Graphologist Claims Tumblety wrote the Lusk Letter

[caz]

Right, Ben, so if I called myself a professional document examiner, because I charged a fee for 'examining documents', that would make me a legitimate expert in determining that a particular writer was genuinely semi-literate and not faking it. Blimey, some people really are gullible. The Lusk letter author must be chuckling in his grave.

My daughter is in her third year at King's College London, studying for a BA in English Language & Communication, which is a linguistics degree. So out of curiosity I emailed her the text of the Lusk letter and asked:

When you get a spare moment, could you cast your eye over the following letter written in 1888 (no other clues but I'm sure you won't need any!) and let me know:


a) Would it be possible for a linguistics specialist to determine (beyond subjective opinion or prejudice) that the writer was genuinely "semi-literate" and not faking it for effect?


b) What is you own qualified opinion?

Semi-literate
Faking it
Could go either way


Thanks sweetie!!
XXX



This is what she came back with, for what it's worth:

Hello there, maternal parent.

My opinion is thus:

a) I know that when non-native speakers of English get things wrong, they generally follow a pattern of errors (sometimes depending on their own native tongue, perhaps, but still within those groups there will be certain common mistakes made). You can't just make up broken English, because it's still rule-based in some way. Therefore, I'm wondering if it would be possible for linguists to analyse the language use of many semi-literate people, to look for patterns, and then apply the results to this? It may be difficult because of the unruly nature of semi-literate language use (and I imagine it is bloody hard to pin down what constitutes semi-literacy at all), or it may have even already been done, I'm not sure.

b) It looks very much to me like fakery. Again, I know nothing of the patterns of semi-literacy, or if there are any discernible patterns at all, but 'Sor' instead of 'Sir' and 'Mishter' instead of 'Mister' seem highly unlikely mistakes to be made by someone who can spell 'half'', 'piece', 'fried' and 'bloody' correctly.

xxx

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Right, Ben, so if I called myself a professional document examiner, because I charged a fee for 'examining documents', that would make me a legitimate expert in determining that a particular writer was genuinely semi-literate and not faking it

So you're saying that document examiners have no real expertise at all; that they only pretend to have some because they seek a fee?

Gosh, I hope not.

And are you seriously suggesting that Thomas Mann only calls himself a document examiner, but really isn't one?

Damn, I hope not.

And are you seriously, seriously suggesting that your daughter, who is undertaking a university course, is as qualified to pass judgement as a professional in the field?

Fcuk a monk, I hope not.

Don't get me wrong, I wish her all the very best and I'm very interested to hear her views, but I'm sure she'd be the very first to concede that professional experience in the field counts for a great deal. Such concessions really aren't the norm in "ripperology", where professions as diverse as criminology, psychology and document examination can be invalidated at the click of the mouse, but viva hobbyism I guess...

[perrymason]

This is what she came back with, for what it's worth:

Hello there, maternal parent.

My opinion is thus:

a) I know that when non-native speakers of English get things wrong, they generally follow a pattern of errors (sometimes depending on their own native tongue, perhaps, but still within those groups there will be certain common mistakes made). You can't just make up broken English, because it's still rule-based in some way. Therefore, I'm wondering if it would be possible for linguists to analyse the language use of many semi-literate people, to look for patterns, and then apply the results to this? It may be difficult because of the unruly nature of semi-literate language use (and I imagine it is bloody hard to pin down what constitutes semi-literacy at all), or it may have even already been done, I'm not sure.

b) It looks very much to me like fakery. Again, I know nothing of the patterns of semi-literacy, or if there are any discernible patterns at all, but 'Sor' instead of 'Sir' and 'Mishter' instead of 'Mister' seem highly unlikely mistakes to be made by someone who can spell 'half'', 'piece', 'fried' and 'bloody' correctly.

xxx

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Well....I for one found your daughters insights very astute...and I believe the letter may be real, so thats saying something.

The parts I underlined I thought were very rational and logical. To me a degree in anything doesnt ensure that its a sound logical mind using the knowledge gained...I think in your daughters case, its clear she has a good CPU to start with.

Seems like you done good with that one Caz....

All the best, and thank your daughter for us.

