Ian Lloyd Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) Just for fun... The top 2 are M. "Nick" McDonald's, bottom 2 are Oswald's: Edited February 20, 2017 by Ian Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 The capital "O" is connected in the first but not the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 The "Spot the difference" bit was tongue-in-cheek...I was just struck by the overall similarity between the signatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Reilley Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 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 February 20, 2017 by Jeffrey Reilley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger DeLaria Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Top 2 are squeezed together and bottom are a little more spread out, as Jeffrey said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) Would a handwriting expert say these are the same? I would say yes even though there are differences. Edited February 20, 2017 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I would have to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Supposedly from the hand of the same person... Edited November 14, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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: Thanks Ian... Just shows how easy it is to replicate handwriting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 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)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 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 February 21, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now