The Diary

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Nothing is impossible to forge, given the skill. But the diary does come closer to convincing me than the watch ever will.


The watch being found at close to the same time, revealed along with the diary, makes a little too much convenience for me.

That's interesting as many feel the Watch is a more difficult to explain artifact, given its testing history.

I do think if a forger created them near the same time, he or she would have been an idiot to separate them.

[RavenDarkendale]

Nothing is impossible to forge, given the skill. But the diary does come closer to convincing me than the watch ever will. Perhaps we can believe one piece of evidence was discovered that may or may not be real, but two separate family secret type discoveries that link like this may be a bit much to accept.

If the diary hasn't been forged, well and good. Experts have been wrong before, as in the Vermeer forgery I mentioned.

The watch being found at close to the same time, revealed along with the diary, makes a little too much convenience for me.

I will give experts the respect of being more learned than I, and I would give anyone the belief that they tell the truth unless I catch them in a lie. I just don't believe in the diary and watch. Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison, both of whom's books I own each make a case for the reality of both the diary and the watch. I just can't see it, that's all.

[Sickert]

Ah, but I don't believe anyone with any real forgery expertise would bet good money on Mike Barrett either being its researcher, its author or its penman.

People really need to look beyond our Mike for their faker - assuming they'd like their views to count for something.

Mike as forger is the lazy thinker's answer.

Love,

Caz
X

You get me wrong. I was not saying that Mike Barrett wrote the diary. All I was saying was who ever did write it, it is a fake in my opinion. I think maybe a friend of his wrote it, then gave it to Mike.

[caz]

Hi Sally,

I don't claim to understand it either.

But clearly, not every great actor or storyteller can be going through - or has to go through - the same emotions as the characters they portray, as they are portraying them, even if they are able to imagine being in their shoes, or have experienced similar emotions at one time or another. I should think it takes empathy and imagination more than actual emotion, but maybe that's why I'd make a terrible actor or novelist.

But you are surely not suggesting that the diary penman/woman would have been feeling genuinely murderous or high as a kite as he/she wrote, or even trying to feel that way, if they were busily creating a fake to deceive people and possibly make money? If graphologists claim there are specific signs in handwriting that can indicate a murderous or disturbed personality, then whether it's true or cobblers Koren saw these signs in the diary. So does that suggest the person who penned it faked the signs deliberately to pass the 'test', or were they there by pure coincidence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Graphologists claim, I think, to be able to tell faked emotions from genuine ones from the physical appearance of the handwriting, as people can often tell if someone is acting an experience rather than genuinely going through it.

I have always had a nagging little voice telling me that Feldy just might have told Koren a bit about the document beforehand. Just a feeling...

[Sally]

Hi Caz

Graphologists claim, I think, to be able to tell faked emotions from genuine ones from the physical appearance of the handwriting, as people can often tell if someone is acting an experience rather than genuinely going through it.

But what would happen if the writer had genuine emotions? That's how actors - and I presume novelists - conjure up emotions, as I understand it. The emotions are really theirs, but from an experience which may have nothing to do with the role/story beng portrayed.

Even if the writer of the diary - and I don't presume to have any firm conviction about that - was venting his own emotions, it still wouldn't make him/her either Maybrick, or the Ripper, necessarily.

That's why I don't see, I suppose, how anybody can say on graphological analysis whether the diary is genuine or not. I'd have more faith in scientific test, but even those are not infallible in some cases.

[caz]

I've just been to a bunch of websites for the Israeli government, in English and Hebrew, looking for "security department," "document analysis," etc., and I can't find a "Hannah Koren" anywhere. If she does, or ever did work for them, she is not very prominent. It's possible the name is transliterated badly, but Hannah is a really common name, and there's just one way to spell it in Hebrew. I didn't get any hits on just Hannah.

Here you are:

http://www.annakoren.com/

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, I agree Caz. I was just wondering how it could be 'impossible' for anybody to forge a document based on their being unable to fake genuine emotion

If that were truly the case, nobody would ever be able to write a decent novel.

Hi Sally,

Maybe it's like acting. An actor has to conjure up what looks and sounds like genuine emotion when playing anything from a serial killer fantasising about chopping up bodies, to a mother whose child has just died. But the emotions are not real and it takes a great actor to make them seem real (and a great writer to produce a decent novel ). We've also seen killers faking emotions at press conferences to come off as innocent witnesses, and giving themselves away in the process. In short, there are people (not always experts either) who can see through such fakery.

Graphologists claim, I think, to be able to tell faked emotions from genuine ones from the physical appearance of the handwriting, as people can often tell if someone is acting an experience rather than genuinely going through it.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

viva le difference

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"the difference between a "graphologist," and a "handwriting analyst" is a little bit like the difference between an astrologer, and an astronomer."

Precisely!

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Rivkah,

Just the one graphologist, I think, compared with several document examiners who have been let loose on the diary. While none of the latter found the handwriting 'consistent' with the few available samples of Maybrick's (not surprising, as even the dimmest amateurs have been saying the same thing since 1993), the graphologist simply stated her opinion (for what it's worth) that what disturbed her about the handwriting could not be faked by just anyone.

