17th September to Diary handwriting comparisons

[Cogidubnus]

The samples of handwriting presented so far are interesting, but:-

The examples we saw from Sir Tempus were spot-on. They were self-evidently written by two people who wrote those words in exactly the same way. There was absolutely no approximation, and absolutely no reasonable likelihood of being false positives. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking they were all written by just one person.

To my eye there are generic similarities between the samples chosen...and that's all...Whilst I appreciate your desire to talk up your case, I don't believe you have sufficient grounds to be quite as specific as you have been above.

The chances of anyone finding an example of handwriting that matches it is incredibly remote.

The subsequent research you suggest is admirable but unlikely to happen as I assume we all have day jobs here?

Really? Well you're putting forward a very very firm proposition, and in my book at least, that places the onus on you to provide some evidence that you've at least looked at alternatives, prior to reaching those conclusions. If you are correct it could only strengthen your case...

All the best

Dave

[Soothsayer]

Hi Soothsayer!
Many thanks for your high praise. It is greatly appreciated, I assure you. I just hope I can continue the good work and not disappoint you in the future. I do have one or two irons in the fire, as I'm sure you know from my other threads.
Kind regards,
Tempus

Hi Sir Tempus of the Land of Revelat,

Rest assured Good Knight that you have already - in my book - done more than enough so that whatever follows, if it follows the same refreshingly-open tone of your work so far, can only enhance your reputation and entertain and intrigue us further.

In my opinion, irons are some of the best things to be found in fires, so I await with anticipation the glowing metal and the art you bring to its re-shaping.

You, me, Sir Spysie of Second Sight, and that daft lass Carol with her cruton carelessness are the vanguards of a new world order in Ripperology.

Amen to that, your graces!

S. Soothsayer
Engine of Insight

[Tempus omnia revelat]

A false positive in a handwriting context would be words - however short and however commonly used - which approximated those of the journal.

The examples we saw from Sir Tempus were spot-on. They were self-evidently written by two people who wrote those words in exactly the same way. There was absolutely no approximation, and absolutely no reasonable likelihood of being false positives. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking they were all written by just one person.

The subsequent research you suggest is admirable but unlikely to happen as I assume we all have day jobs here?

Let's be grateful for Sir T's superb work so far. Unlike almost everyone else, he has shed light and developed the evidence base, regardless of whether or not the journal is genuine, and for that he should be unreservedly applauded (which, granted, you weren't far off doing).

Hi Soothsayer!


Many thanks for your high praise. It is greatly appreciated, I assure you. I just hope I can continue the good work and not disappoint you in the future. I do have one or two irons in the fire, as I'm sure you know from my other threads.

To reply to Henry's point, I would first like to point out that the 17th of September letter is written in a very specific style of handwriting. The chances of anyone finding an example of handwriting that matches it is incredibly remote. This is why I am making my point so strongly. The handwriting of the diary is not supposed to look like anything; the 17th September is supposed to be a fake an unconnected to anything, and yet, curiously, I can find examples of handwriting in the diary that match this 'very specific' style.

It is the same with the 22nd of Nov postcard. The diary is not supposed to be genuine; it is not written in a victorian style; and yet, again, I can find clear matches to a postcard that IS a genuine letter of the time.

If I were to show you the 17th of September letter and then place it along side the 22nd Nov postcard you would have to tell me - according to some of the views I have read on here - that they were written by two different people, because the two handwritings are different in style. So how is it possible then that I can find both sets of handwriting in the same, supposedly, fake document?

Was the diary written by two different people? Is it just a coincidence that they appear to be similar? Or, is it possible (as I believe) that the writer of the diary shows psychotic tendencies and therefore, his writing style changes depending on what mood/ situation he is in at the time?

This I suspect is why people - including handwriting experts - have struggled with it for so long. They are simply not used to dealing with handwriting that changes from one letter to another. They are used to examining standard and formulaic styles of handwritng that are not so changeable.

Besides which, it is not only the diary that matches the handwriting of some of the ripper letters. James' own writing (what little we have of it) matches several of the letters that are held in the PRO. I am tempted to start a thread which shows you why James Maybrick could've written the 'Dear Boss' letter, but I fear the only copies I have of James' writing are of too poor a quality to show up with sufficient clarity. I could give it a go, I suppose.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[Soothsayer]

Hi Tempus,

Your search for similarities between the handwriting of the diary and various Ripper letters is admirable, and your presentation is intriguing to say the least.

However, I'd be even more impressed if, as has been noted by others, you were not relying on some of the shortest and most common words in the language as the basis of your comparisons.

Also, and I wish I had the time myself, I'd be interested to see if a trawl of other Victorian letters or postcards definitively not connected with with either Maybrick or the Ripper could be found to yield similar results. I'm certain that handwriting of the Victorian era was far more 'standardised' than that of our own, and thus false positives might certainly be expected without some sort of 'control group' of unrelated documents.

