Here are some reversals from Vernal Kunz and Jesica Mitchell concerning the disappearance of their child, Deorr Kunz.
It is important to be careful about making claims of harm by others using RS. We are dealing with a person’s subconscious. Our subconscious is full of memories and experiences of our lives. All kinds of things exist in our subconscious – critical thought, hatefulness, anger, love, kindness, etc. And, all kinds of meanderings of mind occur – look at the strangeness and incoherency of dreams. See how images and words around you trigger a conceptualisation within your subconscious that is not actually about what is happening in your environment. If the subconscious expresses ideas and concepts, well, that’s true for the person’s subconscious, and it can, and does have an influence on the person’s external behaviour and their actions in life – it all depends on counter forces within and without, whether certain thoughtforms of the subconscious become fully actualised in the external world.
With Reverse Speech, we are looking at what is going on within a person’s subconscious/unconscious. Leaving the concept of a higher self, soul or spirit to the side for now, where there might be metaphorical language, when dealing with the subconscious, are we dealing with an integrated system that can be viewed in the singular, and consider that what is uttered in reverse is the Truth, like a higher being, or are we dealing with a collection of semi-autonomous entities formed throughout the person’s life, such as the critic, the pusher, the controller, etc etc? And, is the ‘Truth’, the truth of whichever one is communicating in reverse at that time?
Some of the reversals I put will up in this particular project over time will not necessarily be so obvious. Some will most likely not be reversals, but be coincidental only. The focus of the project is on what might be included or at least noted in an analysis of a criminal case. It is also an exploration of the characteristics of RS, and what may be reasonable and what may not be reasonable.
So, there will be a range of offerings of examples. Some will be acceptable as reversals, some not so acceptable, yet interesting enough to note. There will also be examples where Kunz and Mitchell are speaking over each other and producing reversals at the same time.
1. RS: Look in a crevasse
FS: Yeah we (decided we were going to go a little) exploring; he was going to be good with grandpa down by the campfire
RS: He’s pit fill/kill
FS: We weren’t more than (probably fifty), fifty yards away.
He’s pit – f[ifty] – short [f] provides perception of [p], [t] provides sibilant.
fill – [probably f]ifty – ‘probably’ has become highly distorted in the forward speech providing the ‘ill’ in the RS word. A general listening can give [kill]; however, [fill] occurs on a closer listening.
Look in – g[onna go al]ittle
a crevasse – [decided we’re go]ing to – ‘decided’ has become distorted in the forward speech providing perception of ‘asse’; articulation of [w] here provides for [v]; [g] provides for [c].
NOTE: something approximating the words ‘throw you’ occur between the two reversals; but it can also sound like ‘grow’.
2. Here, Kunz’s subconscious states that he is ‘a thermal one’. The word ‘thermal’, to do with heat, may be a word worthy of noting. He then asks the question. Is or was he hid?, as though he doesn’t know. The first audio has the two comments separated, but they occur together one after the other. Note after he states the first section, there is something wrong with his throat. In the second part he tries to speak while struggling with his throat, as if he has breathed in smoke from a fire.
RS: I’m a thermal one; is/was he hid/hit?
FS: that he isn’t no longer up the mountain
I’m the [the mou]ntain –
thermal – [longer up] – [th] and [m] are perceivable in place of [p] and [n] in the FS.
Is/Was he – [he is]n’t – this could also be meant to be ‘was’. Between the two comments, at the start of this section is an [n] from ‘isnt’ in the FS. We can consider this as extraneous to the comments.
hid [that h] – it is possible this could also be meant to be ‘hit’.
Joining the reversal at the start are words ‘mean it’; there appears to be a word before, but it is unknown. Here is the reversal with ‘mean it’ included.
3. During the 15 minute interview Kunz expresses his exasperation about the rumours going around. Two reversals (no. 3 & 4) were found that link to this. This one shows concern about the use of the internet by people to discuss and make claims.
RS: So we’ve searched net, seeing if they’re gonna start thread
FS: Salmon Search and Rescue, to see what their thoughts on everything is, and trust me with such a small area, 175 people …
A couple of potential reversals were found before and after this section
- Universe – you’re a higher alarm (included in audio)
- Firm against (not included)
So we’ve – [me with] – The [th] in the FS has sibilance; the bilabial [m] provides adequate perception of the labial [v].
searched net – [and trust] – initial [s] in RS comes from [st] in FS where [t] has disappeared naturally as it does in FS. [ch] comes [tr]; ‘net’ comes from ‘and’.
seeing if – th[ing is] – lack of [f] in the RS may be OK in natural speech processes as it moves quickly to [th]. This is elision.
