FS: ¹[I picked her up] car²[ried her upstairs]; I d³[on’t know what I was think]ing but I was just horrified I couldn’t speak, I was just …
murder – There is an extra syllable in the FS after “murder” in reverse. There is [p] at the point of [m] in “murder”, but is close enough to [m] to be “murder”. However the softness of [p] may give some the impression of “hurt her” rather than “murder”.
Burkeget that– The alveolar in “picked” [d] disappears in the RS leaving only an aspiration similar to a voiceless labial-velar fricative. The velar [k/g] begins on “get” with a natural elision of the [k] in “Burke” as it would occur in FS (in the audio where I have separated “Burke” I show the ending, which is the natural beginning of “get”). Note: a general listening may give some the sense of ‘did’ rather than ‘get’.
John Ramsey seems to point to Burke’s responsibility in the harming of Jon Benet.
There are other potential reversals. Here is one. The other may be added later:
FS: Linda Arndt [knelt down beside her as I was] and felt for a pulse and looked me in the eye and said she’s dead.
“in my plot” shows that Ramsay concocted a plan.
Wowser originates from Australia, but is known in America. Calling someone a wowser means that their sense of morality seeks to deprive others of what is considered sinful, immoral behaviour. The reversal starts immediately after saying the detective’s name.
If “hurt ass” refers to the topic of the speech, Linda Arndt, perhaps the “voice” considers that she is harming herself by falling into the trap set by Ramsey.
However, an alternative meaning is based on viewing the ‘voice’ as a semi-autonomous aspect of the person’s personality which is referring to the speaker (Ramsay) himself. Here, this subconscious aspect of Ramsey devised the plot (and influenced the man), and refers to Ramsey as a wowser ( a moraliser). As to “hurt ass”, this could refer to Ramsay’s ‘ass’ getting hurt (because he did something illegal), or to a more general, wider field of people (law enforcement, Ramsay’s etc).
RS: Said so I understand
FS: [and that’s when I was just] .. stunned
“I understand” is somewhat imprecise, but reasonably there. This reversal comes after Arndt telling Ramsay, Jon Benet was dead. It is probably confirmation that he understands this.
RS: ¹Near you find killer but/²Must serve the girl – too hot/³They rape brother I show ya
FS: Dr Phil When you talk to her what would you say?
Burke Ramsey: ²[oh just like if there’s some] important thing I was doing like hey thanks for looking out for me and ¹[( ) really looking out for me], and, you know, hope you’re having fun up there ‘cause I’m takin’ some tests you know like, ³[like I wish I was up there righ]t now …
I have mixed the order up as they come behind the forward speech.
Near you find killer but: Burke thanks Jon Benet for looking out for him. The first word is closest to ‘near’, which, of course means the killer is near. If it is Burke, is the response to Dr Phil (as Burke is right in front of him), or to Jon Benet as her brother?
Must serve the girl – too hot: This may indicate feelings of guilt towards Jon Benet. The last part and the next reversal below indicate a classic Christian fear of a hellish afterlife. ‘Too hot’ may refer to a fear of going to hell.
They rape brother I show ya: Burke says he wishes he was with JonBenet (in the afterlife). Like ‘too hot’, the aspect of his subconscious which contains concepts of Hell is informing him what could happen to him.
There is another potential reversal. Burke says he hopes Jon Benet is having fun ‘up there’, and immediately after gives this reversal. Some of it has a sing-song quality with ‘I’ as a double syllable. However, the ending of ‘sa’ is a problemand makes it sound illogical – Girl I think you’re (sack/sat?) – unless the final word is meant to be ‘sad’.
FS: They showed me a picture of the baseball bat like [on the side of the house] or something.
Burke was asked about his baseball bat (considered a possible weapon), which was found at the side of the house. He had stated that he normally leaves it outside on the patio. His reversal states he had it out, but that language implies it was out for a particular purpose. The last part of the reversal can indicate motivating purpose. It can also sound like ‘summer’, but ‘simmer’ is more logical. Simmer indicates restrained anger over a period of time.
Here is a selection of reversals from the first 5 minutes of Isaac’s interview. Selections from the rest of the interview will be added later. Reversals from earlier interviews by Isaac Reinwand, Jessica Mitchell and Vernal Kunz can be found at https://reversespeechanalysis.org/category/criminal-cases/
RS: Yeah unreliable. Someone near/there, getting(?) life or
Yeah unreliable. Someone near get/need a knife
There is uncertainty over some words. It is important to investigate the alternatives. Isaac is responding to a question about his impression of Jessica and Vernal when he gives this reversal. In the first version, it is ‘getting’, or ‘giving’ or ‘needing’. In the second version, it is ‘get a knife’ or ‘need a knife’. You need to weigh up what it sounds like in the overall utterance, and what it sounds like as a single word. Of course, in forward speech, when listening to an isolated word, you can find it doesn’t quite sound like what you know the person is saying, which you have gathered from a macro listening using grammar, syntactic, and contextual clues. Yet, at the same time, you can’t always trust a macro listening, as what you initially thought something was, turns out to be something else. When there is uncertainty, you need to look at its grammatic and syntactic suitability, and its contextual appropriacy, yet at the same time, guard against accepting what you want to hear, or expect to hear. If it were ‘giving’ or ‘needing’, it remains vague. ‘Getting life’ as in life in prison is less vague and more contextually appropriate. However, once again, one needs to guard against wanting to hear something. If is were ‘get a knife’ or ‘need a knife’, it could reveal:
someone near an unreliable person should protect themselves, or alternatively, ought to use it,
someone actually got knifed or will get knifed by an unreliable person, or
someone near and the unreliable person is one and the same, and ought to be knifed.
There are other reversals that indicate Isaac is critical of someone in the group.
