Authorship profiling in a forensic context

There are several unresolved problems in forensic authorship profiling, including a lack of research focusing on the types of texts that are typically analysed in forensic linguistics (e.g. threatening letters, ransom demands) and a general disregard for the effect of register variation when testing linguistic variables for use in profiling. The aim of this dissertation is therefore to make a first step towards filling these gaps by testing whether established patterns of sociolinguistic variation appear in malicious forensic texts that are controlled for register. This dissertation begins with a literature review that highlights a series of correlations between language use and various social factors, including gender, age, level of education and social class. This dissertation then presents the primary data set used in this study, which consists of a corpus of 287 fabricated malicious texts from 3 different registers produced by 96 authors stratified across the 4 social factors listed above. Since this data set is fabricated, its validity was also tested through a comparison with another corpus consisting of 104 naturally occurring malicious texts, which showed that no important differences exist between the language of the fabricated malicious texts and the authentic malicious texts. The dissertation then reports the findings of the analysis of the corpus of fabricated malicious texts, which shows that the major patterns of sociolinguistic variation identified in previous research are valid for forensic malicious texts and that controlling register variation greatly improves the performance of profiling. In addition, it is shown that through regression analysis it is possible to use these patterns of linguistic variation to profile the demographic background of authors across the four social factors with an average accuracy of 70%. Overall, the present study therefore makes a first step towards developing a principled model of forensic authorship profiling.

Communication in investigative and legal settings:integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement

Communication in Forensic Contexts provides in-depth coverage of the complex area of communication in forensic situations. Drawing on expertise from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement worldwide, the text bridges the gap between these fields in a definitive guide to best practice. •Offers best practice for understanding and improving communication in forensic contexts, including interviewing of victims, witnesses and suspects, discourse in courtrooms, and discourse via interpreters •Bridges the knowledge gaps between forensic psychology, forensic linguistics and law enforcement, with chapters written by teams bringing together expertise from each field •Published in collaboration with the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, dedicated to furthering evidence-based practice and practice-based research amongst researchers and practitioners •International, cross-disciplinary team includes contributors from North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, and from psychology, linguistics and forensic practice

Communication in forensic contexts:future directions and conclusions

This chapter reviews the important areas that psychology, linguistics and law enforcement have impacted upon in terms of rigorous and collaborative scientific endeavours. Important areas that will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners for research relating to communication in forensic contexts are discussed in detail, including vulnerability, the use of intermediaries and interpreters in forensic interviews and questioning techniques.

Expert report writing in toxicology:forensic, scientific and legal aspects

Every year throughout the world, individuals' health is damaged by their exposure to toxic chemicals at work. In most cases these problems will resolve, but many will sustain permanent damage. Whilst any justified claim for compensation requires medical and legal evidence a crucial and often controversial component of this process is the establishment of a causal link between the individual's condition and exposure to a specific chemical or substance. Causation, in terms of how a substance or substances led the claimant to his or her current plight, can be difficult to establish and the main purpose of this book, is to provide the aspiring expert report writer with a concise, practical guide that uses case histories to illuminate the process of establishing causation in occupational toxicity proceedings. In summary: A practical, accessible guide to the preparation of balanced, scientifically sound expert reports in the context of occupational toxicology. Focuses on the scientist's role in establishing a causal link between exposure to toxins and an individual's ill health. Includes real-life case histories drawn from the Author's 15 years experience in this area to illustrate the principles involved. Expert Report Writing in Toxicology: Forensic, Scientific and Legal Aspects proves invaluable to scientists across a range of disciplines needing guidance as to what is expected of them in terms of the best use of their expertise and how to present their findings in a manner that is authoritative, balanced and informative.

Native language identification (NLID) for forensic authorship analysis of weblogs

This chapter introduces Native Language Identification (NLID) and considers the casework applications with regard to authorship analysis of online material. It presents findings from research identifying which linguistic features were the best indicators of native (L1) Persian speakers blogging in English, and analyses how these features cope at distinguishing between native influences from languages that are linguistically and culturally related. The first chapter section outlines the area of Native Language Identification, and demonstrates its potential for application through a discussion of relevant case history. The next section discusses a development of methodology for identifying influence from L1 Persian in an anonymous blog author, and presents findings. The third part discusses the application of these features to casework situations as well as how the features identified can form an easily applicable model and demonstrates the application of this to casework. The research presented in this chapter can be considered a case study for the wider potential application of NLID.

