Diary Handwriting

[David Orsam]

And your point is duly noted and had been understood, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is in itself a particularly unexpected phenomenon. I am less alarmed about its implications for the journal and more alarmed for the implications for the human brain - how it can write such inconsistencies (in consecutive words, for goodness sake!) in the first place, and evade detection for so long in the second place.

Well we can happily leave the first question for the handwriting experts at another time. The second question is easily answered in that it is only now that I have had a close look at the handwriting. [I'm only joking!!!!!]

This thread is only going to be about spotting similarities between Anne's handwriting and the handwriting (at least at certain times) of the author of the Diary.

[Pcdunn]

Huh, very interesting. I've been trying for some time to determine if the handwriting seen in the diary resembled that of either of the Barretts, and came away with the vague idea that it doesn't match anyone's writing, including Maybrick's.

Now, at last, there is a chance to see if there is a partial resemblance! Very good, and I will check your observations against my copy of the Diary. Thank you.

[caz]

Hi David,

Check out the capital A's on the first page. Second paragraph, line 4, we get a modern looking capital A for 'And why not...' [are we looking at Barry Norman?? ], then another one beginning the final paragraph: 'As usual my hands are cold...'. But sandwiched in between, just two lines down from the first example, we get a very different, old-fashioned capital A [which I can't reproduce here, but it looks more like a capital G so I'll go with that] for: 'Gll who sell their dirty wares...'.

Now this seems rather odd to me unless, as with the handwriting not remotely resembling Maybrick's, our hoaxer [for I have no doubt we are dealing with one, it's just the who, when and why we disagree about] just didn't give two hoots.

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.

Love,

Persona Non Grata
X

[rjpalmer]

Caz. None of my business, really, but I'd be curious to know why Keith Skinner and Anne Graham appear to have had a 'falling out.' From several posts by Die Hard Diary supporters on these message boards, I think they are wondering the same thing. The impression we used to get back around 2000-2002 (and perhaps we were all misinterpreting the situation) is that they were really quite chummy and Keith was even helping Anne research a book on 'baby farming.' He certainly wrote the forward to her book on Florence Maybrick. Fast forward 14 or 16 years and they haven't spoken in years and--by implication--Keith is now entirely willing to entertain the idea that Anne was lying through her teeth (elaborately and repeatedly) about having seen the Diary in the 1960s. It's a curious state of affairs. You can't blame people for wondering.

And with Anne not talking, and having not talked for a decade, I think we have come to the end of the line. There will be no video of the culprits in action, and no deathbed confession, and so what we now see is pretty much all we will ever get. And thus the Diary will forever remain a questioned document under a cloud of suspicion, and no self-respecting historian will touch it with a ten foot pole as 'source material.'

[Scott Nelson]

What I don't understand is why Scotland Yard supposedly investigated a possible Diary forgery after it first emerged, but then the investigation stopped without answers. They interviewed the electricians who worked in the house, Anne Graham, etc. They must have concluded that Anne Graham had no involvement or they could go no further with what she told them.

[David Orsam]

Im glad to hear that your not sharpening up the knives and ironing the blindfold then.

For the record David id say that my opinion on the diary is that it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but i accept the slight possibility that it may not be. Of the arguments against i believe that your ‘one off instance’ is by far the likeliest refuting point. That said i have made no real study of the subject but i do like to play a bit of ‘devil’s advocate’ occaisionally.

Thank you for clarifying Herlock.

[David Orsam]

.Now, at last, there is a chance to see if there is a partial resemblance! Very good, and I will check your observations against my copy of the Diary. Thank you.

Excellent, thank you Pcdunn.

[David Orsam]

I love the way that the person who has been telling us for years that Anne Barrett wouldn't have forged the Diary in a million years (I'm paraphrasing!!!) is now able to tell us exactly how Anne WOULD have forged the Diary had she chosen to do so!

For us mere mortals it's impossible to know where such sudden insight comes from.

I repeat and stress that it's not possible to draw any conclusions about authorship from the inconsistences in the handwriting (at least not for non-experts in handwriting).

If Maybrick wrote the Diary then he did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

If a forger or hoaxer wrote the Diary then he or she did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

That's literally as much as we can say. Pretending to be able to understand WHY the handwriting is internally inconsistent or to identify any individuals who would not have written the Diary in such a way is obviously quite foolish. If some people think that the internal inconsistences actually eliminate Anne Barrett from being the author then they can live on in their dream world but this thread is for those who wish to remain in reality.