Immediately after giving the reversal as he was describing them as an average family, he stated that he ‘trusted Bob though’, and gave what could be another reversal which sounds something like:
You were involved, destruct shit
The [b] sounds in ‘Bob’ take on enough of a fricative quality to accept the possibility of [v] sounds in ‘involved’. [d] at the end of ‘involved’ quite naturally disappears to a certain extent before consonants in following words, and of course, does so with the [d] in ‘destruct’. I initially thought that it might have been ‘destruction’ with a loss of the [n]; however, there is a [t], and I have documented it as it sounds – ‘destruct shit’. This, of course, can be coincidental-sounding gibberish. One does not have to, nor shouldn’t just accept everything that may sounds like language. If this section was valid (and remember, that is not necessarily so), who is Isaac referring to then? Vernal or Bob, or someone else?
RS: The fun’s over, I’ve said it; I do not tell him the fun’s over
Isaac was saying that Vernal Deorr and Jessica Mitchell decided to go down to the store to get gas, but when they got there it was closed. At that point, he gives the reversal. This appears to be what is going through his subconscious in response to his experiences or beliefs regarding what he is speaking about. There is a conflicting statement. One voice states the fun’s over and claims it has been said, and another denies saying anything. What ‘fun’ refers to here, is open to interpretation. For example, something said in response to deciding to get gas, drive all the way down, then finding out it was to no avail (as in fun and games). Alternatively, when one states ‘the fun’s over, they are saying that someone is caught out.
‘over’ lacks an obvious [v] in both times.The first one is really “oh’ra”, while the second is a bit closer with [w]. Nevertheless, I conclude that they are intended to be the word in question.
RS: Lies they grow; he’s dick satan
Isaac says that when he got up, Jessica, Deorr and Vernal were planning to go and get gas. At the point where he mentions the three names he gives the reversal. It’s possible it may not be ‘lies’. The initial consonant is open to interpretation. It is a reasonable possibility. As often occurs in RS, [t] is glottalised rather than alveolar, and this occurs in ‘satan’. Who is he referring to as dick satan? Vernal? It is also possible that a subconscious aspect may be referring to the speaker himself. If so, it would be an aspect of Isaac that has dislike for Isaac. The pronoun may prove important in this regard in deciding this (such as ‘he’ rather than ‘you’).
RS: No, I don’t need tremors (driver seen no-one)
Isaac is talking about getting up and using the restroom then going back to bed (until midday). He spoke about Bob having whiskey, but said Bob doesn’t drink it; he brought it for others. One would surmise that Isaac was drinking heavily, so he went back to bed and slept the morning.
‘I’ is connected to ‘no’ by [w] which is normal linguistically. Perception of [d] in ‘don’t’ occurs, however sound is more like [n].
No, I don’t need tremors
Immediately following the reversal, he appears to say a word like ‘driver’, although, once again, the [v] is not evident, and then ‘seen no-one’, with [s] sounding like [z]. Of course, one can’t expect RS sounds to be perfectly articulated – they aren’t in forward speech. If ‘seen no-one’ is valid, perhaps it simply refers to him going back to bed, and not seeing others for a while.
RS: And there’s Dennille; so we, we get high
A person’s subconscious will respond to triggers and bring up past experiences and internalisations, or it may respond directly to what it happening at the time of speaking. Of course, there was no-one called Dennille (and we do have to be careful when an unknown name arises as it may not be part of a real reversal). If the Dennille section is relevant, it is more likely a trigger to a past experience or something internalised. Alternatively, some of it may be connected (getting high) to what was happening at the time (the night before that morning).
‘high’ is strongly connected to [t] before it, and this reduces [h] initial; however, I conclude that it is more likely ‘get high’ than not.
RS Youneed my girlfriend
Isaac had just said he went back to bed; when he was asked what time he got up (noon), he gave the reversal. This is likely an example of associated triggering of subconscious thought based on the topic – spending the morning in bed and getting up really late triggered an imaginary why – spending the morning in bed with a girl.
There is a fricative sound between ‘my’ and ‘girlfriend’ from the influence of [b] in the FS. I assume here it is extraneous sound not meant to be part of the reversal.
RS: You said/say Bob
The interviewer asked if Bob Walton had any whiskey, and Isaac first stated he might have had a couple, then immediately changed his mind and said Bob doesn’t drink anymore. At the point where he changed his mind, he gave the reversal. It is like his own subconscious remarked or complained to him about what he said.
These are a few of the potential reversals I have located in the 911 call of Jessica Mitchell. There are more to come.
1. There is uncertain language with the following reversal – whether it is ‘baby’ (2nd [b] not clear) and what the mystery word (?) could be. Also, it appears that the reversal may not begin at ‘the baby’, and that there is a syllable before it which could be ‘hide’. However, I will first look at the reversal without it.
(a) RS: the baby; why hurt you; (tag?) get under.
FS: Mitchell: He’s got shaggy blond hair
Operator: How tall is he? Hello?
Mitchell: I’m not exactly sure how, he’s about thr ….
the baby [he’s ab]out – It is possibly ‘baby’; however the consonants are open to question. The initial [b] actually comes from the onset of [s] before any frication – it may be heard as [b], but not conclusively; the second [b] is less clear, coming at [h] – an assumption is being made, therefore; a short sound at the onset of [h] gives the vowel ending in reverse.
Why hurt you? – exact[ly sure how]
hurt [sure h]ow – where [s] is in ‘sure’, one can perceive the [t] ending for ‘hurt’. Between exact[ly] and [s]ure there is a sibilant sound that can be considered extraneous.
you – exact[ly] – ‘you’ is gained from a combination of the vowel and the roundness of articulation occurring as in the neighbouring sound (sure in FS, hurt in RS).
I have included the syllable before ‘get under’; there is uncertainty, however.
(tag) – e[xact]ly – On close listening it can be like ‘tag’ or ‘cud’ (assuming an alveolar position before the [g] that follows). Both can be heard, and this is probably due to [ct] in the FS. Grammatically and contextually, the most sensible word would be one starting with [t] – ‘tag’ would be one choice, even ‘tie’.
get under [I’m not ex]actly – [g] comes from onset of [x] (egs); [n] from [n] in the FS; the [d] is an overall perception of the word ‘under’ – where [m] is, [n] can be heard which is articulated strongly.
