More recent Isaac Reinwand reversals can be found at https://reversespeechanalysis.org/2016/07/15/isaac-reinwand/
Isaac Reinwald was at the campsite with the family on the day of Deorr Kunz’s disappearance. Here are some potential reversals from an interview with him in January 2016.
1. At the end of the interview, Reinwald states that there is nothing else that he wants to add. The reversal can suggest that there is an indication that the child was driven away. The use of the pronoun ‘your’ should be noted. Pronoun use is important in understanding the communications of subconscious personalities. It is like his subconscious is addressing Kunz and Mitchell directly by using the second person pronoun, if it refers to the mother and father.
RS: Sign your son driven
FS: [no there’s nothing else I would like to say.
Sign your – noth[ing else – the [i] provides from a [y’] in the RS; sign is heard behind [ng els].
son [noth]ing – the [th] provides a frictive/sibilant sound for the [s] in ‘son’.
driven [no there’s] – [th] can be perceivable as [v]; the [r’s] in ‘there’s’, with its hard fricative sound, perhaps with some influence of the following [n] in the FS as a stop consonant, provides a sense of [dr] in ‘driven’.
2. This might indicate pulling over close to the child (if ‘him’ refers to the child). Reinwald had been asked what he thinks could have happened. There are other possible reversals behind teh forward speech, however, they seem less to address the topic of the case, and seem more to be mental meanderings. I will add these later.
RS: Park to him closer
FS: or a wolf may or something might have dragged him off; that’s well, my huh, opinion is.
Park – hu[h op]inion – [p] comes from the release of [p] in the FS; a sense of [k] comes from the constriction in the velar region at the end of the aspirated sound.
to him [my huh] – [t] is perceivable once again where constriction occurs (as above).
closer [that’s well] – [th] and [t] disappear to allow [ser] in closer; there is constriction at the beginning of the reversal before [ll] in ‘well’ allowing some sense of a [c].
3. A number of potential reversals occur behind this section of forward speech. The larger utterances are interesting, as are some of the individual words. He appears to use the word ‘raider’. Of course, a raider is one who raids – a raid enters and takes. Raiders exist today, as they did a thousand years ago. He seems to use the word ‘castle’ close to this reversal (I haven’t included that here at this point) although some of the sounds alongside it may just be gibberish; He seems also to use the words ‘art thou’, as if the personality aspect is connected to a past historical period, for example, the middle-ages. This is something to keep in mind when considering the operating personality aspect of Isaac here.
Interestingly, he uses language indicating seeing (someone) with someone else (raiding), seeing someone do “it”, and a gun, and a killing when he was near.
We are dealing with the subconscious. We need to be careful about what, and who the information is referring to. Do the reversals refer to the case at hand, or perhaps some earlier experience of Isaac? External occurrences trigger past memories and experiences, so we need to be careful when making claims.
(a) RS: Didn’t I see you off with the raider
FS: looks like I haven’t been coope[rative with the police, and they] they don’t know what’s going on.
Didn’t I [and they] – a semblance of a stop sound was produced at the end of ‘and they’ in the FS, allowing for the initial [d] in RS.
see you p[olice] the [l] has weakened allowing perception of the RS words.
with [the]p – th e[p] has weakened into a mild aspiration allowing it not to influence the RS.
the raider – coope[rative] – In reverse, some sense of [r] occurs following [v] in FS; there is actually a double vowel produced at [i] allowing a longer RS vowel as in [ai]. ‘The’ is simply the [v] in FS – there is plenty of flexibility in sounds that seem to represent ‘the’; this also occurs in FS.
We need to ask who is “I” and who is “you”. Understanding the what the mechanisms of RS are, will help understand referent words. We need to consider who the raider is. More information is needed to provide supporting evidence.
Also, how should this reversal be understood? Does ‘off with the raider’ mean leaving with the raider? Does ‘you’ refer to the child, or someone else?
Immediately following this reversal are a couple of identifiable words – power, and castle. The other sounds seem to be gibberish. However, there are perceivably other words if cut at the right place. This is a danger, however, if a reversal is started at the wrong position. However, I find the word ‘castle’ of interest in the pattern of reversals (I will add the audio of this later).
(b) RS: Sting it surrender; they see(n) him do it.
FS: [the way the media sees it and everything it’s] … looks like I haven’t been cooperative …
Sting it – every[thing it’s]
surrender [an’ every]
they – s[ees]
see’d him [media s]ees
do it [The way th]e media
The obvious [d] at the end of ‘see’ may not be problematic. In the overall language it could be considered as being meant to be [n] as in seen. Alternatively, the ‘ed’ is simply representative of the ‘see’ as past tense, just as one who was lacking in education might utter – which would indicate here something about the personality aspect that is communicating.
