Methodologies and Challenges in Forensic Linguistic Casework

Оглавление

Группа авторов. Methodologies and Challenges in Forensic Linguistic Casework

Wiley Series in the Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law

Methodologies and Challenges in Forensic Linguistic Casework

Contents

List of Figures

Guide

Pages

Series Preface

REFERENCES

Acknowledgments

About the Editors

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

1 Forensic Linguistic Casework

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTS

PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

Section 1: Anonymous and Disputed Authorship Analysis

Section 2: Meaning and Interpretation

FORENSIC LINGUISTIC CASEWORK

DOING FORENSIC LINGUISTICS

GOOD PRACTICE VERSUS BEST PRACTICE

THE FORENSIC LINGUISTIC PRACTITIONER

LOOKING FORWARD

REFERENCES

2 The Starbuck Case: Methods for Addressing Confirmation Bias in Forensic Authorship Analysis

THE STARBUCK CASE

THE PROBLEM OF CONFIRMATION BIAS

EVALUATING THE DATA

ANALYSIS

ATTRIBUTION

EVALUATION OF METHOD

OUTCOME TO THE STARBUCK CASE

REFLECTION ON THE ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE BIAS

NOTES

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

3 A Forensic Authorship Analysis of the Ayia Napa Rape Statement

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

AUTHORSHIP PROFILING METHOD

RESULTS. C1: [DO [REPORT]]

C2: [BE not the truth]

C3: [APARTMENT]

C4: [DISCOVER [NP V-ing]]

C5: [DO [sexual intercourse]]

SUMMARY

CONCLUSION

NOTE

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

4 Linguistic Profiling: A Spanish Case Study

INTRODUCTION

OUTLINE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE “DON JUAN DE MARÍN” CASE

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE AND BEHAVIORAL HABITS

FORENSIC LINGUISTIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE

RELEVANT LINGUISTIC THEORY

SOCIOLINGUISTIC MARKERS

THE THEORY OF IDIOLECT

METHODS

CORPORA

OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES

RESULTS

THE LINGUISTIC PROFILE SHARED BY THE EIGHT ONLINE IDENTITIES

Gender

Age

Educational Level

Geographical Background

Other Details

Checklist of Distinctive Linguistic Features

LINGUISTIC PROFILE VS. REALITY

IMPLICATIONS

NOTES

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

5 Other Language Influence Detection: Profiling the Native Language of a Dark Web Pedophile

THEORETICAL GROUNDING

CASE DESCRIPTION

CASE HISTORY

LANGUAGE FAMILIES AND DISGUISE

OLID ANALYSIS AND FEATURES

LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL

TYPOLOGICAL

SOCIOLINGUISTIC FEATURES

CASE FINDINGS

CONCLUSIONS

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

6 Forensic Plagiarism Detection and Analysis

DETECTING PLAGIARISM IN THE FORENSIC LINGUISTICS ERA

STRATEGIES USED TO PLAGIARIZE—AND HOW TO DETECT THEM

LITERAL PLAGIARISM

PARAPHRASING

TRANSLATION AS A PLAGIARISM STRATEGY

FROM PLAGIARISM IN/BY TRANSLATION TO TRANSLINGUAL PLAGIARISM

COMPLEXITIES OF FORENSIC PLAGIARISM ANALYSIS AND DETECTION

IMPLICATIONS OF FORENSIC LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PLAGIARISM

CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

7 Mourning the Slow Death of Miranda: California v. Ceja

“MOURNING MIRANDA”

CALIFORNIA V. CEJA

LEGAL PROTECTIONS

Constitutional Protections

Civil Rights Protections

QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS IN CALIFORNIA V. CEJA

METHOD. Relevant Linguistic Theory

Method of Analysis

Methodological Challenges

FINDINGS. Defendant Speaks and Understands Only Limited English. How The BICS/CALP Distinction Relates to California v. Ceja

Linguistic Evidence of Ceja’s Limited English

Ceja responds in Spanish when questioned in English by either officer

Ceja’s longer utterances in English are mixed with Spanish and are ungrammatical

Requirements for a Valid Miranda Waiver Are Not Met

Ceja’s Miranda Waiver Was Not Voluntary

Intimidation

Officers say that Ceja won’t see her children unless she cooperates

Both officers invade Ceja’s personal space by touching her

SSO physically searches the pockets of Ceja’s sweater and close-fitting pant

SSO insists on the use of English only until Ceja breaks

Ceja’s Miranda Waiver Was Not Knowing

Pre-Miranda discourse

Ceja made direct and indirect requests to be interviewed in Spanish

Ceja responds first in Spanish, then English, when questioned in English

SSO responds in Spanish to Ceja’s initial use of Spanish

SSO interprets Spanish-to-English for the English-speaking officer

SSO questions Ceja in Spanish and she responds in Spanish

ESO begins questioning of Ceja in English only

ESO continues questioning Ceja without acknowledging her request for Spanish

ESO does not understand Ceja’s Spanish-language response, saying, “Huh?”