Of course, there is no certainty that ‘the baby’ is genuine.
(b) Before it there is a word sounding like ‘ide’ which could be ‘hide’. This is uncertain.
RS: Hide the baby
So, if ‘baby’ is there, we have the mother’s subconscious saying ‘why hurt you’, so this may refer to Deorr. If so, the subconscious doesn’t want the child to be hurt, and if ‘hide’ is indeed there, then the child should be hidden (but then, are we talking about hiding a child that is now alive, or now dead?). Then again, the hurting may be a semi-autonomous aspect of JM talking about JM herself being hurt. Here, the subconscious may want the child out of the way of harm, and ‘get under’ may refer to a place to hide and protect herself and the child.
(c) The next reversal in the FS section appears to be either:
RS: There is no de-icing out there/There is no de-icing. Oh dear.
FS: And he’s got shaggy blond hair
De-icing typically refers to the removal of ice. Alternative, one may entertain the removal of the drug ice from the system. As it was summer and there was no ice, the normal term is strange in the context.
There are a number of FS consonants that have disappeared in order to create this reversal, or ones that have appeared.
There’s – blon[d hair] – on close examination the word is difficult to ascertain, and could even sound somewhat like ‘prays’, however, like in forward speech, words can sound distorted, and understanding of what one says comes from big picture listening. Most likely it is ‘there’s.
no [blon]d – [b] disappears in the FS.
de-icing [shaggy] – [c] comes from [sh] in the FS; [g] in the FS disappears; a perception of [ng] occurs at the glottal/velar [t] at the end of ‘got’ in the FS, and up to the beginning of [sh]; [d] is perceivable at shagg[y] before the onset of [b] in the FS.
Oh dear/out there [and he’s] – [d] or [th] comes from the [s] – although there is an obvious [z] sound, there is enough force to give an impression that one or the other consonant is there; out/oh comes behind ‘got’ – the [g] disappears and the lack of full articulation of [t] also causes its disappearance. One can perceive [t] where [g] is.
(d) The operator said ‘hello’? waiting for Jessica Mitchell to respond. She began talking at the same time. I will not try to record her words as it is very difficult to pick up. In reverse, it sounds like she says:
RS: Here, raping people
The operator, in reverse, almost sounds like she is saying:
RS: Who are (th)ey?
The [th] is actually [l] as in ‘who are lei?’. I have presented this as a possibility in the context, but cannot say whether this is valid here. Approximately 20 seconds later, the operator makes an interesting comment about a rapist in reverse. This is further below.
2. The entire eight second section of forward speech appears to reverse to language.
(a) To spin an axe, probably indicates throwing it, and idiomatically, strong anger.
RS: You screw me. Axe, spin it
FS: It’s so turn right after like the general store and the post office in Leadore [and it’s at Timber Creek].
You – C[reek] – [k] disappears.
screw me [Timber Cr]eek – [t] in the FS creates a little frication, however, does not get in the way, so ‘me’’ is reasonable. [r] I the FS after [c] creates enough frication to perceive a possible [s] in ‘screw’.
Axe – [ks] sound in [x] comes from the [s] in ‘it’s’ and velar constriction at the onset of [a] in ‘at’; [t] in ‘at’ does not cause any issue.
spin it [and it’s] – [t] in FS can be perceived as [p].
(b) It is interesting that the following reversal occurs at ‘in Leadore’.
FS: Hurled on it
FS: It’s so turn right after like the [general store and the post office [in Leadore] and it’s at Timber Creek.
(c) The remaining reversals run together without pause. There may be four statements in all. I have separated the first two from the last two, and will separate again to reveal individual comments.
The following sub-section runs together and can sound like ‘Take parts off but there torn it’. If you isolate ‘there’ and separate it from [f] before it, it is ‘know’. Of course, it does not necessarily mean that it is meant to be ‘know’, as isolating words in forward speech does not always reveal what the speaker was saying – we need to rely on larger speech chunks to understand a speaker.
If genuine, we need to ask what parts are being referred to, removed from what, what was torn, and who knows it? It may be useful in referring to the next reversal following this one for insight, as it runs on without pause.
RS: Take parts off. But know torn it.
FS: It’s so turn right after like the [general store and the post office] in Leadore and it’s at Timber Creek.
But know torn it
Take o[ffice] – a perceivable alveolar stop [t] occurs at [c]; [ff] disappears allowing perception of a near velar articulation [k].
parts – po[st o]ff – [p] is heard before the onset of [f] in the FS.
off [po]st – [p] forms a fricative [f].
But know – s[tore ‘n th]e post – right after the frication of the [ff] and part of the frication of [th] in ‘the’, one gets a short sound, which in the context of the other words, may represent ‘but’ (it could begin with [b]); know occurs at [tore ‘n], ending at the release of [t] in the FS.
torn it [general] store – an approximate [t] occurs around the [l] and the [s] in ‘store’ in the FS; [g] remains ‘open’ in the reverse, and allows a sense of a [t] in ‘it’.
(d) The rest of the run-on reversal is below. Letting someone/some people out and a door sticking may refer to a vehicle.
RS: You let the other side ou(t). ? door stick.
FS: [It’s so turn right after like the] general store
You let the li[ke the] – [l] in reverse occurs at [th] in the FS, and [th] in reverse occurs at [k]!
other – afte[r li]ke the general – this makes the assumption that the level of frication and force of articulation can be accepted as [th] in reverse.
side ou(t) [right af]ter – assumption of ‘out’ in the context, though there is non-articulation of [t] at the end; [s] in RS comes at [f] in FS; [d] in RS comes at [t] in FS.
? [turn off] – we have a mystery word. It sounds like ‘farner’s’, or ‘parner’s’ which is most likely nothing. However, in the context all of the language occurring around it, it should be noted.
door stick [it’s so] turn right – perceptible [d] in reverse occurs between ‘so’ and ‘turn’; assumption of a [k] ending in RS is reasonable.
3. The following section contains 4 to 5 reversals. They appear to use the word ‘fight’, ‘warrior’, and ‘skills’, which seems to indicate a pattern in JM’s reversals.
FS: JM: Um. I’m uh actually camping in Leadore, just outside of Leadore, um, my two year old son, we can’t find him.
Operator: What’s your name?
Operator: Pard .. Jessica who?
Operator: How long has he been missing?
JM: About four(?) …
(a) One should be careful about such short reversals. It increases the chance of coincidence. Context is important when deciding to include them. Fight’ is produced again seconds later behind a different FS word. Therefore, this is particularly worth noting.
RS: Her fight
Her fight [Jessica] – ‘her’ comes at [a] in ‘Jessica’; [f] comes at [ss]; [t] final in the RS comes at [j] in the FS.
(b) RS: Now fight you … (not)
There is a syllable before ‘now’ which I have cut off and not included. Actually, the syllable before and the word ‘now’ together sounds like ‘Danielle’. I am taking the position that ‘Danielle’ is coincidental (and that may also mean ‘now’ should not be included). The fact that ‘fight’ is used twice within seconds behind completely different words in the FS is interesting, however, and worth noting. It may sound like ‘find’, but there is no indication on close listening that it is this word more than the one I documented. However, it may need to be considered. Sometimes the word ‘not’ is heard behind ‘um’, and of course, we should not just accept it as being language. Of course, one can also hear /m/ rather than /n/. However, I have included the potential negative in this and the next reversal which occurred seconds away (it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the call) on the chance it means something. But, we should not assume it does. We must remember that what may appear to be language behind FS can be coincidental.
Now, fight you [we can’t find]
You comes at ‘we’
[c] disappears enough in the FS to allow the perception of an alveolar [t] ending in the RS
now comes off f[ind] in the FS
not – although ‘um’ has an [m], [n] is also perceivable in the RS.
(c) In the following reversal, the initial sound can be like [b]. However, it is possible that the word expressed is ‘warrior’s’ both linguistically and contextually in light of other reversals mentioning fighting and using skills (see next reversal). As mentioned above, the negative may be extraneous to the main reversal section.
Warrior’s camp … (I’m not)
Warrior’s [two year ol]d – [w] occurs at the [l] in the FS; [io] comes at [wo y] in the FS; [s] comes at the [t] in the FS.
camp [my] two – [c] occurs between ‘my’ and the onset of [t] in ‘two’
I’m not [um] – [n] is perceivable just before the onset of [m] in the FS; [I] in ‘I’m’ comes at an extra vowel uttered after ‘um’.
(d) RS: And use my skills
FS: Ac[tually camping]
And use – cam[ping] – [n] from [n] in the FS; [p] becomes a fricative and allows perception of [s] in the RS.
my [cam]ping – [c] disappears enough to allow perception of ‘my’.
skills – ac[tually] camping – [sk] occurs before the onset of [c] in ‘camping’ at [y] in ‘actually’ – [k] is not obvious on close examination; here we need to rely on a wider listening to ascertain that [k] is at least a possibility. Note that articulation is moving towards [c] in ‘camping’, so this may be possible.
In using ‘skills’, we might ask is this just a reference to the fact that they are camping, and so certain skills are required not ordinarily used at home? And, does the possibility of ‘warrior’ also just bring out a feeling within her about camping? Or can we relate it to the context of the other reversals to do with fighting?
4. JM describes the child’s clothes to the operator. It appears that she uses the word ‘knife’ twice in the 6 seconds.
(a) In the first reversal, she appears to say ‘jumper’, and interestingly this subconscious voice uses a British accent, possibly from the West Country. Contextually, jumper can be seen as reasonable, in that she is speaking about clothes. In this reversal, ‘knife’ would be a verb.
RS: Right, knife who made this jump-er
FS: a blue um [pair like pajama pants , and] a camel jacket.
Right [and] [r] is perceivable as the [n] disappears in the FS; sense of [t] ending.
knife [pant]s – a sense of [f] occurs at [p] where the stop has disappears and is aspirated
who made this [pajama] [d th] comes at [j] in the FS; [p] disappears, and the frication at the end gives a sense of [s].
jump-er [pair like] – some frication occurring around [k] in the FS, can some sense of an affricate, although there is also [y] occurring as the vowel moves to [k] in ‘like’; [p] disappears in the FS.
(b) In the next one, [f] is less obvious in ‘knife’, however, it is possible.
RS: Excite – your knife hit
FS: [a camel jacket]
Excite [jacket] – acceptable [t] at [j] in the FS; [ex] comes from [ke] in the FS + a sibilance that occurs before [k] in ‘jacket’.
your – cam[el] – the high front position of the tongue produces [y].
knife hit [a cam]el – [m] can also be heard as [n]; the [c] ha becomes an aspirated frication – an assume is made here that it is meant to be ‘knife’; [t] ending for ‘hit’ acceptable.
Isaac Reinwald was at the campsite with the family on the day of Deorr Kunz’s disappearance. I have identified potential reversals from an interview with him in January 2016. There are quite a few. They will be added gradually.
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].
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].
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
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.
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.
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 word ‘zeal’ would reflect that enthusiasm of the public to do so. The second part claims fraudulent/deceptive behaviour. The two comments taken together would mean false claims are being made by others.
RS (To) more zeal. Boy in a counterfeit.
FS: If you’re not going to help, please don’t
More zeal [please don’t] – [p] disappears in the RS; [z] from [s] in ‘please’; A short ‘to’ can just be heard at [t] in ‘don’t’. An [m] is perceivable at [n] in the FS.
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/’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.
A general listening may produce perception of: ‘police, if he does, ‘n I’ll/now bury case’ or police, if he doesn’t, I’ll bury case. However, I have found that RS is often a series of statements that go together without pause, as if there is more than one ‘voice’ with one ‘voice’ taking over immediately from the other (or interrupting). I don’t know if that is the case here.
