nonhocapito wrote:Thanks, Hoi. Of course it was not my intention to argue that that letter was credible in any sense. But without anything to compare it to (i.e. a piece of "authentic" writing of this non-person) I would have thought it a bit difficult to make such an informed assessment. Yes the writing looks a bit unnatural, but I imagine that this imaginary boy would have himself copied the text from the one provided by the family lawyer, printing letter-by-letter the words he did not understand. The final result being probably the last of multiple drafts in very bad handwriting. Anyway it matters little, as all this garbage from NYT supports very badly the existence of this hypothetical afghan-half-terrorist-half-gay-armed-american.
I think that's doubtful given the misspelled words. To me, the whole thing impoverishes its own credibility from many angles of consideration.
In any case, the artificiality of the individual characters doesn't preclude the possibility of multiple drafts, as you suggest. However, multiple drafts of a newly invented hand writing style will only improve it a little and it will still remain (as it is) unpracticed. Not to give any perpetrators involved too many tips but rather than being paranoid about someone recognizing the handwriting style, they might just want to use a natural hand of someone extremely obscure rather than practice over and over and still get it wrong, if we can be convinced they even bothered to do that.
Since we don't have much of a story about the letter, however, and nobody cares, we once again must move on in disappointment that the holes (or character) of the story are unimportant to the general masses. I think the public may suffer a little trypophobia, preventing them from analyzing things too deeply.