So now we’re all handwriting experts?

After the second Roy Moore accuser appeared in front of cameras with the ubiquitous ambulance-chaser Gloria Allred, everybody suddenly became handwriting experts.

I don’t know how that happened.

But it has.

Several people are reporting that the yearbook inscription purportedly written by Roy Moore forty years ago is a fake.

This is all over the place on Twitter and in the blogosphere.

And I don’t mean to lift my leg on the assertions made by these newly-minted handwriting experts.

But my signature from when I was in my thirties looks nothing like my signature today.

In fact, I went through my files and found a receipt I had signed in July 2006. And I compared that to my signature today.

Take a look:

handwriting experts

Follow along with the numbered circles.

Circle 1. In the 2006 signature, the vertical line of the D is a straight line. But in the 2017 signature, I add a wee flourish.

Circle 2. Now, these are just super different. Though both signatures omit the “iann” that follows the D in Diann, the 2006 signature includes a loop back and a big-old flourish for the dotted “I” in Diann. Whereas the 2017 signature just kinda drops off.

Circle 3. The “R” is very, verrrry different. As you can see, in 2006, the connecting loop from the upper part to the lower portion of the R crosses over the vertical line. But look at the 2017 signature. They don’t cross the vertical line. And not only that, there’s a loopy thing!

Circle 4. Speaking of loopy things. Just look at those “L’s” in Russell. Both L’s in 2006 are a loop. But in 2017? No loop. In fact, the second “L” looks more like an inverted V.

Were these two signatures made by the same hand?

Is one a fake or a forgery?

No. They were both done by me.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that my signature is different today even compared to just eleven years ago.

And if we were to go back to when I was in my thirties, it’s even more different. Back then, I still used the cursive D for Diann. Plus I actually wrote out the “iann” that came after it. The same thing for “Russell.” Instead of just spelling the “R” and “L’s” I actually spelled out everything.

But as I grew older, I guess I got lazy.

Going from my own personal experience, I would expect a signature from 1977 to be different from a signature in 2017.

Now, I’m not saying that yearbook inscription is authentic. How would I know? I’m not a handwriting expert.

I think it would be more useful to find a document that Roy Moore signed in 1977 and compare this yearbook inscription to that.

To tell you the truth, I wonder about the authenticity of the yearbook inscription because Roy Moore’s 2017 signature is pretty similar to this alleged 40-year-old one. Sure, there are minor changes. But just minor changes.

Over forty years and only minor changes to his signature? I find that somewhat fishy.

But “fishy” isn’t the same as saying definitively that the yearbook inscription is a fraud.

Because, let’s be honest, if you saw those two signatures of mine, wouldn’t you wonder if one of them was a fake?

Hit the Tip Jar!

Your contributions help keep an ad-free site. Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

Check out

— my Conservative & Christian T-shirt Store.

Share, share, share

9 thoughts on “So now we’re all handwriting experts?

  • November 14, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    They may or may not be experts. However those so called self appointed experts sure outed Dan Rather.

    What I found troubling in that presser is his accuser needed notes and didn’t know his correct name so Allread had to correct her.

    • November 14, 2017 at 2:56 pm

      The same “experts” outed Rather? I didn’t know it was the same exact experts.

      Like I said, I’m not arguing that the yearbook inscription is authentic. I’m just pointing out that changes to someone’s signature over forty years is hardly a smoking gun. It isn’t even a water pistol… or a Pop-Tart bitten into the shape of a smoking gun.

      • November 14, 2017 at 6:01 pm

        I never said same experts…you did. The point is people no longer just accept things and dig into allegations. I don’t think that is a bad thing.

        As to signatures changing that is true but true experts can still tell you if it is the same person barring any physical change. For example my husband’s handwritten signature has change due to paralysis that he didn’t have 40 years ago.

  • November 14, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Thanks Dianny. I also completely dismissed the signature comparisons for the same reasons. However, I did not suspect the signature “evidence” for its similarity to the decades-old signature. Brilliant, as usual!

  • November 14, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I’m a little Leary of this approach to the truth. I can honestly say my handwriting has changed quite a bit since I got out of college years ago. My signature is almost nothing like it was.

  • November 14, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    “let’s be honest, if you saw those two signatures of mine, wouldn’t you wonder if one of them was a fake?”
    Well, Diann (if that’s your real name!), what evidence do we have that you haven’t been replaced by a robot from the future?? Skynet’s penmanship was never that great!

    • November 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

      If I were a robot, my signature would be alarmingly consistent.

  • November 14, 2017 at 8:17 pm

    Can we get a signature from the same time period that is authentic can compare them?

  • November 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    It’s more than just changes that could be explained away by age. The unretouched CNN photo shows that “Moore”, the 2nd date, and the venue are a different color ink. On top of that, the M in the signature (which is a different color) is different than the message left in the yearbook. It looks like someone named Roy or Ray whose cursive is different than Moore’s left the message and someone, in a different color ink, forged Moore’s last name and added the date and venue in block text (which doesn’t match Moore’s manuscript either).

Comments are closed.