Wow, OK. I started reading this thread about three weeks ago but life intervened. Coming back to it, I see I've missed all the fireworks, lol.
39 pages in, I'm not sure anyone cares anymore about the way the deceased signed the register, but I'm going to chuck my opinion in anyway, and say that imo it was not signed Fergate, but Fairgate, as also typed by the receptionist or whoever took the original booking. I'm not sure who originally read it as Fergate (it predates this thread as far as I can see), but I think they were wrong.
I'm very interested in handwriting and reckon I've got a good eye for it as I've done a lot of research with genealogical documents. If you read the second letter as an
e, it goes completely against the slant of the rest of the signature and is nothing like the
e at the end of the name. I'm positive that it's an
a, albeit a lazy unclosed one, followed by a lazy, half absent
i. If you read it that way, it matches the second
a. The
r doesn't look altogether natural to me, but since the
r of Fergate/Fairgate isn't in dispute I'm not sure that's of interest here. (Ignore the red arrows on the image - I've copied it from earlier in the thread when someone else was discussing the addresses.)
Whether this makes any difference to anything is another matter. 'Fairgate' itself is undoubtedly an alias too. I think that a great deal of the 'information' available about the deceased is probably unreliable tbh. I've read with increasing incredulity the discussion of the photographs over the last 10 pages or so. I don't want to get into the argument about the gun, as I know nothing about guns, but it's pretty clear that the crime scene photo that was released has been doctored when compared with the evidence photo of the retained gun. Likewise, it's clear to me that there have been irregularities at the crime scene. I'm thinking particularly of the missing leaflet holder, for instance, but that may well be the least of it. Once you accept that, I think you have to view almost all of the data that has been shared publicly with a slightly cynical eye, so I would start to question even basic biographical data, like her height, eye colour, etc. 'Black hair, possibly dyed' makes no sense at all, as hair continues to grow post mortem and it would be obvious in short order whether it was dyed or not. It's as if her data form has been filled in by someone who was making it up as they went along.
So if this woman is to be identified at all, I think it will be by DNA. It seems to me that LE or someone higher than them was motivated to obfuscate her identity at the time, but that may no longer be the case. Whether the truth of what happened to her would then still be considered sensitive remains to be seen. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not on Team Suicide.
I'm appending a link about paleography and also some about forensic handwriting analysis, not that it's directly relevant, in case anyone fancies some bedtime reading.
http://wallaceletters.info/sites/wallaceletters.info/files/NHM_Palaeography_Guide_2014.pdf
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2009/review/2009_10_review02.htm
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...H-9OVwEjxMh5kaMcxxVHHVClQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarr