Forensics is not just a matter of looking at shell casings or seeing what kinds of insects are around the body. I'm a fan of the various CSI's, when I can get past the baloney.

Information Forensics has also found its way onto these shows, although I only wish I had the kinds of user interfaces they mock up (I'm guessing enforcement pros wish they had them too). That said, anyone who's been in IT for any length of time knows that there's plenty of raw data to massage; the conclusions we can reach, of course, vary in value and risk/reward ratio.

One thing I've been discussing with some Beltway folks is the possibility of developing a stylistic/topical "signature" for authors. To put it as a question: can we discern stylistic or other commonalities in written content that accurately identify an author across multiple stated identities/venues/subjects?

I think the answer is, yes. Just looking at what I wrote so far in this post, I can see that I like to use semicolons (some teacher in my past is probably responsible). I also tend to employ pretty good sentence structure, which might be just another way of saying I can't say simple things in short phrases.

Do I have a "signature"? Undeniably, and you probably do, too. To the degree that a bad guy also does, and either doesn't realize it or cannot suppress it, an opportunity exists to identify him. I find that possibility motivating.