The questions here are:
- What does ’it’ refer to?
- How is ‘sting used here – for example as a verb form of the noun indicating an operation to uncover an illegal operation? Or something else, such as a violent attack?
- Who is ‘him’
- What does ‘it’ refer to as the object of the action ‘do’?
(c) Typical in RS, I believe, is that reversals are often a series of comments, and a following comment also often has no pause before it to separate it. In this case, if realisation of a separate comment does not occur, one can easily interpret the reversal incorrectly. The following reversal may have three (or even four) parts. The sections need to be separated to hear more clearly, there can be no pause between parts. I have written the reversal the closest to the sounds as may constitute language. Of course, just like in forward speech, it does not mean that each word is correct, as language becomes distorted. ‘Art thou’, of course may be meant to be something else. Nevertheless, there is something interesting about it in the whole context of the reversal group (as mentioned earlier). The tone and style of the reversal is similar to the forward speech. The whole reversal is below, followed by each part.
RS: Serious, art thou a gun, and they kill, when I got closer
Serious, art thou a gun
and they kill
when I got closer
FS: [I felt that kind of way, then, an’ an’ I got, I thought too it’s] just because …. The way the media see it ..
Serious [too it’s] – The [t] in ‘it’s’ disappears allowing an uninterrupted sibilant [s], and the [t] on ‘too’ transforms into a sibilant at the end of the RS word.
thou a– g[ot I th]ought
gun a[n’ I g]ot
an’ they kill [way then an’] – [th] in the FS can be perceived as [k] allowing for ‘kill’.
when I – k[ind o’ w]ay –
got [that k]ind – [th] can be perceived as a stop consonant; [g] is perceivable as the FS draws close to [k].
closer [I felt] – the frication of [f] sounds like [s] in reverse; the [t] in the FS, can be perceived a [c], although it can also be perceived as [t].
5. In the forward speech Reinwald tells the interviewer that he is not permitted to disclose information. The interviewer states immediately following that it will all come out in court. Reinwald, in reverse, states that (the) court is in chamber, which means that it is not an open court. Reinwald, subconsciously, may be expressing a desire for information not to be made public. Alternatively, he has been told something to that effect.
RS: Court’s in chamber
FS: Reinwald: Yeah, I’m not supposed to disclose any in[formation still]. I’ve been asked not to. Interviewer: I guess that will all come out in court.
Court’s [still] – One can perceive an ambiguous consonant at the beginning, which could be heard as [c], or [p]. In light of the forward speech and the rest of the reversal, we can make an assumption of [c].
in chamber – in[formation] – although frication can be heard from [f], there is a perceptible plosive that gives an impression of [b] following [m] in the RS. The [ch] comes from the [ti].
(ADDED March 25)
A number of potential reversals occur behind:
FS: I said I’d be kinda, t, I would, do, really be surprised because I wouldn’t think someone, you know, people, would do, somebody like those [two would do some]thing like that, you know.
1. RS I said do it
FS: I wouldn’t think someone, you know, people, would do, somebody like those [two would do some]thing like that, you know.
I said [do some]thing
do it [two would]
Just where he states he wouldn’t think the parents would do it, he makes this reversal. Note, it is not in the past tense, and it is more like an urging to do it.
Immediately before this reversal and joining it is something that roughly sounds like ‘hide film’, however, linguistically it has problems, and should not be seen as being so. Yet, perhaps the possibility of it should be kept in one’s notes.
We need to be careful about interpretations, however, the next three reversals could have a connection to drugs.
In the following reversal, the second sentence sounds like one with a condition or impediment affecting speech, although, in his forward speech, Reinwand also speaks in a similar way in places.
2. RS: Received dealer. We did right to nark his brothers ou[t].
FS: I said I’d be kinda, t, I would, do, really be surprised because
Received [be sur]prised – enough frication occurs around [b] tp perceive a possible [v]
dealer [really] – a clear [d] occurs at the end of ‘really’ and before [b]
We did right – he was stumbling over his speech. Where he utters [w] in ‘would’, there is a fricative manner, and one may get the impression of [v]. However, I have taken the view that he may be saying ‘we did right’ in RS. If we looked at ‘we give right’, we would then have to accept that the obvious [d] he uses is [g]; [w] comes from the vowel rounding after [d].
to nark his/him [be kinda t] – in an overall listening one would get the impression of ‘his’, although the [s] occurs at [b] in the FS is mostly like [m], although there is mild frication occurring. Just like in FS, one cannot rely on the individual sounds occurring and must follow the overall sense of what someone is saying; therefore, here ‘his’ makes sense. ‘Nark’ here is used as a berb and means to inform/tell on.
brothers ou(t) [I said I’d b]e – [b] occurs at the onset of [b] in the FS; [r] is possible at [d] before onset of [b]; [th] is perceivable at the lightly pronounced [d] in ‘said’. There is an assumption that the last word is meant to be ‘out’.