[Crystal]

Caz writes This is what she came back with, for what it's worth:

Interesting. So on the one hand, Caz, you laugh at professional document examiners and strongly imply that they are generally a bunch of con men and women who charge good money for old rope; whilst on the other hand, you expect us to take the views of your daughter (no offence to her, obviously), an undergraduate, seriously. What do you think its worth, Caz? How is that is any way an unbiased perspective? I didn't realise a bachelors degree was the equivalent of professional expertise these days - I thought it was intended to provide the training ground for the acquisition of further knowledge and experience. I fully expect you to tell me that I'm wrong

To paraphrase advice given to me once upon a time 'Listen to Ben, Caz, he truly is the voice of reason'.

[caz]

Thanks Perry.

But no thanks, Ben and Crystal. You both demonstrate here how spectactularly you missed the point I was making and went on to dig a great hole for yourselves with the mud you were trying to sling at Big and Little Caz.

I wasn't saying, suggesting or even thinking any of the things Ben read into my post, and I certainly wasn't laughing at professional document examiners or anyone else who can claim genuine experience, training or insight. I was up front about my daughter's limitations in the field of linguistics, hence I posted her solicited observations for what little I now know, in no uncertain terms, you think they are worth.

Ben seemed to be equating document examiners with literacy detectives (assuming the latter exists as a recognised profession - does it?), which surely entitles me to wonder what special areas of expertise Ben believed his expert of choice had, in order to conclude that only a genuinely semi-literate person could have come up with the grammar and spelling used by this self-confessed mischief-maker claiming to be an infamous killer, and it would have been quite beyond the wit of an educated medical student - or a Crystal or a Ben presumably.

For what it's worth, here are a couple of gems I didn't solicit from a third year linguistics 'stoodent' at KCL:

I received the following comments about Iremonger from Martin Fido...

I don't know any more details of Sue Iremonger's arguments on
Hutchinson. But...
She was the first hand-writing examiner for whom I ever had any respect. It
sounds, alas, like swank, but I have to start by noting that prior to my
bringing my paleographically trained eye to the Dear Boss letter, all the
handwriting experts (and non-expert historians) who had examined at it had
read it as starting "Sir". It was apparent to me that it read "Sor" (and
this, combined with the "Mishter" revealed a crude Victorian imitation of
uneducated Irish). Sue did as I did - compared the construction of each
doubtful letter with other definite ones (whose identity was proved by their
appearance in clearly correctly written words) - and confirmed at once that
this said "Sor"...

The above was posted on April 4th [and Martin meant the Lusk Letter, not Dear Boss], followed on April 5th by this:

Particularly reassuring to hear Martin Fido underscore the value and repsect with which Ireminger's views should be treated.

I trust it was equally reassuring for you both to hear Martin Fido, on the wonderfully daft 1911 thread, underscoring the two words my daughter picked out on March 19th, albeit with the caution of a newbie, which indicated fakery to her too.

Once again, I prefer to examine other people's opinions and conclusions, and the basis on which they were formed, before expressing any firm ones of my own.

I'm slightly surprised, though, that Crystal saw Ben as the voice of reason on this one, and has not modified that view since, with the obvious implication that she sees Martin Fido as the voice of total twaddle. If that's what comes of nailing one's colours to Ben's black and white mast, it's a nice cautionary tale for a dull Tuesday afternoon - if nothing else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Crystal]

With respect, Caz, I'm not sure anyone was slinging mud at your daughter. I certainly wasn't - please don't accuse me of such.

[Ben]

Ben seemed to be equating document examiners with literacy detectives (assuming the latter exists as a recognised profession - does it?), which surely entitles me to wonder what special areas of expertise Ben believed his expert of choice had

No, I wasn't. Thomas Mann was referred to by Donald Rumbelow as belonging to the World Association of Document Examiners, which obviously bestows upon him the necessary expertise to observe that the Lusk letter was probably penned by a genuinely semi-literate individual, which is why Rumbelow didn't go "Hang on, Mann's only a document examiner! Why am I including a reference to what he thinks?"

Mann never once eradicated the possibility that the author was attempting to pass himself off as Irish. That's a viable option that I too have considered, but what are we saying here? That only educated people are capable of passing themselves off as Irish? Obviously, that would be nonsense. He could easily have been a semi-literate individual trying to give the impression of "Oirishness".

