Dennis Brooks Use Of Comparative Authorship Analysis

1330 Words3 Pages

Within the Justice system, forensic linguistics, as a fairly new field of forensics, is still shrouded in skepticism and doubt over the legitimacy of the evidence provided by forensic linguists. However, as Doctor Robert Andrew Leonard says, “to understand law, one must understand language,” supporting the foundation of forensic linguistics, which is based in language (Leonard). Even in its ‘infancy,’ forensic linguistics has proven its reliability in court through its contribution of vital evidence in the execution of cases and the conviction of guilty parties. One case that forensic linguistics was essential in establishing a verdict, despite its newly formed field, was the case of Bill Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The couple was murdered …show more content…

In chapter 8, Dennis Brooks recounts working through emails supposedly sent by a CIA agent named Chris, when he noticed a grammatical tendency, Chris “forgot to drop the ‘e’ in words where he added an ‘ing’ at the end” (Brooks). Not qualified as a forensic linguist, Dennis Brooks could not make any conclusive judgements other than noting that the error could not be a “mere typo,” he thought of it as “a sign of ignorance,” as stated in chapter 8. In chapter 8, Dennis Brooks recounts the fact that “everything he [Chris] ever wrote was Jenelle-centric. Her problems were his concerns. Her foes were his enemies. What she liked, he loved,” which lead to his theory that “ … Jenelle Potter was Chris” (Brooks).The idea that “one criminal may hide behind multiple digital personas…” is not an uncommon idea or an uncommon issue that forensic linguists examine (Baron et al. 54). In chapter 13, Dennis Brooks went searching through the internet and stumbled across the field of forensic linguistics which he was “unaware [even] existed” (Brooks). Dennis Brooks came across Dr. Robert Leonard while examining a couple of web pages of forensic linguistic experts. Dr. Leonard conducted what is known as a comparative authorship analysis with the “k docs” of Jenelle …show more content…

Dennis Brooks openly states his skepticism towards the end of the investigations and the beginning of the trials. Being as he has never even heard of the field of forensic linguistics it is not surprising that, in chapter 31, Dennis Brooks recounts “how the forensic linguistic evidence would play out, I [Dennis Brooks] did not know” (Brooks). Skepticism of forensic linguistics partially stems from the small database of recordings to test voices against to determine details like ethnicity, origin, age, and intent (Catanzaro et al.). Another reason for someone to be a skeptic of forensic linguistics is because it is a fairly new field of forensics and not many people have heard of it or the cases that have been solved with the help of forensic linguistics. Dennis Brooks falls into the second set of skeptics; in chapter 13, Dennis Brooks remembers how he had never heard of forensic linguistics (Brooks). However, Dennis Brooks never mentions his stance on forensic linguistics after Jenelle and Barbara’s trial where forensic linguistic evidence was a major part in proving Dennis Brooks’ theory. Does Dennis Brooks still question forensic linguistics or is he now a believer in the ability of the field? Skepticism is heavy throughout any arising field of science, the hiring of Dr. Robert Leonard showcased Dennis Brooks’ need for an

More about Dennis Brooks Use Of Comparative Authorship Analysis

Open Document