3. RS: Ignore his money
FS: I wouldn’t think someone, you know, people, would do,…
Ignore – peop[le would d]o – a nasalised [n] seems to occur at [d]o providing perception og [g]; [n] occurs at [d] in ‘would’.
his/this money – [you know peop]le – [s] is possible from an aspirated [p]; [m] comes at the movement between [w] and [p] in the FS.
4. RS: No more sni[ff]in’ (Note: [f] is really [th])
FS: I would[n’t think someone]
No more – s[omeone]
snithin’ – [n’t think s]omeone – there is obviously no [f]. However, due the pattern of reversals occurring in this section, I thought it worthwhile to note it. Of course, no claim should be made that it is meant to be ‘sniffin’.
This reversal can sound like “Boy/Why has a heaps o’ deals, saw him do it”. In this example it appears to be two comments – “Boy/Why has a heaps o’ deals” and “Saw him do it”. Of course the ‘a’ kind of ruins the grammar of it a little. One should always examine closely where a comment ends and another one begins. In RS, you often don’t get pauses between comments. Below, I have offered an alternative, however, I remain uncertain about the first half of the reversal (I have separated the two parts in the audio):
1. RS: Boy/Why has a hit. Said deals, saw him do it.
I have no problem with ‘saw him do it’, and the ‘deals’ as well. The rest, there is uncertainty as to what it is meant to be.
FS: Um. [it was mostly just because of how] the social media was reacting, and my, um, my attorney, my lawyer I was said that it would might be better, ought not to say anything until they know exactly what’s going on in the case.
Why/Boy [how] – ‘why’ is the closest approximation, however, the near articulation of the lips may also mean it is meant to be ‘boy’. It can’t be claimed that, however, it can be noted as a possibility.
has a hit – ju[st because o’ h]ow – [b] in the FS has weakened enough to perceive a possible [t], although this cannot be certain; [c] has disappeared leaving [h] in its place; [a] sounds like ‘the’ on examination, so itcould alos possibly be ‘has the hit’ (the strong [z] sound in ‘has’ just masks the following word).
Said deals – mo[stly] jus]t – [ls] in ‘deals’ comes from [stl] in the FS; [d] is perceivable before the reverse onset of [j]; there is a high level of frication occurring from the [s] in ‘heaps’ through the [j] – I am assuming that it represents the word ‘said’, although I am uncertain.
saw ‘im [most]ly – the two words coming together is natural as in FS.
do it [it was] – [d] comes from the short, hard [s] in ‘was’
If it is ‘hit’, then we have to look at either drugs, or a physical impact. The word ‘deals’’ could make it associated with drugs, however, this is not necessarily so. We must be careful with any single interpretation. As we are dealing with Reinwand’s subconscious, are we dealing with a comment made about a third person – ‘him’ and possibly ‘boy’ with both either being different people or the same person? Or, is it a semi-autonomous personality aspect of Reinwand commenting about Reinwand himself? Also, do we assume that a reversal will be speaking of the actual topic at hand (Kunz case), or is it a triggered response to a past experience/memory?
We can get useful information, however, we must be careful of interpretations and claim-making.
Another reversal was found in this section:
2. RS: Hurry all down metres, down by M
Here, I am assuming the two words ‘down’ are there. I don’t claim this is definitely what I have recorded. If it is there, one possible interpretation is the Reinwand’s subconscious is suggesting that the child will be found down (some) metres, and the location is ‘M’, whatever that is supposed to be. This may represent a true fact, or just be an imagining stimulated from discussion of the case.
Hurry all [lawyer] – [h] comes from aspiration at the end of the FS word; [r] from [r]; [y] from [y] as a high front vowel.
down [my l]awyer – the [n] assimilates to the following [m], which is a normal linguistic process; [d] comes from the onset of the alveolar [l].
metres – a[ttorney m]y – [t] can be perceived from [n] in the FS; [s] comes from the frication from [t].
down [my at] – obviously there is no [n], and the word can sound like ‘damn’. However, it is quite natural for [n] to assimilate to a following [m].
by M [my um]