Forensic Text Type

In referring to text types found in forensic linguistics we are really referring to a number of different
contexts of situation, each of which generates one or more text types. For instance, a kidnap situation is
typically seen to generate at least one ransom demand. It may also generate threats not directly related to
the hostage. In that case the context of the situation is not just the kidnapping itself, but might include
several other factors, for example the kidnapper's previous criminal activities, relationship with law
enforcement, etc. The text types which will be discussed in this chapter are as follows:
 Emergency calls
 Ransom demands and other threat communications
 Suicide letters
 Final death row statements confessions
 Denials by public figures

Emergency calls
Before we begin our study of this section, you might like to consider the following: Imagine your car has
caught fire. Luckily you managed to get everybody out of the vehicle and you are all now standing at a
safe distance from it. You get out your cell phone and start to call the emergency services. Write down the
first thing you would say to the emergency operator. Head the example 'Forensic Linguistic Exercise'.
Until now we have mostly been discussing written text but looking at emergency calls will give us an
opportunity to analyses spoken forensic language. The most important feature of any emergency call is
probably urgency. The situation the caller is in seems urgent to that caller, even if the caller may have
misjudged the situation.

 The role of the emergency operator:

The role of the emergency operator, an individual we can conceive of as, typically, very experienced, and
with good visualization of a number of scenarios, and one who - in most circumstances - can speedily
evaluate the quality of information being received. Note that the concept of 'quality of information' in the
abstract cannot compare with the day-to-day experience of the operator who is directly involved in the
actual operation of collecting intelligence moment by moment in an emergency situation: it means, quite
simply, the ability to sift primarily linguistic information in potentially deadly circumstances and to come
up with the required response in a timely manner.
The emergency services operator needs to evaluate the degree of threat, within seconds if possible. These
situations are made more fraught by what can only be described as a great social evil - the making of hoax
or malicious calls. People who make what are known as malicious calls can sound just as distressed as
genuine callers, or they can portray an apparent calm in the face of adversity or fear: this is why it is not
useful for the linguist to think in terms of notions such as urgency at the emotive level.
Below is a conversation25 between a caller, a male security guard, and an emergency services operator.
Inaudible speech is indicated by a dash.
Emergency Call:
1. Hello can I help you?
2. Yes, security guard here XYZ Electronics at the ABC canal
3. Yes?
4. I've just been walking on the back well there's smoke coming out of one of our roofs. So, could
you tell the fire service our curtain shop there's a lot of chemicals and what have you in there.
5. Uh. Right. Is it XYZ Electronics.
6. Yeah.
7. ABC Industrial Estate.
8. That's right.
9. By the ABC Cana/?
10. Yeah. What I'll do I'll make my way round the back and I'll leave the gates open for them.
11. Right and its smoke is it?
12. Yeah. Smoke coming out of the roof
13. From the roof?
14. I haven't been there to investigate but I'll
15. Right - are you.... any of the chemicals that are kept there!
16. I couldn't really tell you.
17. Are they just
18. Chemicals from the
19. So
20. Phuric acid is in there.
21. It’s what sorry?
22. Sulphuric acid is in there.
23. Okay, don't worry now, we're on our way there.
24. Thank you.
25. Thank you. Bye.
One way to evaluate a conversation like this is to take a piece of paper and, laying it across the page of
the book, cover the entire conversation except the first line. Study that line, and then expose the next line.
Do this line by line. In this way you will be able, in part at least, to see the text as it unfolds. As you do
so, ask yourself what kind of information is being passed between the caller and the operator, and what
the quality of that information is. What does the operator know at any one moment in time?
In notating these calls I have concentrated on just three elements of each conversation. Firstly, I am
interested to know the extent to which there is cooperation between caller and operator at any one time. I
take it as axiomatic that co-operation means the full, frank and timely answering of any questions in
addition to the spontaneous offering of any information regarded as essential. Hesitations, incomplete or
overly short answers, and any signs of evasiveness on the part of the caller must indicate that there is
something wrong: i.e. that the caller might be making a false or hoax call (medical or other reasons apart).
From the roof?
I haven't been there to investigate but I'll ---
In this sequence the operator is trying to ascertain the visible source of the smoke. She says: 'From the
roof ?' Note that 'roof ' is italicized here. This means that the next turn overlaps with this word, or part of
it, because we see that what the caller says is also italicized: I haven’t been there ... '
So, what this notation means is that the caller does not wait for the operator to finish the information
request. Rather, we can imagine that the caller is listening very intently, and is ready with an answer even
before the operator has finished asking the question. This would appear to show a willingness on the part
of the caller to co-operate, particularly as the content of the turn appears relevant to what the operator
would seem to need to know at that point. The caller is continuously adding or seeking to add to the
information being given to the operator. The caller knows that for the call to be successful, information
must be incremental.
The second element of the conversation is that of intonational emphasis (i.e. verbally stressing a word or
syllable):
I’ve just been walking on the back well there's smoke coming out of one of our roofs.
As can be seen from the above excerpt from the call, the speaker emphasizes two words smoke and roofs.
I would contend that this is part of the speaker's commitment to information. He is emphasizing the two
most informative (pertinent, relevant etc.) words in the sentence.
Finally, there is rising voice pitch, which I highlight because it tells us two things. If the caller repeatedly
uses rising pitch at the end of each turn, then it may indicate lack of commitment. If the operator uses
rising pitch it may mean either that the operator doubts the call, or is seeking clarification.
we can propose that a genuine emergency call has several constituents, which we can consider under three
headings:
 Components of the call
 Attitude of the caller
 Aspects of phonetic output