Cheers. Michael

A false positive in a handwriting context would be words - however short and however commonly used - which approximated those of the journal.

The examples we saw from Sir Tempus were spot-on. They were self-evidently written by two people who wrote those words in exactly the same way. There was absolutely no approximation, and absolutely no reasonable likelihood of being false positives. Indeed, one might be forgiven for thinking they were all written by just one person.

The subsequent research you suggest is admirable but unlikely to happen as I assume we all have day jobs here?

Let's be grateful for Sir T's superb work so far. Unlike almost everyone else, he has shed light and developed the evidence base, regardless of whether or not the journal is genuine, and for that he should be unreservedly applauded (which, granted, you weren't far off doing).

[Henry Flower]

Hi Tempus,

Your search for similarities between the handwriting of the diary and various Ripper letters is admirable, and your presentation is intriguing to say the least.

However, I'd be even more impressed if, as has been noted by others, you were not relying on some of the shortest and most common words in the language as the basis of your comparisons.

Also, and I wish I had the time myself, I'd be interested to see if a trawl of other Victorian letters or postcards definitively not connected with with either Maybrick or the Ripper could be found to yield similar results. I'm certain that handwriting of the Victorian era was far more 'standardised' than that of our own, and thus false positives might certainly be expected without some sort of 'control group' of unrelated documents.

Cheers. Michael

[lynn cates]

hand

Hello Time.

"Are you referring to the look of the writing?"

No. If one wishes to approximate LVP writing, one need merely cross the t's forward of the stem. That's half the battle.

But Caroline may be right. It may well be a very old hoax--long before 1987. Perhaps the 1940's or 1950's, but I'm stretching a bit here.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

vogue

Hello Caroline. Thanks. Glad you recognised my hyperbole. Next time, satire.

Vogue was carefully chosen. There are very few words in English today that have not occurred before. However, there are times when a word is fashionable; another, not.

The oft repeated derogatory for female was over done. The word would be very much in use today.

Proven anachronism? No, never claimed that.

Pre-1970? Very possible. Pre-1900? ah, no.

Cheers.
LC

[Soothsayer]

Hi Lynn!

Could you define 'style' for me. Are you referring to the look of the writing? If that is the case then I have already proved that the writing of the diary is pretty much exact to the style of writing that was present on a postcard sent on the 22nd of Nov 1888. There are also numerous "the's", "and's", "am's", and many more words besides, that match several other letters that were written at the time.


Kind regards,

Tempus

God bless you, young Sir Tempus ... you bring a tear to my eye ...

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hello SS. You make some observations about argument. Since that is my field, perhaps you can define argument for me?

As for judgment, I know the era of a particular prose style. Some of the words used in the "Diary" were not in vogue ca 1889. And the style is off by several decades.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn!

Could you define 'style' for me. Are you referring to the look of the writing? If that is the case then I have already proved that the writing of the diary is pretty much exact to the style of writing that was present on a postcard sent on the 22nd of Nov 1888. There are also numerous "the's", "and's", "am's", and many more words besides, that match several other letters that were written at the time.


Kind regards,

Tempus

[caz]

As for judgment, I know the era of a particular prose style. Some of the words used in the "Diary" were not in vogue ca 1889. And the style is off by several decades.

Hi again Lynn,

I notice you were careful to say 'were not in vogue' rather than 'did not exist yet'. No other language or literature specialist has successfully argued for a single word or phrase in those 63 pages that could not have been used by anyone writing at that time. Can you provide an example of one that hasn't already been beaten to within an inch of its life? A single proven anachronism would have dealt the death blow years ago, surely?

The style being 'off' in your opinion by several decades would still fit with our pre-1970 date, as stamped on it by the scientists commissioned to expose it as post-1987.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Again, to my poor convoluted mind, it's like a letter purporting to be to Dr. Johnson which reads:

"Hey Samuel, I read you're dictionery. OMG, u are totally awesome! And u no as much as that Webster dude, LOL.

Gotta run."

You jest, Sir.

An awful lot of English scholars have missed such giveaway clues in the diary in that case.

Incidentally, have you noticed in the diary the total lack of anything such as 'you're' (as in 'you are')? Not an 'I'm' or an 'I can't' or an 'I won't' in sight. Such words are (I think without exception) written out in full: 'I am', 'I cannot' or 'I will not'. Do you know roughly when that change occurred and everyone started using the shortened versions in their everyday writing, with apostrophes all over the shop?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Arguments are us.

Hello SS. You make some observations about argument. Since that is my field, perhaps you can define argument for me?