The irony is that modern hoax theorists have long poured scorn on the graphologist's ability to detect signs of addiction, while pointing out in the same breath that Mike Barrett's booze problem could explain what she found! A bit like saying "astrology is a load of bollocks, we Scorpios are not so easily taken in".

I'm deeply sceptical myself, but isn't a thoroughly closed mind the sign of a poor scientist?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

But, I think that some of the proponents of the diary did actually ask graphologists look at it. The graphologists were asked to look at the handwriting for signs of addiction, and psychopathic behavior. Those are both too general to have specific handwriting traits, and are just as much bupkes as claiming that JTR will have a certain birthday, because he is likely to have been born under a certain astrological sign.

I don't know much about graphology, I confess, but I'm not sure how it would follow that one could determine a person's characteristics from their handwriting.

How would this work, for example, for an alphabet which did not utilise cursive script? How would it work in the LVP, when many, many people, if not the majority, had remarkably similar handwriting as a consequence of being taught to write formally?

Sounds a bit wooly to me.

[Sally]

Yes it's opinion, Sally, and many others hold the opinion that graphology is pseudoscience.

But it's not meant to be based on analysis of the script or factual evidence, but on the handwriting itself, and as such it shouldn't matter (and is arguably a better test) if the writing is in a language that the graphologist does not speak or write.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, I agree Caz. I was just wondering how it could be 'impossible' for anybody to forge a document based on their being unable to fake genuine emotion

If that were truly the case, nobody would ever be able to write a decent novel.

[RivkahChaya]

From the article RE: Sickert was not JTR, because the diary is authentic:

I soon found what Mrs Hannah Koren had to say on the subject when she was asked whether the diary was a forgery. She exclaimed, “impossi*ble!”. Mrs Hannah Koren is also a graphologist and forensic document analyst for a security department of the Israeli government. I ask myself if this is a co*incidence or an accident.

I've just been to a bunch of websites for the Israeli government, in English and Hebrew, looking for "security department," "document analysis," etc., and I can't find a "Hannah Koren" anywhere. If she does, or ever did work for them, she is not very prominent. It's possible the name is transliterated badly, but Hannah is a really common name, and there's just one way to spell it in Hebrew. I didn't get any hits on just Hannah.

[RivkahChaya]

top graphologists in her head, not the world. Most of the real top graphologists have stated that it is a fake.

Hello Sickert, Kaz, Jason. I wonder if it's possible that you refer to forensic document examiners rather than graphologists? Graphologists are not widely respected as capable of definitively linking writers with documents; the former, are.

Cheers.
LC

I was going to ask whether "graphologist" meant something different in the UK, but I guess not. FTR, in the US, the difference between a "graphologist," and a "handwriting analyst" is a little bit like the difference between an astrologer, and an astronomer. A forensic handwriting analyst is a subspeciality dealing particularly with documents that were forged to commit crimes; they look at things like signatures on bank documents, or prescription pads. In other words, small samples, all modern.

Another specialty is people who examine documents of unknown provenance to try to determine what historical period something is from, and sometimes whether a particular person wrote it. They're knowledgeable about a particular time and place. They usually deal with fairly large samples, and most of the time, are not looking for fraud. They are experienced in using contextual clues, as well as the actual style of writing, and the ink and paper. Historical examiners are not necessarily tuned into the idea of a hoax, because it isn't their usual thing.

Determining historical hoaxes is difficult, because it's an uncommon undertaking, and it requires the forensic and historic document examiners to pool their skills; this makes the materials analysis all the more valuable.

The problems faced are that the historical examiner can say whether something is or isn't consistent with a period, but unless the analyst is being asked to match something to a control sample (if we had samples of James Maybrick's handwriting of known provenance), a very practiced hoaxer can fool the analyst, because there is enough variation among samples that are consistent within a period.

The forensic examiner can look for evidence of disguised writing, and inconsistencies within a text, but without outside evidence that a particular person created the fraudulent text, to provide control text for matching, again, the forensic examiner can say only that something is or isn't consistent with forgery. So, if Mike Barrett did not actually write the diary himself, a forensic examiner can eliminate him as the hoaxer, but that doesn't prove anything vis a vis, the diary actually being a hoax, since someone other than Barrett or Maybrick could have written it.

So, while given the right circumstances, handwriting analysis might confirm fraud, or not, as things stand, all it can really do is say that the diary is or is not consistent with fraud, and that alone is not much.

But, I think that some of the proponents of the diary did actually ask graphologists look at it. The graphologists were asked to look at the handwriting for signs of addiction, and psychopathic behavior. Those are both too general to have specific handwriting traits, and are just as much bupkes as claiming that JTR will have a certain birthday, because he is likely to have been born under a certain astrological sign.

Now, IIRC, the handwriting analysis actually did come down on the side of "consistent with hoax," so even if I gave any credence whatsoever to graphology, the handwriting analysis would outweigh the "he writes like an addict" BS.

[caz]

Yes it's opinion, Sally, and many others hold the opinion that graphology is pseudoscience.

But it's not meant to be based on analysis of the script or factual evidence, but on the handwriting itself, and as such it shouldn't matter (and is arguably a better test) if the writing is in a language that the graphologist does not speak or write.

Love,

Caz
X