From: Greg Sandow <GSANDOW@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:21:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:02:57 -0500
Subject: Re: The Linda Case -- again

John Powell wrote (about examining letters related to the "Linda" case):

> If it doesn't have a letterhead look for the watermark.  You can get a
> reference on watermarks at the library.  This is probably a real longshot
> but possibly the watermark (the printer) could be traced to a gov't agency
> (among others).

Good idea. I may not be able to follow through on that right now, but I
see what you mean.
>
> >> Look for information in the letters that _post-dates_ any other
> information.

Would you explain this a little more?

[part of john's answer snipped]

>Its possible that the
> letters may contain a 'slip,' a mistake that would not have been noticed at
> the time but may be noticed now that the information flow is old and mostly
> stopped.  Maybe something mentioned in the letters that became a lead for
> other information, maybe something mentioned that was 'out of sequence.'

> Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense. I haven't found anything like that, though.

>a handwriting analysis might show that different letters were
> from possibly the same author although with such a small sample that would
> only be highly circumstantial at best.

Right, examining the letters can't prove anything for sure. There's very
little handwriting involved, almost none. But the letters allegedly from
the several parties do show consistencies in spelling, formatting,
punctuation, grammar, diction, tone....that is, consistencies within
each writer's letters, and marked differences between them. And there's
quite a lot of material.

Greg Sandow