[David Orsam]

If possible, can we keep this thread focussed on the Diary handwriting rather than turning it into another general Diary thread?

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, now back to Spandau Ballet, or whatever.

[caz]

Caz. None of my business, really, but I'd be curious to know why Keith Skinner and Anne Graham appear to have had a 'falling out.' From several posts by Die Hard Diary supporters on these message boards, I think they are wondering the same thing. The impression we used to get back around 2000-2002 (and perhaps we were all misinterpreting the situation) is that they were really quite chummy and Keith was even helping Anne research a book on 'baby farming.' He certainly wrote the forward to her book on Florence Maybrick. Fast forward 14 or 16 years and they haven't spoken in years and--by implication--Keith is now entirely willing to entertain the idea that Anne was lying through her teeth (elaborately and repeatedly) about having seen the Diary in the 1960s. It's a curious state of affairs. You can't blame people for wondering.

And with Anne not talking, and having not talked for a decade, I think we have come to the end of the line. There will be no video of the culprits in action, and no deathbed confession, and so what we now see is pretty much all we will ever get. And thus the Diary will forever remain a questioned document under a cloud of suspicion, and no self-respecting historian will touch it with a ten foot pole as 'source material.'

Hi rj,

I have a lot of sympathy with your view on this. I have very little doubt that Anne could tell us more if she so wished, but she did say, when we last interviewed her for Ripper Diary, that this was the last time she would speak about it. That was rather unfortunate because it did - and does - raise suspicions that she had something to hide. As you know, since the book was published, we had reason to look again at the old electrician rumours, which, if true, make a liar out of Anne every bit as much as if she really had authored or penned the diary. Either way, I guess she would need to have a crisis of conscience to come clean now, although it's certainly possible that she will be approached again, if she hasn't been already, and invited to respond to the suspicions voiced about her involvement with the diary.

Apologies to David for joining you off topic!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I love the way that the person who has been telling us for years that Anne Barrett wouldn't have forged the Diary in a million years (I'm paraphrasing!!!) is now able to tell us exactly how Anne WOULD have forged the Diary had she chosen to do so!

For us mere mortals it's impossible to know where such sudden insight comes from.

I repeat and stress that it's not possible to draw any conclusions about authorship from the inconsistences in the handwriting (at least not for non-experts in handwriting).

If Maybrick wrote the Diary then he did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

If a forger or hoaxer wrote the Diary then he or she did so using handwriting which was internally inconsistent.

That's literally as much as we can say. Pretending to be able to understand WHY the handwriting is internally inconsistent or to identify any individuals who would not have written the Diary in such a way is obviously quite foolish. If some people think that the internal inconsistences actually eliminate Anne Barrett from being the author then they can live on in their dream world but this thread is for those who wish to remain in reality.

Hi David,

Thank you for your constructive comments.

When I wrote the following, I was merely running with your opening post, which named Anne as a potential forger. As you can see, I said nothing whatsoever about being able to eliminate her or anyone else on the basis of the internal inconsistences. I was offering a perfectly reasonable opinion, on the basis that a modern forger, with fraud in mind, presumably wanted to get away with it:

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.

For those who didn't get my drift the first time, let me clarify:

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.

I really don't see why you have to come across as such a nasty piece of work. But if you think it helps please do carry on. The nastier the better.

Love and kisses,

Persona Non Grata
X

[peg&pie]

I think I would agree with Robert Smith in saying that the handwriting is unlikely to ever help deciding between forgery or genuine.

My own handwriting is a mix of cursive and print, as I'm sure many others is.
The variation in the capital A's is interesting, and repeats throughout the diary.
Could that be a defining writing style able to be pinned to a particular time?, or person?

As usual I expect an abundance of opinion and distinct lack of professional insight to follow.

[David Orsam]

Yes, now back to Spandau Ballet, or whatever.

No Scott, not in this thread. You are, I think, gratuitously referring to another thread about a Tumblety book in which the author of that book has, for some unknown reason, been eager to talk about me and my books, rather than his own, hence providing me with a welcome opportunity to promote my most recent book about Spandau Ballet (now available on amazon.co.uk and other good online retailers!). There are plenty of other threads to discuss the Diary in general or start an argument with me (which seem to be your intention). I particularly want to keep THIS thread on topic because I'm right in the middle of discussing the diary handwriting and haven't finished yet. As for your question, I'll re-post it on the Incontrovertible thread and answer in there.

[David Orsam]

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...