Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ian Lloyd

Spot the difference...

11 posts in this topic

Just for fun...

The top 2 are M. "Nick" McDonald's, bottom 2 are Oswald's:

 

Oswald McDonald Sig.JPG

Edited by Ian Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capital "O" is connected in the first but not the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Spot the difference" bit was tongue-in-cheek...I was just struck by the overall similarity between the signatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wide w's and wide l's by Oswald. Skinny ones by the other. Interesting.

It made me look at my signature compared to others in my family. I get a kick out of that stuff

Edited by Jeffrey Reilley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 2 are squeezed together and bottom are a little more spread out, as Jeffrey said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a handwriting expert say these are the same?  I would say yes even though there are differences.  

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2017 at 5:03 AM, Ian Lloyd said:

Just for fun...

The top 2 are M. "Nick" McDonald's, bottom 2 are Oswald's:

 

Oswald McDonald Sig.JPG

Thanks Ian...

Just shows how easy it is to replicate handwriting...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly does David.

The other thing about this is that the majority (if not all?) of the handwriting analysis carried out for the WCR was carried out on copies, not originals. I believe that is a major flaw in the analysis in that, as I understand it, in order to carry out a meaningful analysis, the original handwriting must be available so that the person carrying out the analysis can include factors such as pressure and finer details to determine if the handwriting is 'natural' (i.e. genuine) or 'unnatural' (i.e. faked - someone trying to copy another's handwriting)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only the WCR analysis but especially the HSCA handwriting analysis.

The most important items were copies of copies:  The Money Order, The Klein's coupon, etc...  

The "experts" even warn us against such copies:

(86) Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents.  All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive, since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting.

Further, 
they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing.

(71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but
were copies . Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce
all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination
and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image
as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations,
a result of the contrasting process of reproduction . In addition, it is
possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies . A
method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make
one fradulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can
pass inspection, it will be used ; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate
all signs of alteration.
This amended copy is then recopied for the
finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste"
method.

(72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional
opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to
examine the original before a definite opinion will be made

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0