ANONYMOUS LETTER TELL US ABOUT ITS AUTHOR?

The following text is based on an original threatening letter that id asked forensic linguists to analyze for this article. Some of the content has been modified and the names have been changed, but the mistakes and other prominent characteristics are similar to those found in the original. Keep reading to find out which features provide the best clues as to the author’s identity.

[1] ORIGIN: The opening phrase “Amy we have she ok” and the misspellings “wuld” and “gurl” are initially an indication that the author is neither a native speaker of English nor well educated. It soon becomes evident, however, that the mistakes are intentional and designed to throw any investigators off the track. The description of the drop-off point has no such errors. “Put the money in a Safeway bag and put it in the green dumpster at the corner of Flannery St. and Flood St. at exactly 6 The one next to the telephone pole with the red poster.” The author does not want to run the risk of being misunderstood because the drop-off place is essential to a “successful” kidnapping. It is typical of English speakers pretending to be a foreigner to leave out and misspell words and use incorrect verb forms: “You has one chance.” The author is probably a native speaker of English.

[2] CONNECTIONS The final threat mentioning El Chapo is striking, if ludicrous (“El Chapo watching!”). Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was extradited to the U.S. in 2017 and convicted and sentenced in 2019 to life plus 30 years at ADX Florence, the most secure supermax

prison in the U.S. It is highly unlikely that he has anything to do with the kidnapper.

[3] LONE CRIMINAL: The author uses the “we” form, a tactic that such criminals often employ in anonymous letters. It’s designed to conceal the person’s identity and make the demands seem more threatening—a group usually feels more sinister than an individual. The final threat to involve the infamous leader of a drug cartel is part of this tactic.

[4] PROFESSION: This letter has some of the structural elements of a normal letter (date, salutation, body). However, the unusual form of the date (“Today, Feb. 2, 3 and the missing comma after the salutation (“Dear Mr. Frost”) suggest that the writer is not used to corresponding by letter. It is unlikely that the writer works in an office.

[5] STYLE: The anonymous author opens the letter with a rather distanced and strangely formal salutation: “Dear Mr. Frost.” This is followed by a text designed to sound primitive, which in turn is followed by very precise and correctly written

instructions. Finally the message ends with abrupt, incorrectly formulated demands: “Come yourself! No call police!!! Or else!!! We serious! You has one chance!” The writer deliberately controls the levels of speech to achieve a desired effect. [6] AGE: There is nothing in the letter to indicate the age of the author, although the correct usage of upper- and lowercase letters may rule out a younger author who has been extensively exposed to the Internet and all its shorthand.

[7] GENDER: Forensic linguists disagree about whether there is any difference between the way men and women write. However crime statistics reveal that kidnapping, blackmail, and extortion are much more likely to be committed by men. When a woman writes a threatening letter, the message tends to be harsher as well as more insulting and personal. [8] EDUCATION: The author correctly uses upperand lowercase letters by starting sentences and proper names (Safeway, Flannery, Flood) with a capital. The spelling and grammar are correct in the section detailing the drop-off place. The author likely had at least a grade school education.

[9] PERCEPTIONS: The author describes what he or she sees. The “green dumpster,” the “red poster.” The letter also mentions seeing a girl “with smile on face” and not a girl laughing, for example. This suggests that the author primarily focuses on a visual account of the surroundings, and visual stimuli are the dominant channel of perception.

“Every dot and comma can have a hidden meaning.” Forensic linguist Patrick Rottler

“WE REVEAL MORE THROUGH LANGUAGE THAN WE REALIZE.”

Martin and Rottler use two different approaches—the very same ones that forensic linguists successfully used to analyze the anonymous letters written by the Unabomber (see page 64). The first approach is used when there is no known suspect. Analysts will break down an anonymous piece of writing into its individual linguistic components and analyze each detail. Is the author more likely a man or a woman? What is the probable age? What does the text reveal about the author’s level of education? Are there any clues in the text about the region where author resides or spent time? Or about his or her preferences and interests? Often text will reveal quite a bit about the author’s personality: whether the person is introverted or extroverted, for instance, or if he or she is pragmatic or fanciful. When investigators finish this analysis they end up with a profile of the author, a hypothesis about what sort of person the writer might be. This can be very useful as the investigation continues. It’s most helpful to be able to rule out entire categories of people because the author appears, for example, to be a well-educated male between the ages of 40 and 45 with southern roots.

Investigators will opt for a second approach after they have identified a potential culprit or if a victim suspects a particular individual (or individuals) of being behind the attack. That was the case with Rosemarie Stack. Given that her stalker appeared to possess specific information about her life and schedule, she said she could think of only three people who might be her stalker: her husband’s ex-girlfriend, a neighbor, or a suitor she had once rejected. She was sure it must be one of them. Very sure.

“In cases like this, we compare the patterns we find in the anonymous messages with texts we know were written by the suspects,” says Martin. “If the same linguistic patterns occur in both the anonymous texts and the benchmark texts, we know we have found the author. What we’re looking for are linguistic abnormalities, and especially those that recur with some regularity. It’s important to note that mistakes such as putting commas in the wrong place or confusing ‘there,’ ‘their,’ and ‘they’re’ are so common that they don’t really tell us much. However if someone always writes ‘diffrent’ instead of ‘different’ or ‘garanty’ instead of ‘guarantee,’ such consistent abnormalities will get us a lot further. The deeper we delve into grammar, spelling, and word usage, the more we learn about the author. These are things that an author does subconsciously, and they can reveal his or her identity.”

When the language profilers give Rosemarie Stack the results of their initial forensic analysis, her reaction is one of utter amazement. “In our opinion, none of those three people you’ve named is your stalker,” says Martin. Stack is dismayed. First she insists that the author simply has to be one of the people she suspects. Then she tells Martin and Rottler to continue their investigation. And that is exactly what they do…

“BEWARE IF YOU LET YOUR KIDS PLAY OUTDOORS!”

In their search for new evidence, the profilers learn that Rosemarie Stack had already mentioned three possible suspects—three different people—to the police. When asked about that, she goes on to name several other possible authors: her ex-husband, a childhood friend, a former neighbor, her house cleaner, workmates—they all seem like valid possibilities to her. Meanwhile, the messages from the stalker are getting even nastier and have started to threaten her children. Messages like “Beware if you let your kids play outdoors” and “Walking to school is getting dangerous now that it’s cold and dark outside” are taking a terrible toll on the woman’s spirits.