Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.
How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.
The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?
|
Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).