Bury's handwriting

[Boggles]

The link to that write-up no longer works.

Thats a shame, but your not missing much, i dont think i still have the correspondence with Dr Davies it was a long time ago. Basically he didnt think that there was enough to match lusk with psg. He saw more differences than similarities and with the evidence he had he didn't think lusk and psg same author.

Regarding the reliability of the reproduction of the psg i dont know much about this - what they did to reproduce this to comment and so retract my previous comments! I can provide you with a scan of the newspaper report if you want?

Also Let me see if i can get a closer scan of the confession letter for you, on page 1 of this thread, give me a couple of weeks as i travel work and need to dig it up. PM me your email adddress and will send high res if you want.

You know what needs to be done you need to do a proper handwriting match with lusk and letters with several independent forensic handwriting experts. PM if you want a chat or want any help.

[Boggles]

Do you know if this handwriting expert is a professional forensic document examiner?

he says he is
http://www.unask.com/website/home/index.html

[Boggles]

Not a million miles away is it?

[Cogidubnus]

Not a million miles away is it?

Will

I simply give up...

You say you welcome my input as a critical outsider...which is great...and entirely to your credit...

You criticise me and argue with me that my views re the newspaper representations of the Cellar Door inscriptions are unreliable...being merely a reporters interpretation of something he may've seen...I've entirely conceded what you say and accept your criticism...because it's a fair enough argument...

Now you're placidly, nay welcomingly, accepting an entirely opposite argument, ( that they are indeed a reliable representation), from Wyatt Earp, presumably because he's evolved an argument supporting Bury as a valid JtR candidate, that they are indeed reliable, and this suits your ends...

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways Will...I think you just unwittingly did your cause a great deal of harm...and I say that regretfully as someone who had a great deal of sympathy with what you had to say...

All the best

Dave

[Boggles]

Whats you beef Dave, im simply saying i dont know enough about how they reproduced the the psg - i hold my hand up and declare a lack of knowledge on the matter - im indifferent, agnostic. Sure I would like the psg to be genuine as it adds flavour to the case but I think you both argue very well and enjoy reading both your insights. Your both my favorites!

Either way can we now get down to business have a detailed letter by letter look at lusk letter vs burys handwriting.

I start with the a,b,c and ds, then maybe someone else can help with some of the others. What you recon Wyatt? Come on Dave this case not going to solve itself you know

[Boggles]

ds - lusk vs bury

[Wyatt Earp]

Boggles, thanks a lot for your remarks—I appreciate them.

Nice work comparing the letters.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Will

Ok...but I have to say that, notwithstanding the alleged Late Victorian handwriting standardisation, or perhaps despite it, I really can't see much likeness between the Lusk letter and the sample provided...

The Lusk letter, taken overall is far more "randomly" written, (best term I can think of; and it's perhaps in an attempt to disguise the hand), and so, wisely, you've chosen to concentrate on individual letters or groupings in order to seek to establish degrees of similarity. Bearing in mind the very much standardised lettering styles, I don't really think there's enough there

Sorry

Dave

[Boggles]

You have to humor me this is something i always wanted to have a look at. For me (and i may be damning myself to ridicule), but i dont think its that different compared with other Victorian handwriting ive seen.

Have you got a couple of samples of Victorian handwriting that you feel is similar that may serve as a control please?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Will

Apart from a few envelopes (which carry only very limited samples), most of the letters in my collection are "postal entires", which are letters folded to make their own wrapping...these died out for the most part in the 1840s with the introduction of stamps...a bit early for our purposes...

I've emailed you something from the mid 1830s which despite the date looked a bit like a Victorian hand - see if you think it's any good.

In the meantime does anybody else on site have access to any Victorian letters of a later period?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

On second thoughts...

Hang on Will

Wouldn't some of that inventory we worked on do? Or one of the Medical Reports perhaps? (though Victorian MDs weren't always the tidiest writers!)

Cheers

Dave

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Boggles.

These are samples of Victorian handwriting from circa 1871.
You'll note the use of language, phraseology and the haphazard capitalisation of words.

Yours, Caligo.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Not a million miles away is it?

Hi Boggles.

The sample you provide may not be a million miles away but I believe that other than the use of the same language, they aren't very close either.

The 'Lusk' hand writing exhibits sharp angles and tends to a significant vertical rise to meet the next letter in the word when leaving a lower connective letter. I would suggest this letter is the result of a swift and practised hand as there appears to be little hesitation and it generally keeps to good horizontal composition for each line.
The ' sample' hand is, overall, more rounded and meets the subsequent letter in a more horizontal movement. The hand seems more studied, that is more concerned in correctly forming the letters and words and is likely written more slowly and carefully than the 'Lusk' sample and this action gives it a certain consistency in its overall formation of letter and word shapes which the ' Lusk ' writing lacks.

All this is to state that the formations of the individual letter and word samples you have provided, appear to have no similarity between one sample and the other and I have to state that I believe they are by a different hand.

Yours, Caligo.

[Boggles]

Well i wont flog a dead horse then,

Interesting though

[Wyatt Earp]

Caligo, I’m aware that the handwriting characteristics I outlined linking Bury to the Lusk letter are not unusual—however they are not universally present in Victorian handwriting samples. Take “haphazard capitalization” as an example. If you look through the Evans and Skinner book, Letters from Hell, which can be viewed as a special kind of Victorian handwriting sampler, you’ll find that this trait is not present in every document—and so it’s worthwhile to mention its presence in connection with Bury.