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.
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.
This post will look at some reversals posted by someone who has a website using speech reversals to investigate crimes. On the website are many documented reversals from entities related to the DeOrr Kunz case. The documenter of the reversals has claimed knowledge/guilt by the child’s parents in his disappearance. These claims have apparently upset a number of people involved in the case, including the family of Deorr Kunz Jnr. Regardless of whether the child’s parents have any involvement in his disappearance, an analysis of the reversals shows that they lack accuracy and value as speech reversals, and my opinion is also that the person’s interpretation of the apparent reversals lack worthwhile value (A section of the first reversal below [reviewed and revised here] is probably the only one of any note). It is my understanding that he has no association with David Oates and Reverse Speech Enterprises, and has had no training through David Oates’ organisation. The website address is http://backwardspeech.com/category/deorr-kunz-case/ .
Deorr Kunz Snr (The child’s father)
(1) Now they knows we shooting more kids than they’ll hill ‘em
The end of the reversal occurs at the end of ‘shooting’. However, the reversal is ‘Now they knows we shoot him’, where the [m] comes from the [m] in the FS (FS: they told [me she was on the other line]).
‘More kids’ – [m] can be gained as a continuation from the [m] in ‘shoot him’. There is an apparent [s] from the aspiration of the [t] in the FS, which places an [s] before the documented [k] in ‘kids’ in the RS. There is no [s] at the end, however. The ending has [th] from ‘they told’. It is unclear what this section could be (if anything). It sounds something like ‘morsgive’, giving the final [th] a more labial quality to create a possible [v]. One could start to offer possibilities, accepting distortion in the sounds, like, must give, most give, or even more scared, but it should be let go.
There is nothing documentable in the rest of it. Certainly not ‘than they’ll kill ‘em’, where ‘than they’ll’ is something like [namakh] before the [c] on ‘come’ is articulated.
(2) Survey had to find an ideal spot here I know that he hid.
FS: They have torn that creek upside down and in and out for divers
The approximate sounds that occur:
Survyad (?) cryinin/fryinin an idel spocker; shinero (?) my/by head/he ‘ad (? represents an indiscriminant sound.
Not enough evidence for ‘survey’
‘to find’ can be projected into it; however, the syllable ‘in’ before ‘an’ is missing from the documentation.
‘an ideal’ can be projected into it.
‘spot here’ – not enough evidence (like ‘spo’kr’).
here I know that he hid – !!!??? How did the documenter get that?
There is nothing documentable here.
(3) Why looking they’ll never see it, stump on.
FS: Not much space around there he could go
Whyge look ee towa nar’l see it; shtump on.
There is nothing documentable here.
(4) When she pulled out I hid we left him
Forward: [with them and they had our location]n
A shake pullorada I hid munethyl
The only sounds that occur is ‘I hid’. There is nothing documentable here.
(5) Her knee prevent me going down it
FS: [and not knowing never being there], I knew I was in trouble
Approximate sounds: Her knee prevent nyorn darnit
‘Her knee prevent’ is reasonably there
There is some semblance to ‘down it’
‘me going’ [nyorn] does not bear any resemblance.
Only the first 3 words sound like they are there.
(6) Hammers they’ll find him
FS: I didn’t want to risk [getting halfway through my] talking to 911 and have it cut off.
Approximate sounds: Hammers to fih-n thig
Hammers – yes
they’ll – yes, possible
find – could be a [b] initial; [n] disappears
him – at the [t] in ‘gettin’ a possible [th] can be perceived; the end is [g] or a nasal [ng]
The last two words are poor. It lacks value as a reversal.
(7) Yeah this idiot notion
FS: I’m not sure what day it is today
What I hear: Yeah the city had notion
this idiot [day it is t]oday – the sounds are like ‘the city had’
Comprehensible words appear, but not the ones documented.
(8) Merse the first one
FS: … but he moves pretty good [and that was our concern]. He he was right with us …
Sounds approximate: Nurs’n crowzalwoni or (Pers’n)
first one [and that was our c]oncern– there are 4 syllables, not two.
[c] instead of [f]
[p] instead of [m] in ‘merse’
There is potentially something here:
Nursin”/Person [concern] – [n] can be heard, but [p] may be perceived in it’s place.
crows’ll [was our c]oncern
want it/won it [and that w]as – the [t] in ‘that’ assimilates to the [w] in ‘was’; [th] in ‘that’ can be perceived as [n]; an ending similar to a glottal stop can give a sense of glottal [t] at end (it).
Therefore, a possibility is ‘Person/Nursin’ – crows’ll want it‘
(9) Boy get fumid ember flash his nose
FS: that [turns his head for a minute, they move, they go]
Sounds are something like : Woai geth fumid emmr fdlasiznurs
There are two different tonalities. The first:
Boy – definite [w] as an initial
Get – probably OK
Fumid – seems OK
emmr – the [m] could be heard as [b] in general listening
flash – [f] possibly can be seen as beginning it; there is really an [fdl]; a sibilant at the end, closer to [s] than [sh]. There is at least some possibility that it is meant to be ‘flash’.
his – possible
nose – a sense of a sibilant occurs on the end; vowel is similar to vowel in ‘nurse’.
As a reversal, it is highly suspect. I would be very careful about making claims about it.
(10) This officer a damned threat
FS: [There’s, might, there’s a possi]bility that he …
Approximates: This opizer a damned zret
Sounds are reasonably close to documented reversal. ‘zret’ could be meant to be ‘threat’, and ‘opizer’ could be meant to be ‘officer’.
Deorr Kunz (The child’s grandfather)
(11) Voice the cult wounded
FS [they don’t walk uphill]
wounded [they don’t] – sounds something like ‘ondith’; ‘wounded’ can be projected into it easily.
the cult [walk up] – sounds like ‘bu-kul’
voice – approximates ‘woikh’ where [kh] sounds like a frication occurring around the velar region. Perhaps if the frication was more like an [s] sibilant, one could entertain the possibility of the [w] being meant to be a [v]. However, there are two problems with it, not one.
