Graphologist Claims Tumblety wrote the Lusk Letter

[Christine]

Hello, I don't consider myself much of a Ripperologist, but I do enjoy reading the casebook from time to time. I came across this article, and naturally wanted to know what casebook thought of it, and I was surprised that I couldn't find anything, either here or on the old forum.

Essentially what we have here is a book coming out in June that will claim that Tumblety wrote the Lusk letter, based on handwriting analysis. In general this sort of analysis is considered valid, and is admissible as evidence in court.

From there she jumps to the conclusion that Tumblety was Jack, which is questionable, but it certainly would be interesting enough if Tumblety could be proved to have written the letter.

She also makes some very questionable graphology claims, such as the claim that the author of the Lusk letter was out of control sexually, based on his large loops on the lower parts of letters like 'y' and 'g'. I was a little surprised to see this. The University of Michigan is a highly respected institution, and doesn't usually go in for this sort of pseudoscience.

I do hope you find the link interesting, and look forward to hearing opinions.

[Celesta]

Hello Christine,

I don't think I've met you before. If you are new here, welcome.

I looked briefly at this article, but more closely at the Ripper letters depicted. I admit I know next to nothing about this technique but those examples don't look too identical to me. Superficially, they do, I suppose.

I've run into a few of those graphology sites online, but the ones I've seen most commonly don't tell you who the author decided was JtR! You have to buy the book!

I'm sure some of the Tumblety folks can say more on this.

Best wishes,

Celesta

[Doctor X]

In general this sort of analysis is considered valid, and is admissible as evidence in court.

Not the conclusions she is claiming like:

. . . was out of control sexually, based on his large loops on the lower parts of letters like 'y' and 'g'.

Pure woo.

I was a little surprised to see this. The University of Michigan is a highly respected institution, and doesn't usually go in for this sort of pseudoscience.

Big institutions can have all sorts. University of Arizona has a clown who thinks he can talk to the dead.

ANYways, I am hardly an expert, but I would need to see something more than "loops = out of control sexually" as evidence! It is a shame that actual handwriting analysis gets buried with this pseudoscience.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Barnaby]

The University of Michigan is a highly respected institution, and doesn't usually go in for this sort of pseudoscience.

It's just an alumni newsletter. Having recently spent some time at UM, I can assure you that it does not represent the majority opinion of the psychology dept.

[Magpie]

Oy vey--don't get me started.....

Suffice to say that:

1) Ms Dresbold's book was originally published over a year ago.

2) Ms Dresbold is a very nice lady.

3) Graphology is a steaming heap of hokum.

[Magpie]

Essentially what we have here is a book coming out in June that will claim that Tumblety wrote the Lusk letter, based on handwriting analysis. In general this sort of analysis is considered valid, and is admissible as evidence in court.

Just to clarify.

A. Forensic handwriting analysis (did person A write letter B. Is the signature on this document genuine) is admissable evidence in court.

B. Graphology (the psychological profiling of an individual by examination of their handwriting) has been rejected by the courts in case after case.

Since many "Graphologists" offer both services, they present courtroom experience based on (A) but strongly imply their experience is actually of (B).

[Doctor X]

Indeed, Magpie.

Since there are a few flies left buzzing on this horse carcass, graphology "works" based on cold reading. The person "analyzing" your handwriting plays a game of "20 questions" to basically get you to tell them everything they regurgitate back to you. See John Edward, Sylvia Brown, and that Van Praag prat for other examples. Also make sure to throw in statements like "you have a lot of untapped potential."

With historical figures, where is the control? I can claim to see in the handwriting of the Lusk letter than it was written by Jack, who was between 35-40 years old, has a lot of "anger issues" and likes cats. Who will prove me wrong?

Under proper conditions, these things fail miserably.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[The Good Michael]

I dislike this stuff. What may have been impressive or at least would get an, "Okay, I'm with you a little." is if the graphologist took 1000 unknown pieces of penmanship, compared handwriting, and said, "This is the one. This is the man who wrote it."

To compare to someone already known, and having an understanding of his history and foibles (imagined or no) reeks of sensationalism.

Yet, what do I know?

Mike

[Mike Covell]

Wow, so Dr Tumblety is alleged to have written a letter, Walter Sickert is alleged to have written a letter.

All good and well, but this proves one thing and one thing only.

They were letter writers!!

Certainly not Jack the Ripper!!

[Doctor X]

But a doctor?

AND a letter writer?!!!11!!

Coincidence?!!

--J.D.

[Limehouse]

Firstly Christine, thanks for bringing this to our attention and welcome!

I think this lady has picked up on the detectable but over-done Irish characteristics in the Lusk letter, which have been pointed out by other researchers, and made a huge leap to Tumblety because of his alleged Finian connections and his status as a Ripper suspect.

I have a real problem with the twaddle these handwriting analysers come up with. For example, what does 'out of control sexually' actually MEAN? Does it mean he w****d a lot? Does it mean he needed sex twice a day, five times a day or twice a week? Does it mean he did with animals? Does it mean he was homosexual?

Secondly, has she considered any factors that could have impacted on his handwriting style and thus rendered the analysis invalid? For example, was the writer dyslexic? Was the writer left handed? Did the writer have an injury to his hand on the day of writing? Does the writer have a coordination problem that results in handwriting characteristics such as pressing down heavily when writing (to gain more control) or indeed creating these large loops (again, to keep more control over the pen, to keep the movement going so that letters can be formed).

Even if she could prove that Tumblety wrote the letter, it wouldn't prove that he was the Ripper.

[Doctor X]

Does it mean he did with animals?

Only if he dotted his "i"s with smilies.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

P.S. And that is how it works. Someone starts with a conclusion or is given information from cold reading, and then reads it into the analysis. "Jack musta been a sexual maniac" so looking at the letters there must be "evidence he is a sexual maniac" . . . "oh look! Look at the loops!" Then you pick your suspect and find evidence in the writing.

Lather

Rinse

Repeat

[Limehouse]

I have a few students who dot their iis with smilies! It's nearly always girls who do that. It is perhaps a sign that they are trying to please! (here i go, catching the analysis bug!!)

Yes, Dr X, you're quite right, it's just like Ms Cornwell with her look-at-a-few-Sickert-paintings-notice-they deal-with-murder-and-other-murky-topics-realise-he-was-alive-at-the-time-of-the-murders-and-conclude-he-must-be-the-Ripper approach to logic.

[Howard Brown]

Ms. Dresbold was ( briefly) a member of JTRForums.com...but never really got involved. I swear I did not pinch her.

[Celesta]

Wow, so Dr Tumblety is alleged to have written a letter, Walter Sickert is alleged to have written a letter.

All good and well, but this proves one thing and one thing only.

They were letter writers!!

Certainly not Jack the Ripper!!

Hmmm. A. Dr. Tumblety allegedly wrote a letter. B. Sickert allegedly wrote a letter. C. Dr. Tumblety was Walter Sickert.

Yep. That works.