Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by drstrange169 48 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by DJA 6 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Joshua Rogan 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Busy Beaver 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by Joshua Rogan 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (21 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-18-2018, 11:25 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Nothing was said, incidentally, in the opening post about Anne being a "potential forger". She is obviously an alleged and suspected forger due to what her husband claimed in his January 1995 affidavit but what I said we were going to do in this thread is to compare her handwriting to the handwriting in the diary. That's it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Before we consider a comparison of the handwriting of the Diary with the handwriting of any single individual (i.e. Anne Barrett)...
So okay, David didn't write, in so many words, that Anne was a 'potential forger', but one wonders how anyone could possibly infer from the above that he wasn't thinking of her in those terms! Not that there's anything wrong with that, but David very obviously still gives credence to Mike's claim that Anne's handwriting is in the diary, or presumably he wouldn't have bothered starting this thread. So let's hope he soon demonstrates, with examples, exactly why he still entertains the idea that Mike may have been telling the truth about this.

Then we can all see for ourselves if this idea has legs.

Love,

Persona Non Grata
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:02 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The Chief Diary Defender is clearly unnerved and afraid of the possibilities revealed by an examination of Anne's handwriting and now is reduced to throwing out strange accusations.

What's interesting is to compare what was written by the Chief Diary Defender in #18 with what was written in #27, which was supposed to be a clarification of #18

This was from #18:

"We shall see in due course, but I'd have thought someone like Anne, who'd have seriously needed the skill to disguise her own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on herself by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble."

And this is from #27:

"I'd have thought any forger who seriously needed the skill to disguise their own hand very well, while trying to maintain the overall consistency and fluidity of someone writing naturally, would also have taken care over such details, or made it far easier on themselves by not producing a whacking 63 pages of writing with so much completely avoidable repetition. That would have been asking for trouble."

Spot the difference? It's not difficult is it? I don't know whether to call it a classic Diary Defender sleight of hand, because the previous version was quoted, but it's not a clarification, it's a complete change of meaning, as the phrase "someone like Anne" has been airbrushed out of history. Yet, it was the very notion that we can possibly speak of, and eliminate, "someone like Anne" that I was complaining of!!!

If we simply focus on the latest so-called clarification, in respect of "any forger", it seems that the Chief Diary Defender has managed to rule out the Diary as being a forgery (old OR modern) on the basis of the inconsistent handwriting!!! Something that no handwriting expert or document examiner has so far been able to do!

And the same person has also ruled it out as having been written by Maybrick.

So let us leave that person to her dream world and continue in the real one...
I only mentioned Anne because David did, in his opening post! How hard can this be?

I also specified a forger who, like Anne or anyone else, had been in it for the money and needed to disguise their normal handwriting to have had any hope of getting away with it.

I even referred to the handwriting not resembling Maybrick's as an argument for a hoaxer [unidentifiable as any of the suspected modern forgers] who didn't give two hoots about the appearance of the handwriting if it was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. That's hardly ruling it out as a hoax, is it??

Love,

Persona Non Grata
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 05-21-2018 at 10:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:01 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Before doing a comparison of Anne's handwriting with the Diary handwriting let us consider a couple of quotes.

This is from "Disguised Handwriting" by John J. Harris in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 43, Issue 5, 1953:

"A few persons are ambidextrous and, therefore, have quite a talent for disguising handwriting."

This is from "Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents", Second Edition by Jan Seaman Kelly Brian S. Lindblom (eds), 2006:

"Disguise can be accomplished by writing with the hand opposite to that which is habitually used. This can be a very effective disguise as long as standards of wrong-handed writing are not available. Opposite-hand writing can sometimes be inferred from its relatively low degree of writing skill. Once a suspect is located, steps should be taken to obtain writings executed with both hands wherever possible. A small group of people can write with the same ease and skill using either hand. These ambidextrous writers have practiced and developed their writing to such a degree that writings produced by left and right hands do not contain features associated with disguise. In spite of a developed skill to write with both hands, writing done with the right hand differs in many ways from writing done with the left."

So if we are comparing the Diary handwriting with the handwriting of any individual we need to consider whether they might have attempted to disguise their handwriting by using their "other" hand. This could account for a different direction in the slope of such handwriting.

I understand that some 1% of the population is ambidextrous.

Given that the author of the Diary is likely to have disguised their handwriting what can we tell from an examination of any individual's handwriting?

Let's take Anne for example. There is no doubt that some of her characters are different from those in the Diary. The formation of her letter "l" for example is different. The way the Diary author writes a capital "J" cannot be found in Anne's handwriting.

Yet, at the same time, there are a number of quite interesting similarities. But I do want to say that there is no way of drawing any conclusions from these similarities. Certainly none of Anne's normal handwriting can be said to be identical to the Diary author's handwriting. All I want to say in this thread that the similarities present us with quite a coincidence in that the person identified by Mike in his January 1995 affidavit as the transcriber of the affidavit shares a number of handwriting characteristics with the author of the Diary.

Below is one example from a number of letters of Anne that I've seen - I've also seen her signature on her marriage certificate - and I will comment on individual characters in separate posts.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:06 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

One thing to notice about Anne's handwriting is that there is quite a long stroke over the letter "t" - which covers most of the word "the" in the example posted - albeit not quite as long as the Diary author's.

I should say that this is one thing that does appear in Anne's test sample provided to Keith Skinner in 1994.

I don't think this is particularly rare, although not everyone does it by any means, but I note it nevertheless.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Now this is rather interesting. The letter "i". It's fairly unusual in that it looks like the number 9.

The Diary author also writes it as a number nine but usually, although not always, adds a loop at the bottom.

You can compare with the word "if" on page 3 of the Diary and you can see a very plain looking "i" without a loop at the bottom on page 10 of the Diary and a loopy one on page 2.

It's a shame I can't post examples side by side from the Diary but as there are copyright issues involved you will need to do the comparison yourself I'm afraid.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Possibly the most unusual character formation by both the Diary author and Anne is the letter "f". They both write it like the letter "b".

You can see a couple of examples in the Diary on page 3 ("fly" and "from") and the word "fact" on page 31.

This is Anne writing "from".
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Both Anne and the Diary author share a similar characteristic when forming the letter "T".

The top left of the letter looks like a little "H".

True that the Diary author adds a loop at the bottom of the T but you can compare Anne's "T" in "Thats" with the authors "T" in Time on page 2 of the Diary.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:19 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Is it just me or does Anne's "s" look like the letter "n"?

It's something the Diary author does too, see the word "shake" on page 8.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-21-2018, 12:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I don't want to make too much of Anne's capital "A" other than that she writes it in the same form as lower case "a" (but larger).

The Diary author does frequently put a distinctive diagonal line through this letter, which Anne does not, but not always and you can compare Anne's "A" with the "A" in "Abberline" on page 30 although I don't suggest there is anything particular similar between the two character formations other than that they are not "A".
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.