Maybrick's 'ship' letter

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

You sarcastic get, kaz....



The whole handwriting issue is a non-starter, who's handwriting stays exactly the same everytime they put pen to paper? Mine certainly doesn't so should a psychopaths? We don't know for certain what mental conditions the ripper had, there's a good chance he had a split personality, more than 2 personalities???

The question I keep coming back to is: Why did the Diarist not try to copy Sir Jim's handwriting??? I believe they teach that sort of thing in Forgery 101.

[ChainzCooper]

Has anybody tried to match this with the October 8th letter?
Jordan

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

I am still knocking about Down Whitechapel I mean to put to Death all the dirty old ores because I have caught the pox and cannot piss, [/I]

I might add that Livia Trivia and I are of the mind that Sir Jim caught the syph in Virginia, if not sooner. Hence the arsenic.

[Supe]

Robert,


Why did the Diarist not try to copy Sir Jim's handwriting???


That is one of the beautiful aspects of the whole charade. As I've said before (and this is not an admission of guilt ) having pretty much free rein at the local historical society I could, within an hour, assemble pre-1888 paper, pens, ink and a scrapbook, but I'm doubtful if in ten years I do a passable James Maybrick hand. Document examination is not an exact science and practioners always leave themselves a little wriggle room when judging something almost assuredly genuine or a ditto fake.

Still, why take the chance of being exposed, especially when it is quite difficult to write page after page in an exemplary forgery of someone else's hand? The more you would write, the greater likelihood of fatal errors creeping in. Instead, find an easy writing style (it can be a disguise of your own) and go with it. Indeed, if it seems a bit forced and disguised in places all the better -- it's simply Sir Jim disguising his own hand -- and let others worry why the writing does not resemble that of Maybrick. Surely, a desire to disguise his own hand (for whatever reason) will occur to and suffice for some and that is all any hoaxer can hope for: that some become true believers. And, as suggested, it saves the hoax being unraveled by a host of document examiners.

Don.

[caz]

Hi Don,

But isn't that the mother of all 'fatal errors', to write in a hand that will cause a hoax to be unravelled by as many reputable document examiners as can be thrown at it?

I can see your overall point, that it survives because some will always believe that Maybrick managed to fool the experts, using different styles for different occasions. But its survival is not down to the document examiners allowing themselves to be so fooled, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Tempus omnia revelat]

The question I keep coming back to is: Why did the Diarist not try to copy Sir Jim's handwriting??? I believe they teach that sort of thing in Forgery 101.

The writing of the diary is similar to James' hand, if you actually look close enough. It is also similar, if not exact, to several letters held at the PRO. Including the 'dirty old whores' one mentioned above.

The problem is that it is written under different set of circumstances to the other known handwriting of James. The company memos we have were written in a more official capacity, as such they are much neater than any casual document would be.

Also take into account that we know that James was capable of writing in different styles, as the inscription in the bible of Sarah Ann Robertson testifies.

Kaz is right to say that handwriting can change from one moment to the next depending on different factors, especially when you take into account mental illness. The highs and lows associated with some MIs can produce and endless array of possibilities.


Kind regards,


Tempus.