Adversarial interpreting – a forensic linguistic perspective

Interactions with second language speakers in public service contexts in England are normally conducted with the assistance of one interpreter. Even in situations where team interpreting would be advisable, for example in lengthy courtroom proceedings, financial considerations mean only one interpreter is normally booked. On occasion, however, more than one interpreter, or an individual (or individuals) with knowledge of the languages in question, may be simultaneously present during an interpreted interaction, either monitoring it or indeed volunteering unsolicited input. During police interviews or trials in England this may happen when the interpreter secured by the defence team to interpret during private consultation with the suspect or defendant is present also in the interview room or the courtroom but two independently sourced interpreters need not be limited to legal contexts. In healthcare settings for example, service users sometimes bring friends or relatives along to help them communicate with service providers only to find that the latter have booked an interpreter as a matter of procedure. By analogy to the nature of the English legal system, I refer to contexts where an interpreter’s output is monitored and/or challenged, either during the speech event or subsequently, as ‘adversarial interpreting’. This conceptualisation reflects the fact that interpreters in such encounters are sourced independently, often by opposing parties, and as a result can rarely be considered a team. My main concern in this paper is to throw spotlight on adversarial interpreting as a hitherto rarely discussed problem in its own right. That it is not an anomaly is evidenced by the many cases around the world where the officially recorded interpreted output was challenged, as mentioned in for example Berk-Seligson (2002), Hayes and Hale (2010), and Phelan (2011). This paper reports on the second stage of a research project which has previously involved the analysis of a transcript of an interpreted police interview with a suspect in a murder case. I will mention the findings of the analysis briefly and introduce some new findings based on input from practising interpreters who have shared their experience of adversarial interpreting by completing an online questionnaire. I will try to answer the question of how the presence of two interpreters, or an interpreter and a monitoring participant, in the same speech event impacts on the communication process. I will also address the issue of forensic linguistic arbitration in cases where incompetent interpreting has been identified or an expert opinion is sought in relation to an adversarial interpreting event of significance to a legal dispute. References Berk-Seligson (2002), The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process, University of Chicago Press. Hayes, A. and Hale, S. (2010), "Appeals on incompetent interpreting", Journal of Judicial Administration 20.2, 119-130. Phelan, M. (2011), "Legal Interpreters in the news in Ireland", Translation and Interpreting 3.1, 76-105.

The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics

The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics provides a unique work of reference to the leading ideas, debates, topics, approaches and methodologies in Forensic Linguistics. Forensic Linguistics is the study of language and the law, covering topics from legal language and courtroom discourse to plagiarism. It also concerns the applied (forensic) linguist who is involved in providing evidence, as an expert, for the defence and prosecution, in areas as diverse as blackmail, trademarks and warning labels. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics includes a comprehensive introduction to the field written by the editors and a collection of thirty-seven original chapters written by the world’s leading academics and professionals, both established and up-and-coming, designed to equip a new generation of students and researchers to carry out forensic linguistic research and analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics is the ideal resource for undergraduates or postgraduates new to the area.

Forensic linguistics : the application of language description in legal contexts

In this article I first divide Forensic Linguistics into three sub-disciplines: the language of written legal texts, the spoken language of legal proceedings, and the linguist as expert witness and then go on to give a small number of examples of the research undertaken in these three areas. For the language of written legal texts, I present work on the (in) comprehensibility of police cautions and of judges instructions to juries. For the spoken language of legal proceedings, I report work on the problems of interpreted interaction, of vulnerable witnesses and the need for more detailed research comparing the interactive rules in adversarial and investigative systems. Finally, to illustrate the role of the linguist as expert witness I report a trademark case, five different authorship attribution cases, three very different plagiarism cases and I end reporting briefly the contribution of linguists to language assessment techniques used in the linguistic classification of asylum seekers. © Langage et société no 132 - juin 2010.

Intelligent outcome measures in liaison psychiatry:essential even if not desirable. Commentary on... a multidimensional Framework for Routine Outcome Measurement in Liaison Psychiatry (FROM-LP)

Service development is guided by outcome measures that inform service commissioners and providers. Those in liaison psychiatry should be encouraged to develop a positive approach that integrates the collection of outcome measures into everyday clinical practice. The Framework for Routine Outcome Measurement in Liaison Psychiatry (FROM-LP) is a very useful tool to measure service quality and clinical effectiveness, using a combination of clinician-rated and patient-rated outcome measures and patient-rated experience measures. However, it does not include measures of cost-effectiveness or training activities. The FROM-LP is a significant step towards developing nationally unified outcome measures.