Too dissimilar to be considered worthwhile.
(12) I know was one of the Lemhi cult now risky
FS: He could not walk on level ground without falling down
Ni know of – was woval lowlock, thou risky
Lemhi – wal[k on le]vel – sounds like something like ‘lowlo[ck]’or ‘wolock’. One may even project the word ‘wedlock’ into it in a general listening.
was one of the – lev[el ground withou]t – one can’t expect that these short weak words [one of the] will come out clearly even in forward speech. It is deteriorated, though, and evidence is not adequate to be certain. There would have to be strong evidence surrounding.
I know – a 3rd syllable is present at [fa]lling down to sound something like ‘know of’
cult [walk] – really ‘cul’, but of course, an alveolar [t] will often assimilate with an alveolar (or other consonant) in the initial of the word immediately following, and the ending will not be perceived clearly. There is a reasonable length pause, though, to the following word, so this reduces the strength of the documented word as a possibility.
now risky – initial alveolar sounds more like [th] or [d]; risky seems OK; it could be meant to be ‘now risky’.
Some of the words in the documented reversal are possible. Lemhi is not there, however.
(13) Farmfields dump, Shell diesel pump
FS: They could have coached him down, [muffled his voice, muffled his mouth] and headed through the trees and he’d never be seen.
One can’t just expect RS to be well-formed linguistically as that doesn’t always happen in FS. You only have to hear how poorly formed the second ‘muffled his’ is in the FS. There has to be reasonable evidence, though, that the sounds in the RS is what one claims they are. A ‘big picture’ listening of the whole reversal is important, as it is in FS, and even if some sounds don’t seem to match on close examination, it may very well be what was heard in a general listening. However, this is not always the case. The big picture listening should be compared with a close examination of what is happening at a segmental and phonemic level.
Farm [mouth] – this is reasonable as the fricative is similar to [f].
fields – muff[led his] – a fricative sound occurs, but it is like an [z] with some characteristics rather than [f]. Two strong, clear syllables producing ‘zeth’l’.
dump rather than [d] in ‘dump’, one can hear either [f] at the point of mu[ff], or project into it an [th] or [p].
Shell – is possible
diesel – muff[led his] – in a general listening one can project an [s] sibilant, but it isn’t actually there. One can hear [d] as an initial; the [s] in ‘diesel’ is another alveolar stop (without the initial it sounds like “it’ll”).
pump – [muf]fled – initial can sound like [p], so this approximates documented word.
‘Farm’ and ‘Shell’ can be heard as examples of the sounds. ‘fields’ is not there. ‘dump’ most likely not either. ‘diesel’ can be projected into it, and ‘pump’, too.
The second half is more accurate than the first half.
(14) They lying nervous they’re doubtn’ that they’re killers none of em make it
FS: … taken voluntarily taken polygraphs and right now those ….
They lying nervous – [s and right now that tho]se have been – Documenter left an extraneous sound at the start of the reversal [ood]. They (or they’re) is reasonable; lying is a possible representation of the sounds; no [v] in ‘nervous’.
they’re doubtn’ – tak[en polygraphs]- to hear the initial, you would have to start after the end of the long [s] and at the point of release to get an impression of a [th] or [d], otherwise it begins with [s]; also, at the end of ‘they’re’ on close listening (at the [g] in FS), [b] occurs. The remainder is similar to ‘dogma’ [en pol] – The [n] assimilates to the [p] leaving an impression of [m]; the release of [p] produces constriction in the throat leaving an impression of [g].
that they’re killers – volun[tarily taken] – ‘that’ is actually the ‘ma’ from ‘dogma’; ‘killers’ – [k] is more [d] from the position of the tongue close to the alveolar ridge in ‘[ly t]ake’’. Probably sounds more like ‘dealers’. They’re [tak] – most like ‘get’.
none of ‘em [n volun] – sounds like ‘no ob’n’ or ‘no ob’m’.
make it – [taken] – it can be like ney get’ (maybe representing ‘they get’) or ‘may get’
‘nervous’ is highly doubtful; it isn’t doubtn’, killers is highly doubtful as well; none of ‘em’ unlikely to be there. There are a couple of potential statements here. The first statement ends at ‘dogma’ and moves quickly to the second statement. (‘dogma’, of course, isn’t perfectly shaped, for example there is an aspiration at [g]; I present it as a possibility). The section does gives the impression of language being spoken. This section may be heard in the following way:
They’re/They lying now – Messiah dogma or alternatively, They’re/They lyin’ – their Messiah dogma
now or their comes at [right]
For ‘Messiah’, [m] can be gained from [n] in [‘n right]; the faint [b] at the end would have to be ignored .
The next statement is like ‘Get dealers no ob*/Get dealers is no ob. Last part – ‘n they get’/may get. ‘Get dealers (is) no ob; ‘n they get’.
(15) Klein had ruined the answers
FS: … tips of sightings and of course that slows us down, we have to take those [seriously and and rule them out]
Klein had – the[m out] – [n] is [m]; the initial could be perceived as [t] or [k]
ruined [‘n an’ rule’] – sounds similar to ‘woo-nan’; there is also an extra [n] following
the answers [seriously an’] – [th] comes at [n] and is acceptable; ‘an’ comes at [ly] and does not sound like ‘an’ – this part sounds like ‘they’ll; ‘swers’ comes from ‘sers’. So, this is like ‘they’ll sers’.
RS has an issue with m/n – any acceptance of an [n] for an [m] would depend on how well the rest of the reversal is shaped, and other factors. There is a lot of imprecise sounds here, and this shouldn’t be documented.
(16) Klein careless
FS: 4 to 6 feet of snow in there [so right now]
Klein [now] – the beginning is an aspirated ‘hw’, and so the velar position of the [w] approximant can allow one to project into it [kl]. Also, with this projection, it can sound like ‘client’
careless [so right] – There is no [c]; the [t] in FS is assimilated into the [n] in ‘now’; it becomes similar to ‘errors’.