their gonna – [on every th]ing – ‘their’ is quite obvious from the FS; ‘gonna’ is more problematic. The [v] is weakly articulated in the FS, which is usual when it is not stressed, and this is OK. An obvious [r] remains, and on close listening, this is what is can be heard rather than [g]. This is actually OK, as in natural speech spoken at a faster pace, the place of articulation in the velar position could become more approximate resulting in an [r] influencing it. A general overall, ‘macro’ listening gives the impression. We must use an overall listening to understand what the person is saying; this is normal. Therefore, ‘gonna’ may be acceptable.
start – [thoughts] – within bounds
thread – [their th]oughts – OK
4. RS: Snared, their fear of net
FS and very very advanced
Snared – a[dvanced] – [v] disappears, final [d] in FS weakens enough to provide a perception of a sibilant initial
they’re – v[ery ad]vanced –
fear of – [very v]ery – adequate approximation of words
net [and] – appropriate perception of [t] at end of RS
Depends who their refers to, and also who is ‘snared’ by it. The reversal may refer to others, or it may be a semi-autonomous personality aspect of Kunz commenting that he (and his wife etc) fear the goings on over the internet regarding them and the case.
5. Here is one place where Kunz is talking about people making unwanted comments and claims. The reversal indicates fraudulent/deceptive behaviour.
RS Boy in a counterfeit.
FS: If you’re not going to help, please don’t
Boy [help] Some aspiration occurs
in a counterfeit [If you’re not gonna]
6. RS: Back up. But every guidebook is taken.
FS: And I’ve just come down to get any resource I ca[n get to go back up today]
back up – [back up]
But every – [right up] – ‘every’ is quite normal in speech processes of natural speech
guidebook is [to go back] – the loss of the alveolar [d] position in ‘guide’ is a normal linguistic process.
taken [and get]
Deciding what exactly the first section is will depend on the whole reversal. It also depends on the focus of ‘taken’ – is the focus on that there are no guidebooks left for him to use, or does it imply that there a lot of people out looking for the child (every guidebook being used)? Including ‘back up’ shows a contrast. Although he may want to go back up, at the same time, there could be self-doubt about his competency up the mountains in searching, or an aspect of him doesn’t want to go and is trying to sabotage him.
7. RS: Sheriff bruff /Brough you’re found in everything. If he does know, move it.
FS: those r[idges from one side of it and the other not very far apart].
Sheriff [apart] – not a completely clear example, but possible.
bruff your’e – v[ery far] – perception of a [b] is possible. However, this is an estimate of the sounds. As to what the word is supposed to be, that could be another question …
found – [not v]ery
in everything [and the other and are]
If he does know [one side of i]t –
move it – r[idges from]
There is obviously no-one called Sheriff Brough, if it is ‘bruff”, the reversal may read as – “Sheriff – bruff – you’re found in everything – If he does know, move it”. I have found that RS is often a series of comments rather than one single comment.
A ‘bruff’ person tends to act in a rough manner. The reversal would suggest a perception that the sheriff is all over. The question here is, if he knows something, what is to be moved?
8. RS: police, if he bust, now I’ll bury case/’n I’ll bury case ……. or, police, if he does know, bury case
FS: The reservoir itself isn’t but maybe a few feet deep. You can [see, if you’re up on top you can see the] bottom of the centre; if you’re looking at the middle of the reservoir, you can see the bottom of it.
The above reversals represent potentialities of the language. There is what may be language before ‘police’, however I have not included it because of the lack of clarity of the preceding ‘word’. This could be a problem, because, ‘police’ may not be the beginning of a statement, but the end of it, and not having the full reversal may affect meaning.
Version 1: police, if he bust, now/’n I’ll bury case
At ‘if’ there is a frication that could be considered to be an /f/; however after, there is a roundedness following that gives some sense of ‘ui’ – I have retained the word ‘he’ as the documentation, nevertheless. /b/ comes from the /p/ in FS ‘top’. There is some frication from the FS /t/ that gives some sense of /s/. Therefore, I have documented ‘bust’ as one possibility. As there is language that immediately follows it is quite natural that the word hasn’t received full articulation in its final sound. The next word(s) may be heard as ‘now’ or ‘n I’ll. /b/ in ‘bury’ comes from the /p/ in FS ‘up’. /c/ is perceivable from the movement from ‘see’ to ‘if’ with the ramping of acoustic energy in reverse,
Version 2: police, if he does know, bury case
Speech perception can cause one to hear /d/ instead of /b/ to produce ‘does’. Rather than ‘now’ or ‘I’ll’, the word becomes ‘know’ and goes on the end of the first clause rather than the beginning of the last clause. Interestingly, in the previous reversal above about the ‘sheriff’, he appears to say ‘if he does know’ behind different FS words.
In the wash up, there is ambiguity in this reversal.
8. RS: Nail mouth; his nerve
FS: A lot of people are praying for you. they’re concern ….