Martin's views are thus perfectly in accordance with Mann's and my own.

And no, I didn't sling mud at your daughter. I would appreciate it, however, if you didn't insist on using her as a perceived weapon against me; something you've done on more than one thread (pointing out that she winced at my use of the word upmost, for no good reason, as you've since been educated about). It's unfair on her, and more than a little tacky.

[perrymason]

Would the premise the this was Dr T include the appearance of the gloved gentleman who took the address from a paper in a local shop the day or 2 before it arrived? Apparently addressed just as it had been printed....incomplete. Tall...speculation of Irish about him.

Best regards all.

edited to add....does anyone recall seeing what document it was that the police were looking to compare Dr T's handwriting with?

[Malcolm X]

Would the premise the this was Dr T include the appearance of the gloved gentleman who took the address from a paper in a local shop the day or 2 before it arrived? Apparently addressed just as it had been printed....incomplete. Tall...speculation of Irish about him.

Best regards all.

edited to add....does anyone recall seeing what document it was that the police were looking to compare Dr T's handwriting with?

i think you're wasting your time Mike, this thread is seriously off topic.....this forum needs an active administrator, it's getting out of control.

[Crystal]

Malcolm, personal vendettas are taking threads off topic. Maybe if that stopped, the forum might be a rather more civilised place, hey?

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Oh dear, so you are now forcing poor old Don out of his own field of expertise, to make him responsible for knowing that Thomas Mann is a specialist in literacy detection and for judging him fit to offer his thoughts.

I'm jolly glad to hear that your expert of choice 'never once eradicated the possibility' that the author was attempting to pass himself off as Irish. It's a start. He'd have been a complete idiot to do so.

But what on earth qualifies you to write this about the author:

He could easily have been a semi-literate individual trying to give the impression of "Oirishness".

I trust you can provide several examples of semi-literate writers being able to spell words like:

half, piece, fried, ate, bloody, signed

while coming up with awkward spellings that show some recognition of some of the rules, but with no consistency, like:

kidne, nise, knif, wate, whil

Martin's views are not 'perfectly in accordance' with yours and the alleged views of your preferred expert, unless you read into his words something that just isn't there. (Now where else have you been caught doing that lately?)

I think you will find that Martin included the little word 'uneducated' to define the imitation, as opposed to the writer himself:

It was apparent to me that it read "Sor" (and this, combined with the "Mishter" revealed a crude Victorian imitation of uneducated Irish)...

Are you seriously trying to imply that an educated man like Martin Fido would make such a basic schoolboy error? Why not go the whole hog and suggest that what Martin probably meant to say, but worded badly, was that this was an uneducated Irishman doing a crude imitation of - himself?

More evidence, I'm afraid, of your talent for distorting even simple meanings in the words of experts, whose views you insist we should all pay close attention to and respect, while you continue to do neither.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Dear Sir,

I'd like to complain about the constant attempts to take the topic to an off-topic realm. This constant changing of topics makes a thread difficult to follow, and creates consternation amongst the posters who try to stay on topic. Furthermore... er, what's that? This isn't the complaint thread, and I am going seriously off-topic you say?

Apologies,

An Errant Poster

[Crystal]

Caz writes: Ben seemed to be equating document examiners with literacy detectives (assuming the latter exists as a recognised profession - does it?)

Caz seemed to be equating repetitve hostility with intelligence (assuming the latter exists as a recognised brain activity - does it?)

I learned to read overnight, apparently.

As for 'Literacy Detectives' - you'd know, I should think, since you seem to be one yourself. Nobody else cares, you know, you're wasting your time.

I'd be very surprised if anybody here required you to tell them what to think, how to spell, or how to read.

I'm quite sure they can all manage all by themselves, Caz, even if not to your evidently high standards.

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm, personal vendettas are taking threads off topic. Maybe if that stopped, the forum might be a rather more civilised place, hey?

yes, it's a battle of egos, they're trying to out wit each other, BEN is a friend but by GOD he's done a good job of upsetiing people around here, he attracts trouble everywhere he posts, they follow him around

there's no point us complaining anywhere else, because the lesser threads are never seen and read, because that bloody ``1911 census thread`` dominates the whole forum!

RANT OVER!

[Crystal]

I love Ben, I'm only here because I'm an obsessed chick fan...