I was trying to find any work done on JW Booth signature....
   


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.

(12-07-2018 04:01 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  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.

Pssst - He was in cahoots

(12-07-2018 01:01 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 04:01 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  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.

Pssst - He was in cahoots

Michael, Jerry has written a book in which he explains his theory on this. I enjoyed Jerry's book very much. It is entitled A Threat to the Republic.

Many thanks for the plug Roger

I'm sorry but handwriting most of the time can't tell you anything about somebody's personality:

https://daily.jstor.org/graphology-isnt-real-science/

All anybody can probably tell from my cursive handwriting is that I was taught the "D'Nealian" method of writing cursive when I went to elementary school in the early 1990's.

Steve, I'd say an article intent (IMO) on attacking Pres Trump doesnt qualify as a learned treatise on graphology / graphical analysis.

But ... yep, there are lots of charlatans that write books about graphology and sell themselves as personality experts.

Some basic thoughts though ... if a person sends me a handwritten letter which is untidy and difficult to read, my reaction is that he/she doesnt much care about me. I'd think that person was self-centred and probably not open to discussion. If though the handwriting was extremely neat and all the letters perfectly formed, I might conclude the person was a perfectionist who was anxious not to be misunderstood. If a person sends me an email (or a post to this forum) which has words missing, I deduce they have written it quickly and may not have re-read it and, yes stretching the bow, that their thoughts might not be as soundly based as they claim. Ok, thats not exactly graphical analysis but the logic is similar.

D'Nealian? That's fine. But when I see teenagers unable to hold a pencil or biro correctly and who write characters that are illegible I cringe and hope that they are not going to work in a responsible job.

Graphology?

I try to keep an open mind. There are plenty of organisations which see potential in graphology.
( Google search on use of graphology in recruitment and you get 118,000 results )

The writer of this concludes its not much use (if any)
https://ukrecruiter.co.uk/2014/03/31/gra...ite-wrong/

But the Israelis are well into it ...
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-04-20/n...g-analysis

This article aims to support it :
https://www.effortlesshr.com/blog/grapho...on-method/

Long ago during my journalism days I was interviewing a candidate for the local city council. He wanted me to read my notes back to him so he could make sure I didn't misquote him. After kindly telling him to shove it, he walked over to my desk and looked at my notes that were open. "How in the he** can you read that?" he asked me. "I have poor handwriting, but I have a great memory," I replied.

All anyone could tell from my handwriting is that I have horrible handwriting.

Best
Rob

I have always wanted to have my handwriting analyzed. I'm bragging here, but I have very nice, clear handwriting and have received numerous compliments on it since elementary school. However, it sometimes depends on the mood that I'm in as to how my style is on any given day.

99% of the time, my words are in forehand (slightly slanted to the right), but when I'm agitated, they go to backhand or literally stand straight up. When I'm feeling great and "full of myself," I write in larger script -- when depressed, in smaller and tighter formation. I generally like to put flourishes in my signature with some curlicues on the "L" and the "V." All of these styles just come as I write at any particular time. I don't concentrate on how I write, I just sit down and write.

I just bet that a few of you on this forum are now thinking that their suspicions about me have been confirmed. I'm a psycho!

The article that Steve posted mentioned the study of phrenology. I can't remember the details, but somewhere there is mention of an informal phrenology analysis being made on Dr. Mudd during the trial. Can someone locate this source?

Addendum: One judge was an amateur phrenologist and condemned Mudd because he found a "bump of secrecy on his skull," Ms. Chapelle said. That judge later wrote that his decision was made in part because Samuel Mudd "had the appearance of a natural-born liar."

Ms. Chapelle is a great-great-granddaughter of Dr. Sam and brought this out during the 1990s fight to clear the doctor's name. The judge who said this in 1865 was Gen. Thomas Harris. The full quote is in Blood on the Moon, but the online site won't let me cut and paste.

At least one reference to the informal phrenology analysis is in the book written by General Thomas Mealey Harris, one of the members of the trial tribunal: A History of the Great Conspiracy. Trial of the Conspirators by a Military Commission and a Review of the Trial of John H. Surratt, Boston, American Citizen Company, 1892, p. 80. It was cited in The Lincoln Assassination: Crime and Punishment, Harold Holzer, Craig L. Symonds and Frank J. Williams, Fordham University Press, 2014, p. 182.
The quote from Harris is: "He might just as well have admitted his complicity in the conspiracy. Mudd's expression of countenance was that of a hypocrite. He had the bump of secretiveness largely developed; and it would have taken months of favorable acquaintanceship to have removed the unfavorable impression made by the first scanning of the man. He had the appearance of a natural born liar and deceiver."

Whoever did that analysis in the Washington Post on Booth's handwriting, apparently doesn't even know that the second word is "wish", not "with".

"Don't wish to disturb you Are you at home

Not sure if that last thing is a semicolon or a question mark.

I know a little about handwriting analysis and I think there is something to it, but you can't just take certain elements and make an analysis of that. You have to do an in depth analysis and consider everything.

I've read some analyses of Trump's handwriting (which is remarkable in multiple ways), but since the analyzers had not one good thing to say about him, it's safe to assume that their analyses were just their own political commentary.

(12-08-2018 01:05 AM)Leon Greene Wrote:  At least one reference to the informal phrenology analysis is in the book written by General Thomas Mealey Harris, one of the members of the trial tribunal: A History of the Great Conspiracy. Trial of the Conspirators by a Military Commission and a Review of the Trial of John H. Surratt, Boston, American Citizen Company, 1892, p. 80. It was cited in The Lincoln Assassination: Crime and Punishment, Harold Holzer, Craig L. Symonds and Frank J. Williams, Fordham University Press, 2014, p. 182.
The quote from Harris is: "He might just as well have admitted his complicity in the conspiracy. Mudd's expression of countenance was that of a hypocrite. He had the bump of secretiveness largely developed; and it would have taken months of favorable acquaintanceship to have removed the unfavorable impression made by the first scanning of the man. He had the appearance of a natural born liar and deceiver."

That's it; thank you so much for following up with the full answer.