ESO interrupts SSO’s Spanish questioning to begin the English Miranda warning

Miranda “Reading” and Post-Miranda Discourse

The Miranda warning is presented in a context of “softening up” and being of passing importance

The Miranda warning is given quickly and only in English

The ESO requests confirmation of Ceja’s understanding, but only in English

Ceja says it would be better to hear her rights in Spanish

Ceja’s request for clarification "No?" went unanswered. A "No?" with question intonation would mean, "I think that’s what it may be, but please tell me if I’m right."

Ceja’s Miranda Waiver Was Not Intelligent

Ceja’s Comprehension of Her Rights Is Assessed With Yes–No Questions

Ceja’s Repetition of the Minimal Response Mmhmm Is Ambiguous

Ceja’s Full Responses Indicate Her Lack of Understanding

Ceja Did Not Waive Her Rights. No Express Waiver

No Implied Waiver

DISCUSSION. Ceja’s Post-Miranda Interrogation Confirms Her Limited Ability in English

The Suspect

The Officers

CONCLUSIONS

THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT

THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE COURT

CASES CITED

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

8 Detecting Faked Texts

CASE BACKGROUND

LINGUISTIC TOOLKIT

CASE ANALYSIS

VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIM OF MANNER

VIOLATIONS OF MAXIMS OF RELATION AND QUANTITY

APPLYING RELEVANCE THEORY

DETERMINING AUDIENCE

DISCUSSION AND CASE CONCLUSIONS

IMPLICATIONS FOR FORENSIC LINGUISTICS

NOTE

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

9 Joining ISIS? A Pragmatic Discourse Analysis of Chat Messages in a Counterterrorism Case

LINGUISTIC THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED AND RESULTING IMPACT ON METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES

DISCUSSION OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

Main Conclusions

PAPERWORK

MONEY

BATTLE AND WAR

INSTRUCTIONS AND ENCOURAGEMENT

FINDINGS OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

HOW THE LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS FIT INTO THE WIDER JUSTICE PROCESS

IMPLICATIONS

NOTE

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

10 “I Wanted to Leave A Long Time Ago”: Casework in Suicide Letter Analysis: Methods Used and Lessons Learned

SLA AND THE LANGUAGE OF SUICIDE

SLA METHODS AND APPROACHES

Non-automated Tools of Analysis

Computer-Automated Tools of Analysis

CASE STUDY

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

FURTHER READING

SUGGESTED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

REFERENCES

11 Casework in Forensic Linguistics: Looking Outward

EXPERT AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

FROM INVESTIGATION TO EXPERT EVIDENCE

AT THE INVESTIGATION STAGE

ASSESSING TEXT DATA AS EVIDENCE

PROVIDING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN COURT

FINAL WORDS AND LOOKING OUTWARD

REFERENCES

Index

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Отрывок из книги

Series Editors

Graham M. Davies1 and Ray Bull2

.....

This book provides examples of forensic linguistic casework employing current good practice. It must be stressed that no claim is being made that the processes and methodologies applied constitute best practice—each case is unique, and the field continues to evolve as research develops and technology advances. The evolution of language, as well as its complexity and incredible diversity of contexts, also precludes a one-size-fits-all approach. The variety of work undertaken is very broad, both in practice and potentiality. Due to the variation in both, what is often encountered in forensic linguistic casework, and what could be encountered, makes it impossible to detail what best practice would be across cases. The best methodological approach for a specific case depends on the type of available data.

We can, however, talk about best practice at a higher level, where what matters is that the analyst’s approach is measured, scientifically rigorous, and validated. At the casework consultation level, this requires that analysts be aware of the limits of their analysis (Clarke and Kredens, 2018), staying within the bounds of their own expertise, recognizing the dangers of confirmation bias (as stressed in Chapters 2 and 9), and grounding conclusions with linguistic explanations. It also involves managing client expectations about what linguistic analysis can realistically achieve and providing them with the reasoning behind any conclusions or opinions. This is important in aiding investigators, law enforcement, and lawyers to assess the strength and weaknesses of forensic linguistic analysis as an evidential resource. This becomes even more important when forensic linguists act as expert witnesses. Tensions exist between lawyers who aim to win their case and analysts who should be acting as objective and independent experts. In this scenario, the forensic linguist’s overriding duty is to the trier-of-fact, the court, assisting it to reach informed decisions, irrespective of who instructs and pays them.

.....