Comments on: By Request: An Analysis of Spitzer’s Signature

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:20:31 +0000

He sufered an injury because of “massive” overload work to that limb.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:31:27 +0000

OK - so I started this nonsense with an offhanded remark about bad penmanship, but frankly, in a neutral experiment, handwriting analysis can be insightful. But if this expert knew it was Spitzer’s sig already, then I too will say that the result is shens. (Thanks for trying, Alan!)

But as someone else said - this looks like it was signed by a ChiA-pet!

By: mark

mark — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:27:07 +0000

To state the obvious, There’s no way I make “E-l-i-o-t-S-p-i-t-z-e-r” out of this scrawl. Which leads me to conclude either A) he has already started drinking heavily or B) he had someone named ChiA sign his resignation letter.

If the latter, then he hasn’t really resigned, and is quite possibly just waiting for Bruno and a small cabal of lobbyists and capitalists to start gloating about how they set him up so he can snap back and arrest them for conspiracy to disgrace a Hillary superdelegate (class 1 felony) and get back to doing the work of the people.

It could happen like that.

it could.

By: By Request: An Analysis of Spitzer’s Signature

By Request: An Analysis of Spitzer’s Signature — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:17:30 +0000

[…] Continue Reading […]

By: eac

eac — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06:54 +0000

steel- interesting point, because if the handwriting is at all legible (i know many signatures are not), he’ll be biased regardless.
If the signature is not legible, that what are you basing your analysis on? scribble analysis? ok.

Handwriting analysis has exactly this much scientific support: 0

By: eac

eac — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:54:27 +0000

Even calling handwriting analysis a ‘pseudo-science’ gives it way to much credit. I sure hope you didn’t have to pay Dennis Duez even a penny for that crap.

By: STEEL

STEEL — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:50:58 +0000

Did he do the analysis knowing that it was Spitzer (in which case his results are tainted by what he already knows)

Did he do the analysis not knowing who the person was.

By: private eye

private eye — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:38:50 +0000

Strikes me that Spitzer’s security team blew him in and the feds said it was the banking activity.

They probably hated to see a hypocryte;
hated being used as a tool against bruno;
and, thought it was a security risk him sleeping w freaks

What are the votes for this argument?

By: Eric P.

Eric P. — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:10:38 +0000

Dennis:
The captainobvious.com cite / site was what we, in the pseudo-scientific community, refer to as a “goof”.

By: Dennis`

Dennis` — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:52:17 +0000

As Manuel on Fawlty Towers would often retort to Basil ( John Cleese ):
Que ?
Went to captainobvious.com and got a pretty blank web page. What “findings” ???