366 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
possible to do so, given the sample sizes, and the lack of
lexical frequency norms....
The conclusion, ‘The above findings demonstrate an
extraordinary level of stylistic similarity between the
questioned diary and the known writings’ might in the
hands of a good lawyer convince a jury, but it would not
be difficult for another good lawyer to question the
supposedly ‘scientific’ basis of the argument. For
instance, your honor, what norms are used as the
baseline for the judgments? When M says, concerning
the use of the percent sign and ampersand, that ‘what... they have in common is their occasional use. Their
use if not frequent or abnormal’, or ‘parenthesis... are
used very frequently’, or “The semicolon... occurs
very frequently,’ how are we to interpret these remarks?
Is this linguistic SCIENCE?....
The problem is, after reading this book, lawyers might
be forgiven for thinking that this is an orthodox account
of a domain of applied stylistics. It is not. It is an
account which has been tailored to meet the traditions
and expectations of the legal profession.... It may
well do a service to jurisprudence; but I am not sure that
it does a service to applied linguistics.^84
I previously described problems with the forensic stylistics
method and how misleading it might be to a jury who has no
concept of linguistics.^85
Goutsos also expressed disagreement with McMenamin’s
subjective assessment method.^86 In his review of McMenamin’s
work for Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of
Speech, Language and Law, the journal of the International
Association of Forensic Linguists, he shows how McMenamin’s
methodology does not follow normal linguistics methodology.
(^84) Crystal, supra note 82, at 383–84.
(^85) Chaski, Who Wrote It?, supra note 1; Carole E. Chaski, Junk Science,
Pre-Science and Developing Science, NAT’L CONF. ON SCI. & L. PROC.,
1999, at 97.
(^86) Dionysis Goutsos, Review Article: Forensic Stylistics, 2 FORENSIC
LINGUISTICS 99 (1995).