12-07-2018, 05:01 AM
I was trying to find any work done on JW Booth signature....
[attachment=2982]
The only analysis I found was
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...1b71007eda
where Beverley East states ...
A calling card left at Vice President Andrew Johnson’s hotel, hours before the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Was he checking on the location of Johnson’s room for his co-conspirator George Atzerodt, who was supposed to kill the vice president that night but did not, or was he in cahoots with the V.P.? Historians still argue over its significance.
Analysis: East determined that because of the double stems, or star in the “T” bar on words such as “with” and his own signature, “once his mind was made up, don’t ask twice. He was stubborn.” He was also a “very hands-on person,” as shown by the flat top of the letter “r.” And, owing to the lower loops in the letters, she determined that “when given a task, he had the ability to stay the course until completion.”
Graphical Analysis
I'm no expert (where have I heard that before?) ... and graphical analysis takes years of study , the temptation is to find features which match the characteristics we want to 'see' , and its easy to make errors in analysing but (you knew that 'but' was coming?) ...
I see from one graphical analysis site ... features which might relate to Booth's signature ...
'Blackened signatures present congestions or bundle-ups of a different extension, which are usually related to anguish states of mind and lack of satisfaction or physical or psychological pathologies (such as ulcers, depression and stress)'
' Complicated signatures are the ones that are executed without fluidity, continuity, too elaborated, slow (takes longer to be executed). From the psychological point of view, it indicates that the individual is defensive and feels vulnerable before the environment. Lack of inner clarity, that tends to see reality from a subjective point of view rather than objective. ''
'Wrapping signature: It expresses the need of feeling protected from the environment due to fears, fear to interchange, shyness, distrust. Need for isolation, eagerness for freedom that has been impeded for dependency to the mother. Desire of being in a safe environment. Imposition of barriers against unexpected events. Foreign intromission is not admitted, keeps his own things in a childish way, imposes his childish desire. Suggests a narcissist and selfish attitude. Hides and lies, depending on other signs.'
Filiform signatures: Strokes are like a stretching thread. They are typical of people with diplomatic skills that find the exit to any situation. Tendency to escape.
'Signatures with an unnecessary dots: When there is an unnecessary dot, it is interpreted as a reflexive individual, with a verifying prudence, desire of executing in a perfectionist way, distrust on the future.'
http://www.handwriting-graphology.com/si...rsonality/
!!! Warning !!! I suggest that you do not try to become an instant expert. You may find yourself very unpopular if you 'analyse' a friend or spouse's writing and then deduce certain 'facts' which they do not especially like.
[attachment=2982]
The only analysis I found was
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain...1b71007eda
where Beverley East states ...
A calling card left at Vice President Andrew Johnson’s hotel, hours before the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Was he checking on the location of Johnson’s room for his co-conspirator George Atzerodt, who was supposed to kill the vice president that night but did not, or was he in cahoots with the V.P.? Historians still argue over its significance.
Analysis: East determined that because of the double stems, or star in the “T” bar on words such as “with” and his own signature, “once his mind was made up, don’t ask twice. He was stubborn.” He was also a “very hands-on person,” as shown by the flat top of the letter “r.” And, owing to the lower loops in the letters, she determined that “when given a task, he had the ability to stay the course until completion.”
Graphical Analysis
I'm no expert (where have I heard that before?) ... and graphical analysis takes years of study , the temptation is to find features which match the characteristics we want to 'see' , and its easy to make errors in analysing but (you knew that 'but' was coming?) ...
I see from one graphical analysis site ... features which might relate to Booth's signature ...
'Blackened signatures present congestions or bundle-ups of a different extension, which are usually related to anguish states of mind and lack of satisfaction or physical or psychological pathologies (such as ulcers, depression and stress)'
' Complicated signatures are the ones that are executed without fluidity, continuity, too elaborated, slow (takes longer to be executed). From the psychological point of view, it indicates that the individual is defensive and feels vulnerable before the environment. Lack of inner clarity, that tends to see reality from a subjective point of view rather than objective. ''
'Wrapping signature: It expresses the need of feeling protected from the environment due to fears, fear to interchange, shyness, distrust. Need for isolation, eagerness for freedom that has been impeded for dependency to the mother. Desire of being in a safe environment. Imposition of barriers against unexpected events. Foreign intromission is not admitted, keeps his own things in a childish way, imposes his childish desire. Suggests a narcissist and selfish attitude. Hides and lies, depending on other signs.'
Filiform signatures: Strokes are like a stretching thread. They are typical of people with diplomatic skills that find the exit to any situation. Tendency to escape.
'Signatures with an unnecessary dots: When there is an unnecessary dot, it is interpreted as a reflexive individual, with a verifying prudence, desire of executing in a perfectionist way, distrust on the future.'
http://www.handwriting-graphology.com/si...rsonality/
!!! Warning !!! I suggest that you do not try to become an instant expert. You may find yourself very unpopular if you 'analyse' a friend or spouse's writing and then deduce certain 'facts' which they do not especially like.