Call components:
 Information about the incident, especially where and what',
 The relationship of the caller to the incident.

Attitude of the caller:

 Commitment by the caller to relay the details of the emergency;
 Co-operation of the caller with the operator - a willingness to answer questions fully, promptly
and accurately;
 Absence of conflict or confrontation from the caller, even if confronted as to the genuineness of
the call.
We can also, to some extent, predict some of the physical or phonetic features of the emergency call:

Aspects of phonetic output:

 Overlap between turns, especially from the caller, indicating co-operation;
 Emphasis of important, salient items of information;
 Avoidance of sentence-final rising voice pitch except where repetition or clarification is required
or where there is immediate cause for alarm.
 Ransom Demands and Other Threat Texts
Threat texts (which can be spoken or written, or even videoed) have something in common with
malicious emergency calls: the sender of the text or the person making the call is usually anonymous. The
recipient of the malicious text and the person receiving the malicious call are both at a disadvantage:
violence of one form or another is being perpetrated against them by someone who is unseen.
It seems axiomatic that the essence of a ransom demand is the demand for a ransom, but the truth is - in
my view at least - that it is the threat component which is really the most important part of any ransom
note, and is therefore that part of the ransom note to which we should pay the closest attention.
Threats are the counterparts of promises. If one person threatens to cause death or injury to another unless
x is done, then the person making the threat is implying that they will not carry out the threat if the
required condition is fulfilled. This is why ransom demands are so complex: they appear to contain a
conditional promise: 'If you do X, or pay Y, we will return Z to you.' However, it is very important that
the wording of the condition be considered carefully, because very often the kidnapper has no intention of
returning the hostage, alive or dead.
In the Lindbergh ransom note the author stated: 'We warn you for making anything public or for notify
the police the child is in gute care.' Here the kidnapper claims the child is in good hands. However, the
note would have to have been written before the perpetrator entered the premises, and so we see
immediately that the claim is false, since the kidnapper had not even encountered the child when he wrote
the note. How did he know that the child was not ill on that day, for example?
When kidnappers (or perpetrators of other, similar violent crimes) make claims they are not in a position
to verify at the time of making them, we need to respond quickly and decisively: we are dealing with a
perpetrator who is lying to us and will therefore not hesitate to break any so-called 'promise'.

