Forensic Results Page 1

Index
Mah Jong
Mandelbrot
Water Rockets
SIRDS
Weird
TrueType Fonts
FS98 UFO
Recipes
Forensic Analysis
Computer Security
Public Key
Site Map
Links
E-Mail

Results from Corel WordPerfect V6.1 Grammatik analysis.

Method

Grammatik gives a lot of data and much of the results from the analysis of the Proof of Evidence (POE) was fairly similar. The scope for experimental error is too great for such a small sample of words as exists in a single paragraph of text only the results with a more significant variation are displayed below in Table 1.

The document as a whole was pasted into Corel WordPerfect 6.1. Grammatik was used to analyse the text with all of the results being written down. Each paragraph was then analysed and noted in the same way. Only the ratios were used as various lengths of paragraph made useless the counts such as words and so on. The Sylables per Word results gave no significant variation.

Results

*Table 1*
Section Name	Words per Sentence	Big Words	Flesch	Passive	Sentence Complexity	Vocabulary Complexity
Whole	26	17%	43	15	88	25
1	40	23%	21	0	69	55
2	57	9%	20	20	80	12
3	23	15%	46	5	72	29
4	23	12%	54	19	73	20
5	25	15%	40	20	59	30
6	29	20%	31	15	90	46
7	51	15%	22	6	80	30
8	19	25%	37	0	48	62
9	23	16%	47	10	62	32
10	25	15%	46	18	70	30
11	25	15%	50	7	67	29
12	28	18%	40	21	88	38
13	37	17%	31	26	91	35
14	46	14%	22	10	79	26
14a	22	16%	52	20	46	33
15	33	11%	43	30	75	16
16	26	19%	45	18	86	42

Table 1 shows the results from the POE as a whole compared to each paragraph in turn. These results were sorted on a spreadsheet and a graph was produced from each sort.

By looking at each graph, it was possible to tell (at a glance, so to speak) where the majority of results lay and which results were anomalous.

In each case, the majority of results stood in a narrow band and the top few and bottom few were noted as anomalies. These are displayed in Table 2 below . . .

Analysis

*Table 2*
	Words per Sentence	Big Words	Flesch	Passive	Sentence Complexity	Vocabulary Complexity
High	1,14,7,2	1,8	11,14a,4	13,15	16,12,6,3	6,1,8
Low	8,14a	2	2,1,7,14	1,8,3,7	14a,8,5	2,15,4

The anomolies in Table 2 are put into Table 3. The most extreme cases being (emboldened) weighted as two. . .

*Table 3*
Section Name	Anomalies						High IQ H(W,B,S,V)+L(F,P)	Low IQ H(F,P)+L(W,B,S,V)	Total (weighted)
Section Name	W	B	F	P	S	V	High IQ H(W,B,S,V)+L(F,P)	Low IQ H(F,P)+L(W,B,S,V)	Total (weighted)
1	H	H	L	L		H	5 (9)	0 (0)	5 (9)
2	H	L	L			L	2 (4)	1 (2)	4 (8)
3				L	H		2 (3)	0 (0)	2 (3)
4			H			L	0 (0)	2 (3)	2 (3)
5					L		0 (0)	1 (1)	1 (1)
6					H	H	2 (3)	0 (0)	2 (3)
7	H		L	L			3 (4)	0 (0)	3 (4)
8	L	H		L	L	H	3 (6)	2 (4)	5 (10)
9							0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
10							0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
11			H				0 (0)	1 (1)	1 (1)
12					H		1 (1)	0 (0)	1 (1)
13				H			0 (0)	1 (1)	1 (1)
14	H		L				2 (2)	0 (0)	2 (2)
14a	L		H		L		0 (0)	3 (5)	3 (5)
15				H		L	0 (0)	2 (4)	2 (4)
16					H		1 (1)	0 (0)	1 (1)

Inferences

This method of analysis (looking only at the paragraphs as a whole) is fairly crude and cannot find small edits such as the inclusion of the word merit in two places - a word that occured nowhere else in anything that Tod Potsgrove wrote or said - or various other peculiarities - such as the bits of solicitor speak that dot the document. In addition, there is a generic problem with small samples of data in that any analytical method has to overcome the problems of small samples, ie signal to noise ratio and contamination.

Table 3 shows us that paragraphs 8, 1, 2 and 14a are consistently remarkable and stand out from the rest and paragraphs 9, 10, 5, 11, 12, 13 and 16 are not remarkable overall although, like all of the Proof of Evidence, could contain added text. The fact that only 7 out of 17 paragraphs are consistent casts serious doubts over most of the rest of the document.

Being extremely contentious, looking at the "IQ", it appears that Paragraphs 1, 8, 2 and 7 are written by someone with a higher IQ whilst 14a is written by someone with a lower IQ. Part of the problem is knowing where to draw the line with interpretation but, without knowing what is on the other side, a line cannot be drawn. Possibly IQ is not the correct term to use but grouping together the types of anomaly is perhaps better than just "counting them up".

The penultimate sentence of paragraph 16 "Furthermore, when Mr Dale was presented with information he would become a computer snob and would attempt to confuse people like me who are not IT sophisticated to any degree." has a certain infantile quality. Although it is impossible to prove that Tod Potsgrove wrote any of the text (it was only presented after his death and nobody has been able to show a signed copy), one has to ask if this is his own style (or at least the style of the person who wrote most of it).

This analysis and an examination of the bits of solicitor speak that litter the document indicate that there are at least two authors for the Proof of Evidence - possibly three - with one having some legal training.

Back to the Results Index

Back to the Index