Therefore, if we assume a ‘meant’ [kl] beginning, there is either ‘client errors’ or Klein errors’.
(17) Tie the Klein
FS: [now it’s a vast] area that it there’s just one way in
the Klein [now its a] – [kl] comes from projection into [it] in the FS. There is an alveolar sound (e.g., l or t); however, there is a ‘click’ at [ts] that occurs which can give one an impression of [k]. [l] is a projection into it. With [ts] is the FS, it also sounds like [sk]. ‘the’ is [va], however, flexibility should be permitted with ‘the’ as variation also happens in FS.
tie –v[ast] – this sounds reasonable
One would have to accept that the subconscious was attempting to produce ‘Klein’. Phonological uncertainty, a lack of language in the reversal (shortness), and a lack of reference to Klein limits this somewhat.
This is a reversal taken from Casey Anthony’s (daughter Caylee was murdered) phone call from prison to her parents. A general listening can give the impression of actual (and interesting) language. The impression of the reversal is aided by a supportive stress pattern and weakened consonants from the forward speech, and perception of one consonant over another. The point of this analysis is to:
1) demonstrate how the mind extracts intelligible language out of sounds approximating language.
2) demonstrate that it is quite easy to hear different things where there is ambiguity.
Part of the language sample is ambiguous. I will first analyse one perception below, although there are other perceptions. I do not necessarily think that the example given is the correct one. In fact, the discussion below may lead to another likely representation of language. The chief issue in the reversal is the section ‘they’re in love’. After analysing the example, I will discuss other perceptions. In the discussion, points about the characteristics of RS will be brought to light. The question is, can this section (they’re in love, or another perception) be safely documented as representing language, or should it be discarded as being too ambiguous?
Reversal: Fuck you they’re in love, now I’m the one.
Forward (talking to her mother Cindy): you don’t [know what my involvement is in stuff]?
Fuck – An impression of [k] can be gained due to the weakening of the alveolar stop and sibilant –[st] in ‘stuff’, and subsequent confusion of place of articulation, leading the listener to hear it as a velar [k], although sonorous and fricative in manner (that is, it is not a proper stop consonant). you – from the forward speech, the [n], like the other alveolars [s,t], has weakened, and is dominated by [y] formed by the high frontal vowel in ‘in’ they’re in – the sibilance of ‘is’ has disappeared permitting perception of another dental or alveolar sound (such as [th] or [n]) or even a [w]. American listeners should not assume that ‘they’re’ should be rhotacized, that is possess an articulated [r]. This will cause the American listener to more likely perceive it as ‘the’. Just because it is an American speaker doesn’t mean you will get rhotic [r]. There is a strong syllable break after ‘they’re’ at the point of [t] in ‘involvement’ caused by a combination of an alveolar stop and constriction of the upper throat. The [n] in ‘in’ can be heard from [n] in ‘involve[men]t’ just before [m]. love – around the initial consonant, there are three consonants from the forward speech (‘invo[lvem]ent’). This is where one’s subjective perceptions come more strongly into play. If one isolates the section ‘in lo’, it is easy to hear the [l], with the other two consonants disappearing. That is not to say that ‘love’ is correct, as [m] or [v] may be heard by altering perception. Also, the vowel has been articulated in a different way to how many listeners say it and normally hear it, although there are English-speaking people who do pronounce the vowel like that. Interestingly, the whole reversal doesn’t seem to begin with any particular American accent, but a more American pronunciation begins to take over a this point as if a different ‘voice’ takes over from another. Now I’m – comes behind ‘[my in]volvement’. A diphthong may be heard followed by a second shorter vowel moving to [m]. the one – an impression of ‘[th]e’ occurs off the [t] in ‘what’, however, on closer listening the vowel is extended and more rounded as it transitions to [w].
The particular issue of ‘l,v,m’ close together can create confusion in perception. If RS is real and a subconscious entity is utilising/influencing the spoken language, one of the consonants will be favoured over the others.
What other perceptions could there be? Perhaps one may even perceive a stretched out ‘the – en’ with a double syllable followed by ‘mom’ (fuck you then mom); however, you would have to accept that there are reasonable characteristics of a bilabial [m] where the [v] is from the forward speech (and accept an oddly uttered ‘then’). Maybe a listener will hear ‘the in-law’, ignoring the existence of the consonant [v]. One may hear ‘involve’. Characteristics of the initial [v] still remain, and the changed position of the [l] can be explained by the lengthened [o] vowel before the final [v]. Actually, examining the word ‘involve’ in FS examples, one can see how imprecise it can sound. One may have even ‘cut into’ the phrase following (that begins with ‘now’) in their reversal location, and perceived a short ‘n it’ to hear ‘they’re involved [‘n it]’. It would be quite natural in speech for [‘n it] to follow ‘involve(d)’with this articulation. It is quite normal for the [d] in ‘involved’ to be elided in natural speech. And, a perception of [n] in ‘now’ can still be gained following this. Note though, the perception of a stop [t] (‘n it) can occur just by ending at a point halfway through a vowel occurring in the forward speech. A perception of a stop consonant can also occur at the beginning in the same way.
But, there is more that is worthy of consideration. One can perceive ‘Fuck you they’re involved; now I’m the one’. Here, we would have to choose ‘they’re’ over ‘there’ or ‘their’ for grammatical sense. Perhaps it may be perceived as 1) ‘Fuck you there – involved’, or 2) ‘Fuck, you were involved’ (or perhaps ‘in love’) (See audio below). Why 1)? RS quite often seems to be a series of statements rather than one longer single statement; actually it is quite common – in this way, ‘involved’ becomes a second statement. Why is ‘were’ a possibility? The disappearance of the sibilant from ‘is’ in the FS permits an impression of another sound, and a mid vowel more forward in the mouth is credible as some English people use that position for the vowel. Now, it would seem silly mixing up ‘accents’, however, there isn’t necessarily any mixing up. There may be a transition from one personality/voice (more English) to another personality/voice (more American).
