact opinion have been tolerated for 30 or so pages.

I would remind you Antony that before, we had a pleasant, if at times slightly contentious debate that was quite interesting among all users. It is disgraceful this has been allowed but while I doubt I have committed any major infractions, I feel discussion has been effectively shut down by the behavior and arrogance displayed by Rod on this thread. It's just not enjoyable anymore. A real shame.

[John G]

When you can show me you at least understand the difference between first and second hand, I might pay more attention...

Next!!

Maybe you should focus on this part of the quote: "....since human memory is incapable of retaining the exact wording even after a couple of seconds, not to speak of months or years." And Parkes' testimony is second-hand because he was recalling what another person, Parry, supposedly said.

And since you brought up the "science" of forensic linguistics I would point out once again that you are not an expert on the subject; to the contrary, you appear to have only just stumbled across the discipline.

If you dispute this, please cite all the authoritative texts and peer-reviewed articles that you've had published on the subject.

[John G]

Well I'm out of here, as I've been reported. I don't have the energy for this. This will be my last post. Even though "friendly" posts like this and mocking sign offs and complete disdain for everyone who doesn't share Rod's exact opinion have been tolerated for 30 or so pages.

I would remind you Antony that before, we had a pleasant, if at times slightly contentious debate that was quite interesting among all users. It is disgraceful this has been allowed but while I doubt I have committed any major infractions, I feel discussion has been effectively shut down by the behavior and arrogance displayed by Rod on this thread. It's just not enjoyable anymore. A real shame.

I think it will be a shame if you leave the thread, as you've clearly made some valuable contributions. And I wouldn't worry about being reported because your responses to Rod's posts have been extremely mild compared with some of the posts I've received and seen on the JtR threads!

I agree that Rod has displayed a certain self-righteousness, at least in my opinion-although he's also provided some very good arguments-but you are always free to ignore, or even block, him.

[John G]

Rod, in which case don't invoke "hypothetical experts" to support to your position. And others don't need to be experts to question it. Let them make their own minds up. If your position is as strong as you suggest, and I believe your theory is good one, then others will see the argument. There is a shift of style in the paragraph you mention in Parry's statement - it contains more detail. Could this be because Parry was lying? Yes. Does it prove he was lying? No. Let's have the discussion.

An excellent post, and one I completely agree with. I would also point out that even if Parry was lying we cannot be certain of his motive for doing so.

For instance, in respect of the Qualtrough call, he may have had an alibi he was unwilling to disclose, i.e. because he might possibly have been with, say, a married woman at the time.

[RodCrosby]

Maybe you should focus on this part of the quote: "....since human memory is incapable of retaining the exact wording even after a couple of seconds, not to speak of months or years." And Parkes' testimony is second-hand because he was recalling what another person, Parry, supposedly said.

And since you brought up the "science" of forensic linguistics I would point out once again that you are not an expert on the subject; to the contrary, you appear to have only just stumbled across the discipline.

If you dispute this, please cite all the authoritative texts and peer-reviewed articles that you've had published on the subject.

I don't need to be an expert to understand an expert paper! Just degree educated, as it happens in the mathematical approach which underpins the straightforward conclusions of the paper.

I have been a researcher for many years, in one thing or another, appearing on TV and radio on a few occasions, cited as a reference in at least one academic book, and in a completely different area, a recognised expert in a particular subject, which has proved profitable for myself and for others who have taken my advice. Advice which in part has been derived from expert papers, and in part from my own original analyses which have been published on specialist independent blogs.
For example

http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/hung-parliament-revisited.html

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/03/12/ron-crosby-on-a-pope-for-our-time/

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/

My original career was in programming and systems analysis, which means that I am trained to spot inconsistencies in data, and to visualise a complex system of many logical "moving parts", identifying points where a system will fail, and designing ones which won't fail. There is some crossover with the science of deduction, perhaps?

In all my experience in these fields,
"shoot the messenger without even looking at the data",
"move the goalposts",
"resort to personal abuse", etc.
are not considered to be valid responses.

I have of course seen them all before, and have without fail had the satisfaction of being proved right time and again, and watched the purveyors of such tactics implode, or slither away, never to be seen again.

As it happens, I researched the linguistics of Parry's statement as far back as 2008, but could not find anything on point. I have now found something supportive of my deduction that it was, in the critical section, lies.

That encourages me. It appears to irritate others. That's not my problem.

[Charles Daniels]

The reason why I keep coming back to WHW despite the problems with it is it looks like an assassin's work. And who else would want JW dead?

Excellent question!

And it goes back to an important elephant in the room.
There is a TON about JW's former life that we appear to know sod all about.

We can't rule out some past lover or rival, who perhaps took time in tracking her down.

[RodCrosby]

It's only a matter of time before someone pops up and claims Julia was the final victim of JTR, or perhaps ...Son of JTR, who tracked down the prostitute mother who had abandoned him in the slums of London...

For the birds, as are all theories which deliberately ignore the actual evidence.

[John G]

I don't need to be an expert to understand an expert paper! Just degree educated, as it happens in the mathematical approach which underpins the straightforward conclusions of the paper.

I have been a researcher for many years, in one thing or another, appearing on TV and radio on a few occasions, cited as a reference in at least one academic book, and in a completely different area, a recognised expert in a particular subject, which has proved profitable for myself and for others who have taken my advice. Advice which in part has been derived from expert papers, and in part from my own original analyses which have been published on specialist independent blogs.
For example

http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/hung-parliament-revisited.html

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/03/12/ron-crosby-on-a-pope-for-our-time/

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/

My original career was in programming and systems analysis, which means that I am trained to spot inconsistencies in data, and to visualise a complex system of many logical "moving parts", identifying points where a system will fail, and designing ones which won't fail. There is some crossover with the science of deduction, perhaps?

In all my experience in these fields,
"shoot the messenger without even looking at the data",
"move the goalposts",
"resort to personal abuse", etc.
are not considered to be valid responses.

I have of course seen them all before, and have without fail had the satisfaction of being proved right time and again, and watched the purveyors of such tactics implode, or slither away, never to be seen again.

As it happens, I researched the linguistics of Parry's statement as far back as 2008, but could not find anything on point. I have now found something supportive of my deduction that it was, in the critical section, lies.

That encourages me. It appears to irritate others. That's not my problem.

I also have a degree-First Class Honours, as it so happens- but I'm not sure what relevance it has to the matter in hand. For instance, there was a poster on this thread who stated they had a PhD, and then proceeded to get totally confused about time of death issues.


To be fair, you've made some excellent posts, and I've actually learned a great deal from you. However, when a poster implies that they've suddenly become an expert in an area they've just stumbled on then I'm afraid I simply cannot take it seriously. Although, actually, what precisely are your conclusions?

And, with respect, posting on a blog is not the same as publishing peer-reviewed academic research, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.

By the way, I bet you got the General Election result wrong, but to be honest so did I, although I did much better with the American Presidential Election, only wrongly calling Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan for Clinton-for obvious reasons-thus beating most of the so called experts.