Kunz: [Friends and family] ….
Kunz may be concerned about what people may say (Note: JM appears to say in reverse – I meet her).
9. Some of the following reversals have problems linguistically; however, I have included them as
- there is a group of language-like utterances within a short 11 second section of speech.
- although problematic, in an analysis at least some may have potential worth as more substantial evidence is gained.
- they make for an interesting discussion point as to possible characteristics of RS.
The forward speech is:
Kunz (JDK): Were looking for you son and we will find you, and we love you more than anything in the world. You have a lot of people who love you and are looking for you. Buddy we’ll find you. Daddy will find you.
Mother (JM): We’ll never stop looking until we get you home.
(a) Both father (VDK) and mother (JM) are speaking at the same time, and give the impression they are producing language in reverse. What they are potentially producing is of interest – enough for me to note it. But I cannot claim that it is correct.
Firstly, language solely from the father and solely from JM can be differentiated. But first we will get an overall picture of what it sounds like by the speech of both together. The dominating voice is mostly the father’s.
We ‘nounce swee dead/We ‘nounce sweet head
FS: JDK: Daddy will find you/JM: We’ll never stop looking
Note: there does appear to be ‘who’ at the beginning, but I have not included it here.
Here the sibilance ([s] sounds) is provided by JM. So, we have something similar to ‘announce’, and the word ‘dead’. ‘swee’ is a problem, however; and the second alternatively is quite illogical.
Here is JDK’s speech alone:
We now full. He dead.
FS: Daddy will find you
I am not confident that this represents viable language.
now – f[ind]
full[will f]ind – vowel like that in ‘full’; one mat entertain the possibility of ‘fool’, but there can be no certainty of it due to incorrect vowel.
‘e dead [Daddy] – no [h], so a suggestion of a possible [he] only. Sounds like ‘dead’, but alternative would be ‘Dad’.
Here is JM’s language alone (you will have to separate it out from Kunz’s stronger voice):
He killed – parts thrown.
(note, before ‘he’ there is [n], however, this most likely represents ‘an’ he’, and I have not included it).
FS: [f.. never stop looking ] until we get you home
- kill(ed) comes from [look]ing
- parts comes from [stop]
- thrown is an approximation of her voice; it is difficult with Kunz speaking over her. The vowel could be more like that in ‘threw’; however, there is the [n] in ‘never’ in the FS, so I consider ‘thrown’ a possibility.
Alternatively to ‘parts thrown’ – parts threw.
Also, there is an extra syllable at the end; whether it is extraneous or not, I am unsure. The ending sounds like ‘move’ or ‘a move’.
He killed – parts threw, move.
However, if ‘thrown’ is accepted rather than ‘threw’, the [n] takes the place of the [m], leaving ‘oof’ or ‘olf’. This sounds somewhat similar to wolf. If so, then it would read as:
He killed – parts thrown wolf.
- If ‘he killed’, either it refers to someone killing, or it refers to the child being killed.
- ‘parts thrown’ – well it would then refer to body parts thrown somewhere.
If ‘wolf’ was included:
- This may either be seen as real involvement or imagined involvement by a wolf.
(b) This reversal occurs in the FS before the one above.
Kunz RS: We now freedom
FS: Buddy we’ll find you
- We now – f[ind you]
- freedom is poorly articulated with a [w] and a [b] where I am assuming the [b] has some [m] qualities and is meant to be [m].
If meant to be freedom, one could assume that a feeling of freedom is gained by that aspect of the subconscious.
(c) In this one and the next one, we have words that may represent from/for the killer. They both come from ‘We’re looking for’ by JDK. This weakens its potential somewhat, and should only gain value depending on other words around it, grammatical correctness etc. Nevertheless, choice of words in the forward speech can also be influenced by the subconscious. In this one and the next one, it may have value, or it may be coincidental.
Kunz RS: We ‘ear from the killer or We ‘ere for the killer or We are for/from the killer
FS: …You have a lot of people love you and [are looking for you]
- There was an initial, separate sound before the beginning of the reversals with the initial [f] followed by a vowel sound. I have left it off for clarity.
- After ‘we’, the syllable is open to different possibilities.
- An unclear [f] syllable then occurs, which seems to have a quality of an approximate and vowel in it. There is no [m]; however in normal speech, at times the [m] can assimilate into the following sound and largely disappear. It is unclear, but may represent ‘from’ or ‘for’. Choice of word should depend on what makes grammatical and logical sense.
- [k] in ‘killer’ also has a [p] quality due to plosiveness. However, an assumption should be made of ‘killer’.
This reversal has uncertain structures, but is worthwhile noting in case it can lend something to better, more substantial evidence.