 Hate mail:
Ransom demands are not the only kinds of threat text. In fact, threat texts probably require a book by
themselves since they are so diverse in character and, unfortunately, all too common. They include threats
to expose public officials or company executives unless such individuals resign, for example:
DEAR BILL,
I SUPPOSE YOU THOUGHT I WOULD FORGET BUT YOU ARE WRONG HOW COULD I
FORGET A RAT LIKE YOU. I HAVE SENT A LETTER WITH ALL YOUR PAST DETAILS
TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE. ALL YOUR DEBTS AND PAST MISSDEMEANOURS [SIC].
IF YOU DONT RESIGN FROM THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY THE PRESS WILL PRINT A
LIST OF ALL YOUR DEBTS BOTH LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY. I ALSO KNOW OF
THE BRIBES PAID TO THE UNDESIRABLES TO VOTE FOR YOU. YOUR BEHAVIOUR
IN MEXICO ALSO LEAVES ME WONDERING WHY YOU BOTHERED TO GO. IT
CERTAINLY WAS.NT TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE DEAD AS YOU WERE NEVER
SOBER. WHAT WOULD THE LOCALS THINK OF THAT? I ALSO KNOW OF THE
MONEY YOU HAVE POCKETED FROM THE MONEY RAISED FOR THE
CELEBRATIONS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO FOOL SOME PEOPLE BUT NOT ME. YOU
FORGET I HAVE KNOWN YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR LIFE. GO BACK INTO YOUR RAT
HOLE WHERE YOU BELONG AND STAY THERE.?????
The above letter was received by a client of mine some years ago, and contained a number of apparent
accusations. In fact, if someone wants to accuse another person of theft, all they have to do is to report the
crime to the law enforcement authorities. In other words, the writer's intention in sending this letter does
not seem to be the substantiating of 'claims' as to genuine wrongdoing, but rather to distress the addressee
with threats.
So, it seems that the threat in the above letter is not like the threat in the ransom note: the writer is not in
possession of anything that the addressee will want returned.

Suicide Letters
I hope this is what you wanted.
This is the entire text of a genuine suicide note. We know nothing about the circumstances of the victim's
death. For the addressee of the text, the context behind the sentence 'I hope this is what you wanted' may
or may not have been apparent, but the casual reader - i.e. one who has no knowledge of the participants,
the events or the circumstances would probably have to take such a note almost on trust. However, even
though the context may not be apparent to us we can, recognize the elements of a proposition.
First of all, though, we need to distinguish between the apparent locution and illocution of the text. We
can imagine that the writer does not literally intend to provide the addressee with what the addressee
wants, since the phrase ‘I hope this is what you wanted’, said in a certain way, and under certain
circumstances, can mean ‘I know this is not what you want, and that is why I am giving it to you’.
The proposition, therefore, behind this text could be an intention to make the addressee suffer or feel
guilty as a result of the writer's death. Further - as regards the proposition itself (if it is a proposition) -
whereas normally we might say 'I hope this is what you want’ in this text the writer says “.,. what you
wanted, implying that there is nothing the addressee can do now because it is too late. This really does
seem to show the writer's intention not to provide the addressee with what the addressee wants: the verb is
in the past tense.