Now, there is one more, I think, important consideration. RS has certain characteristics that may involve one personality adding information after another personality – different personality aspects adding statements about the topic at hand, each statement backed up tightly against the next, and not heard properly unless separated, or, one personality simply taking over from another personality, like an interruption (discussed further below). There is often a transition word that has qualities of the first voice and qualities of the second voice. There is a change in ‘accent’ occurring as a transition. In this case, we may hear 1) ‘Fuck you were’ … interrupted by a second voice 2) ‘involved – now I’m the one’. Note a possibility that the first voice was going to end with ‘involved’, but it became appropriated by the second voice (in essence it was shared). Or, 1) ‘Fuck you there’. 2) Involved – now I’m the one’. The clear break at the end of ‘involvement’ in the FS could be particularly important as a clear break between voices; however with the transition beginning during ‘there/were’.
Therefore, an important consideration in RS is to start and stop at the right point. This is not always easy. Knowledge of the characteristics of RS is vitally important. A willingness and ability to take the time to hear it in as many different ways as possible may help to lead you to a more apt and more correct reversal. Nevertheless, with so much ambiguity, you should not claim that one example is correct (but you won’t know this unless you have the pliancy to explore different alternatives), but offer alternatives, or discard completely.
This is an example of how the mind hears intelligible language from imprecise sounds. It also demonstrates that ambiguity can easily create different perceptions of what is there. Of course, this happens in forward speech – linguistic influences cause a variety of phenomena, such as elision, assimilation, lenition etc. The mind is able to reproduce the intended language from the distortion and overall characteristics – weakened consonants in the forward speech has permitted the perception of other, different consonants (e.g. [k] in place of [ts]), or the perception of one consonant over another [l,v,m], the weak syllable at the place of ‘[the] one’ aids the perception of a short unrounded schwa/vowel rather than a longer, more rounded vowel, the overall stress pattern helps considerably, and of course the mind has a tendency to hear intelligible language.
So, we have here the mind hearing something intelligible. Without considering how it is being produced, does it appear to be potentially intelligible language? Usually in forward speech, you know what the person is saying, but if you were to record the speech and listen carefully to parts, there may be sections that are not so obvious. You have to ask yourself is it what my mind tells me it is saying? Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes it is no. A close examination of what is happening phonologically is important, and also experimentation with where sections begin and end.
What about ‘accent’ and different voice qualities? Many reversals do not have a particularly discernible accent (other vocal characteristics occur) while others do. Just because someone is American, you should not assume that you will hear American pronunciation always. That is simply not the case. One can hear very English accents from Americans in reverse. One thing I have noticed, is that a reversal statement is usually fairly homogeneous and intact ‘voice or accent – wise’. You normally don’t get a hodgepodge of different accents on different words. A statement immediately following will often have different voice or ‘accent’, and may even take over from (interrupt) the first voice. So, it is important to recognise changes in tonality occurring, and have a good knowledge of how people around the world pronounce words.
Along with actually identifying the intended language, one needs to apply a right interpretation to it. Well, by saying ‘fuck you’, we can reasonably consider that she is angry at her mother. What if you thought it said ‘they’re involved in it – now I’m the one’? Would you think this is an admission of guilt? (now I’m the one). What about ‘they’re’? Does that mean others were a part of it, too? But is it one single subconscious entity communicating both statements, or are they actually separate personalities? In the study of psychology, subconscious personalities can refer to the speaker as a separate person and use third person (he/she/they). So, ‘they’re’ may refer to Casey and another who was an accomplice. The second statement may be a more primary self and a major part of the ego, and hold less separation from the speaker, and therefore uses ‘I’. In both cases, one may assume that Casey was involved in the murder. But then again, we are dealing with part of the person’s subconscious – it is a thoughtform; it does not necessarily mean that anything that appears to be admission has actually been externalised and acted upon. The subconscious can hold beliefs that are not necessarily true, although it can and does influence the person. Think about guilt and shame internalised, too.
What if it is ‘Fuck you they’re in love, now I’m the one’? It may be disconnected to the topic discussed, but be connected to her emotion around her mother. The first personality, a protective one, seeing Casey as a separate person, is talking about a relationship that was important to Casey, but not approved of by her mother. The second statement, if the topic is the same, states that she is the one (wanted and desired by the other person, she feels special). Then again, does the second statement move back to the topic spoken of (Casey’s guilt/non-guilt)?
I never thought 3 or 4 ambiguous words would create so much thought, reflection and discussion! My final point of discussion is the example ‘Fuck you there/were … Involved – now I’m the one’. I find the tonality of ‘Involved – now I’m the one’ to be similar, with the first section of a different tonality/voice, and then starting to transition to the second ‘voice’. There is something worth considering here.
‘Fuck you there’, in the first voice (not American accent) may (or may not) refer to Casey’s subconscious anger toward her mother (Casey is in prison and the mother is at home). The second reversal (more American accent) refers to her involvement in the murder. ‘Fuck you were (involved)’ is either a simple statement of truth from one personality, or perhaps even a realisation by the particular personality that Casey was involved. ‘Involved’ is shared by both voices, with the second voice admitting (or at least believing) involvement. We need to be careful, though, we are dealing with the subconscious; beliefs can be held within the subconscious that do not or have not been acted upon – they only act as an influencing force on the person.
In the wash up, we are left with two general theses – one may hear ‘in love’ or ‘involved’. For those who consider it ‘in love’, don’t think that ‘involved’ is clearly produced always in FS – it isn’t, so it could be ‘involved’. So, either Casey’s subconscious either spoke about an emotional issue concerning her mother and an intimate relationship, or Casey’s subconscious indicated Casey’s (potential) involvement in Caylee’s murder (or at least a non-actualised thoughtform with perhaps a guilt complex).