As for judgment, I know the era of a particular prose style. Some of the words used in the "Diary" were not in vogue ca 1889. And the style is off by several decades.

Cheers.
LC

[Tempus omnia revelat]

Hi Tempus. Yes, by Sept. 17th, Lusk had been placed in charge of this vigilance committee...a committee that at that time was only writing letters to get rewards. A total non-entity. Lusk himself was hardly in the papers at all by that date, Joseph Aarons getting most of the press...which was very, very little. In short, this committee is only significant to us today because of the package they received in October. Clearly, the modern author of the 17th Sept letter didn't know all of this when he wrote the letter. The talk of Lusk as some sort of threat to the Ripper is absolute proof that the letter could not have been written in September, 1888.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,


I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. You seem to be suggesting that somehow the writer of the 17th september letter would have had to have gained his knowledge of Lusk through the press and, as he didn't appear as regularly as a certain Joseph Aarons, he wouldn't have concieved Lusk as being a threat. This is simply not true.

During the period the letter was sent the the WVC were incredibly active, not just in the press, but also through ground work as well.This included producing a bill on the 11th that was displayed in many windows throughout the area. This bill contained details of the committee’s meeting times and also had the words ‘we the undersigned’ included in it, suggesting that the signatures (and maybe the names) of the individual members were displayed for all to see. Anyone within the local area of the time would have been hard-pressed not to have known who Lusk was and what his activities were.

All the writer of the 17th September letter would have to have done, in order to have known of Lusk and his plans, is to have been in the area of the time. Something which, I think you'll agree, the killer would've have to have done in order to have committed the crimes in the first place.

Besides, the 17th September letter is not about Lusk, it simply says 'Lusk can look forever, hell/he'll never find me.' This is hardly a threat, it simply means that the writer is aware of Lusk's activities and is mocking him.

There is also the other interesting angle: the fact that George Lusk was a mason and also had connections – through his building activities – with the music halls. Now, whom else do we know that was a mason and also had more than a passing interest in music? Oh, that’s right...Michael Maybrick, AKA Stephen Adams. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Michael knew Lusk and that he may have relayed information back to James in general conversation. I am not stating this as fact, but it is a possibility.

Your point about the lusk package is also flawed logic. Again you are saying that the WVC is only off importance to us today because of the package that was sent in October. Firstly, I am not interested in 'us today' as I'm intertested in finding the killer of the time. The fact that we are only interested in Lusk today because of the kidney that was sent to him is irrelevant.

The point is that the WVC existed before the parcel was sent and, therefore, they must have been known about Lusk and the WVC, if only in the area in which they functioned; othewise why did someone decide to send Lusk a kidney in the first place. He must have known about him in order to send the thing.

But let’s be frank here, Tom, when we get down to the nitty gritty of it, I and everybody else with a brain knows why the majority of people hold this up as a fake. It is not because it, supposedly, mentions George Lusk at the wrong time, or because it looks as if it was written with a ballpoint pen, but it is because it bears the name Jack the Ripper; that is the major reason behind these fraudulent claims. If this letter was signed ‘Mad Mike the Axeman’ I can guarantee you that most of the people who claim it is a fake today would be perfectly happy with its authenticity. In fact, I dare say that they would be hailing it as a great new discovery.

I am perfectly willing to accept that this letter is a fake, but only when substantial evidence is offered up to prove it. Simply saying something is a fake because you do not believe that the name Jack the Ripper appeared before the ‘Dear Boss’ letter is not evidence.

One more thing: it is also an interesting coincidence that this letter contains the underlined phrase ‘I am a yid ‘; ‘I am a yid’, of course, containing the three letters ‘M’, ‘A’, and ‘Y’ - spelling ‘MAY’ - right in the middle of it. I merely point it out.

[Soothsayer]

Somehow, the prose style doesn't feel right.

Cheers.
LC

Straight out of the Science of Argument from Personal Incredulity by Mr Lynn Cates et alia (ad infinitum), 1993, reprinted 1994-2012 inclusive.

Somehow your argument seems flawed to me. Does that weaken it in the moment I note it?

Twenty years and counting, and still we await anything more concrete than the misinformation of those who would form judgements on so little, and so readily, and so utterly ill-informedly ...

[lynn cates]

prosaic

Hello Caroline. Thanks. Stylometry is supposedly accurate enough to detect individual writing styles. (Of course, I always approach such "innovations" cautiously, being a neo-Luddite.)

The language, to my mind, falls roughly into a 1950's-1980's mould.

Again, to my poor convoluted mind, it's like a letter purporting to be to Dr. Johnson which reads:

"Hey Samuel, I read you're dictionery. OMG, u are totally awesome! And u no as much as that Webster dude, LOL.

Gotta run."

Somehow, the prose style doesn't feel right.

Cheers.
LC