Final Death Row Statements

Final death row statements (also just called 'final' or 'last' statements) are a relatively recent addition to
text types in forensic linguistics, and stem from the long-standing American tradition of allowing the
condemned person to say a few words immediately prior to execution.
Even though final death row statements represent a fairly small corpus overall, yet there is a surprising
degree of variety among them. The category is included here because it seems to constitute a discrete text
type: despite the differences you will find in the following texts, there are certain crucial similarities
which mean, in my view at least, that they constitute a single, and quite important class of text. The
following is a fairly typical tacit admission of a crime:
I am so sorry for what y'all had to go through. I am so sorry for what all of you had to go
through. I can't imagine losing two children. If I was y'all, I would have killed me. You know? I
am really so sorry about it, I really am. I got to go sister, I love you. Y'all take care and God
bless you. Gracie was beautiful and Tiffany was beautiful. You had some lovely girls and I am
sorry. I don't know what to say. All right, Warden, let's do it.
In this statement Dowthitt does not admit the crime directly, but by saying that had he been the family of
the victims then he would have had himself killed he effectively appears to be making an admission. Even
though his admission is indirect, the statement itself is very direct, brutally so: ‘I would have killed me.'
By contrast Mitchell, also a Texas death row prisoner, makes a more direct admission in his final
statement. He also asks for forgiveness from the victim's family.
Yes, sir. Where's Mr. Marino's mother? Did you get my letter? Just wanted to let you know, I
sincerely meant everything I wrote. I am sorry for the pain. I am sorry for the life I took from
you. I ask God for forgiveness and I ask you for the same. I know it may be hard, but I'm sorry
for what I did. To my family I love each and every one of you. Be strong. Know my love is always
with you ... always. I know I am going home to be with the Lord. Shed tears of happiness for me. I
love each and every one of you. Keep on living. Betty, you have been wonderful. You guided me
to the Lord. You have been like a mother to me. Sean, Rusty, Jenny, Marsha, God Bless each and
every one of y'all. Jesus, I confess you as my Lord and Savior. I know when I die, I'll have life in
heaven and life eternal everlasting. I am ready for that mansion that you promised me. Take
care. It's alright Sean, it's alright. I'm going to a better place.
Mitchell's 'I am sorry for the life I took from you' is also very direct. Unlike the previous statement,
however, in Mitchell's text the mention of religion is significant.

Confessions and Denials of Public Persons

Previously we looked at Derek Bentley's alleged statement from an authorship point of view, while
elsewhere we evaluated some aspects of veracity in Timothy John Evans' statements as part of a general
investigation into statement analysis. These texts are different from those of the final statement variety,
and those we have considered under the headings of authorship and statement analysis: these texts were
written or spoken by public figures. Francis Bacon, for example, wrote.
I am ready to make an OBLATION of myself to the King, in whose hands I am as Clay, to be made into a
vessel of Honor or Dishonor. ... Yet with respect to this Charge of Bribery I AM INNOCENT. I never had
Bribe or Reward. (Letter to the Duke of Buckingham, 1617)
In this text Bacon offers a sacrifice of himself to save the king's 'honor', while maintaining his own
innocence. In his statement from the gallows Henry Garnet, head of the Jesuits in England, confessed to
his part in the Gunpowder Plot as follows.
Good countrymen, I am come hither this blessed day of The Invention of the Holy Cross to end all my
crosses in this life. The cause of my suffering is not unknown to you. I confess I have offended the King,
and am sorry for it, so far as I was guilty; which was in concealing it, and for that I ask pardon of his
Majesty. (Harrison, 1941)
Finally, let us consider the closing words of Nelson Mandela's statement at his treason trial, at the end of
which Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment on Robben Island.
During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against
white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic
and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an
ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But, my lord, if it needs be, it is an ¡deal for which I
am prepared to die. (The British Library National Sound Archive)
Why are these public denials and confessions important linguistically? These are public figures
responding to their accusers, sometimes in public and sometimes in private. In these texts - diverse as
they are - we have prominent people, some of whom are members of the establishment, facing and
responding to the establishment. Bacon is prepared to save the king's honor, because he believes that this
is what a loyal subject should do, but he insists on his innocence as a matter of principle.
Garnet admits to having known that the Gunpowder Plot was to take place. He is confessing for one
reason only: to save people of his own religion from persecution. Finally, we have the statement of
Nelson Mandela, who states that he is prepared to die for his beliefs. All of these individuals believed
they were acting from principle.
There are surprising linguistic similarities between these three excerpts. Both Garnet and Mandela specify
aspects of a struggle, Garnet referring to 'crosses' and 'suffering', Mandela to 'this struggle of the African
people'. Bacon states his preparedness to making a Vessel' of himself. The idioms are different, and there
are different shades of meaning, but the communicative purpose is very similar across all three texts,
making them worth further study as part of a possible genre.