(d) Kunz RS: ¹We now, 4 wheel now – ²See you’re from the killer
FS: ²[We’re lookin’ for you s]on ¹[and we will find you]
- See you’re could alternatively be ‘See ‘er’ (as in ‘See her’)
- from the killer – as above. The [f] syllable is unclear, so it is just a guess.
- vowel shorter than if ‘wheel’ was spoken in isolation; however, this would be normal in speech
(e) Kunz RS: But I’ll bury
FS: [You have a lot of p]eople who love you
- As far as speech is concerned, ‘but I’ll’ is quite normal. Quickly spoken, this is acceptable.
- ‘Bury’ is only an approximation. It can sound like something else. [r] tends to be projected; You could even have ‘Bowie’, but this wouldn’t make any sense!
10. VDK talks over JM. It appears that both are producing language. We shouldn’t assume that anything that sounds like language is genuine. Some will be coincidental. Therefore, the reversals below may be a combination of genuineness and coincidence. VDK mentions what could be ‘weir’ (twice). For this reason, it is worth taking note.
Here is the forward speech:
JM: If somebody has him they’ll eventually bring him back. They, somebody will come forward.
VDK: Somebody will come forward wondering where this child has come from ….
Here is the audio of both people speaking together. We will break it down into parts after this.
VDK: My fuck to lash to their weir. Know it all. Mark all weir [mus(t)].
JM: A road map. A win must get. I’m near. Wheels never late/led
My fuck to lash to their weir (VDK’s voice)/Her road map – a win must get/A road map that we must get (JM’s voice)
My fuck [come from] – First word is ambiguous, however, as there is /m/ from the FS, I will assume at this point that it is ‘my’.
to lash [child has] – This is the closest word to the sounds.
to their weir wond[ering where thi]s – an assumption is being made that the word is ‘weir’ in light of the importance of the reservoir.
A second comment follows directly on from the first one (I have separated them in the audio)
Know it all
Know it all [forward won]dering – [f] disappears; vowel [o] moving to the [f] gives a sense of [ll] in reverse; know it comes from [d won].
Following is a third comment. In light of the importance or ‘weir’, it is worthwhile considering.
Mark all weir
I have removed ‘mus(t)’ for sake of clarity, and because it may not affect its validity. What is interesting, is directly in concert with these words, Jessica Mitchell states in reverse ‘I’m near’ (see below).
Mark all – somebody [will come] – don’t get ‘all’ mixed up with JM who utters ‘a’ at that point.
weir – some[body w]ill – I am assuming it is ‘weir’ again
Jessica Mitchell section
Of course, the following is just an approximation of sounds. There is a fair amount of ambiguity happening. Yet, it does sound there is language, so it is worthwhile documenting aversion, but without claiming that it is there.
Her road map
Her – for[ward] – A possible consonantal sound can exist as the initial from the FS [d]. The distortion of the [d] disrupts cues and it may be heard more as a velar like a /k/ sound. However, it is also weakened, and may be perceived as [h] instead due to the aspiration.
road – [for]ward – A stop-like consonant may be perceived in place of FS [f]. On close listening this could be closest to [g], however [d] is being assumed here.
map – [come] forward The ending is ambiguous, and of course could be a /k/ sound from the FS [c].
So, clearly, there is ambiguity, and therefore uncertainty as to whether it constitutes a reversal or not.
A win must get/that we must get (JM)
A win/that we – someb[ody will] – A general listening gives a sense of ‘we’, however, ‘win’ is possible. Perception of an [n] ending on closer listening, and natural assimilation into the following [m] would occur anyway. ‘A’ is ambiguous; it could be meant to be something else such as ‘that’.
Here it is as (a) win
must get – they some]body – [g] is perceivable between [y] and [s] in the FS. One may perceive it as ‘more scared’, which should be kept in mind as an alternative; however, on close listening there is a short ‘ma’ sound before the sibilant. Nevertheless, the duration of ‘get’ is out of whack with the duration of other words, making it more like the duration of ‘scared’.
I’m near – [bring him back] – FS [k] disappears and [m b] allows [m] to produce ‘I’m’. RS /n/ comes from FS [ng]. FS [b] disappears leaving [r].
JM states this directly behind VDL’s ‘Mark all weir’. ‘I’m’ would either refer to herself, or even possibly her child stated in the first person, indicating the child was near the weir.
Wheels never late/led
Wheels – even[tually] – [t] creates the sibilance; [l] comes from [ll].
Some of this is potentially interesting – that Kunz appears to say ‘weir’ twice, that he seems to say ‘know it all, mark all weir’, and behind this JM appears to say ‘I’m near’. If ‘A win must get’, this may simply mean she wants her child back. Those with a different view, may believe that she wants to be successful in getting out of this situation. With ‘wheels’, I have noticed the reference to vehicles by VDK as well as Isaac Reinwand, so it is worth noting, but may not mean much.