LINGUIST List 29.1219

Fri Mar 16 2018

How does Linguistics shape a Criminal Investigation?

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clarelinguistlist.org>

Date: 16-Mar-2018
From: LINGUIST List <linguistlinguistlist.org>
Subject: How does Linguistics shape a Criminal Investigation?
E-mail this message to a friend

Dear LINGUIST readers,

This week, following our Fund Drive theme of “Linguistics on the Silver
Screen”, we are highlighting another depiction of linguistics in media: the
role of linguistic clues in Manhunt: Unabomber. This 2017 Discovery Channel
mini-series depicts (a somewhat fictionalized version of) the FBI
investigation of the Unabomber, an American domestic terrorist who mailed a
series of package bombs to victims across the United States between 1978 and
1995. Due to his care in leaving virtually no forensic evidence, the Unabomber
proved to be difficult to identify through traditional forensic methods.
Adding to that difficulty, his victims appeared to be selected at random, his
mail bombs were sent anonymously in nondescript packages and there was only
one known sighting in 17 years. In his manifesto, the Unabomber said “Some
scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race…
comparative linguistics, for example” ("Industrial Society and its Future",
paragraph 88). Ironically, it was linguistics that led to the identification
and arrest of the Unabomber, and the story is a truly fascinating one.

If you haven’t seen this series yet, this is your official spoiler warning for
the rest of this post! And although the outcome of the case may be historical
fact, we recommend watching the series and enjoying the gripping twists and
turns in the story of the investigation.

The series begins with the introduction of James Fitzgerald, a real life
criminal profiler who contributed to the case. Although some with knowledge of
the true events claim “Fitz” is a composite character representing several
investigators, he is nonetheless a compelling protagonist. Fresh out of FBI
Academy, Fitz is a new criminal profiler chosen to take part in the FBI’s
UNABOM investigation. Quickly becoming frustrated with the FBI’s adherence to
unlikely profiles based on little evidence, he suggests developing a fresh
profile of the killer, one derived from careful reading of the Unabomber’s own
letters and manifesto. He thinks the Unabomber is much more intelligent than
the FBI had accounted for, and ultimately an ideological terrorist, not a
serial killer.

The first inkling of linguistics as a relevant avenue of investigation comes
to Fitz when he is mocked by his teammates for his pronunciation of the word
water, or as he says, wudder, with his Philadelphia accent. Fitz has a
revelation–what if there’s a wudder in the manifesto, some clue in the
language as to the author’s origins? He invites a team of experts in all the
topics relevant to the manifesto, including linguist Natalie Rogers. While the
other academics contribute little, Rogers politely asks questions about the
language in the text: does it say Corrections or Errata? It turns out to be an
important distinction: the format of the manifesto matches the accepted format
for dissertations written between 1967 and 1972. The first major clue: the
Unabomber has a PhD. Rogers then tells Fitz about idiolect, the concept of
linguistic variation at an individual level, or as Fitz calls it, a
“linguistic fingerprint”. He is immediately taken by the idea, and it begins
to shape his team’s investigation going forward.

Through this idea, clues start to reveal themselves: the Unabomber spells some
words in unusual ways, which turn out to match a very old style guide for the
Chicago Tribune, indicating that he probably read that newspaper diligently
during that time period. He uses outdated and offensive terminology for women
and minorities, indicating his age as older than previously thought, probably
at least 50. He’s meticulous, a perfectionist; he writes about his
sophisticated philosophical ideas in an academic register. The picture painted
by these clues looks quite different from the FBI’s original profile.

However, word choice and spelling aren’t the only tools at Fitz’s disposal.
While grabbing dinner with Rogers, she humorously uses a nacho platter as a
visual aid for explanation of the linguistic case for the Slavic homeland. She
explains that linguists looked not only for the words the daughter languages
had, but the ones they didn’t have. This inspires Fitz to look toward
discourse analysis of the manifesto, and the concepts and topics not mentioned
by the Unabomber.

More clues and theories roll in: he doesn’t mention a family, or friends, and
is likely very isolated. He doesn’t appear to have a phone, and doesn’t seem
to know about computers, pop culture, or anything modern. Maybe, Fitz reasons,
he’s been isolated for quite some time.

Eventually, the big break in the case does come from language: when the
Unabomber demands his manifesto be published on a national scale, Fitz
convinces his boss that agreeing to the demand might result in someone
recognizing the language in the document. Sure enough, David Kaczynski
comes across the manifesto, recognizes the style and content, and is
immediately concerned that his brother may be the Unabomber. After
hearing Fitz’s working profile, David is stunned by the close resemblance to
his brother. This convinces him to share more evidence and give up the location
of his brother, Ted Kaczynski, now known to be the Unabomber.

Finally, Fitz is able to help the team secure a warrant to search Kaczynski’s
cabin, based on the close linguistic resemblance between the killer’s letters
and Kaczynski’s letters to his brother. Language proves to be the tool that
provides not only investigative leads, but also probable cause.

Although the account presented in Manhunt: Unabomber is fictionalized, this
case is well known to be one that brought forensic linguistic analysis into
higher regard. The series depicts the real value of author identification,
dialectology, discourse analysis, and corpus analysis, as these techniques
conspired to create a valuable and accurate criminal profile of the Unabomber.

Furthermore, even within the bounds of fiction, the story depicts a reality
many linguists experience daily: the fascinating applications of linguistic
analysis, and the frequent, frustrating resistance from those outside the
field. Natalie Rogers is mocked by other academics even when she has been
chosen for consultation by the FBI; Fitz is told by peers and superiors that
language isn’t real evidence, and is repeatedly prevented from following what
are actually real leads, with real investigative value. As a linguist, it is
definitely a pleasure to watch Fitz and Rogers succeed and eventually lead the
case to its close–even if, at the end of the story, they still don’t get the
credit they deserve.

One qualm that a member of our staff had was how the Philadelphia accent was
depicted in the movie. As a Philadelphian herself, she found issue with how
the actor pronounced wudder and the lack of common idiosyncrasies present in
the Philadelphian dialect. While the film highlighted idiolects and their
ability to reveal aspects of a person’s history, Fitz was played by an
Australian actor and, at times, his native idiolect came through.
Inadvertently, the show once again demonstrates how one’s own language can
reveal more than initially meets the ears.

Have you seen Manhunt: Unabomber? If so, tell us in the comments what you
thought! If not, we highly recommend watching the tale unfold for yourself.
For more analysis of linguistics in pop culture, check out last week’s post
about Arrival at https://blog.linguistlist.org/fund-drive/arrival-linguistics-on-the-silver-screen/.
And don’t forget to head over to our Fund Drive homepage to read more about us
and donate TODAY. The LINGUIST List needs your help!

https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

Linguistically yours,

The LINGUIST List Team

Page Updated: 16-Mar-2018