Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records

Looks interesting. No expert in handwriting but they look the same to me. Especially the 2nd and the last 3 letters. Have you tryed to copy the darker shaded one?

Chard, can you sent me a copy of the white signature, I will try and do an overlay of both images.
Going by your images I would say yes! But would like to try the overlay on the letters highlighted by the other members.

Would you say this was written by the same person? I can't get the lighted one any clearer. To me some of the letters are of the same style, some with a very slight variation! The J, e, i, n, s



Enlarge this image



Enlarge this image


To what end...yawn!    's

Looks interesting. No expert in handwriting.......are any of you!  

LH, it won't come any clearer than that!

xhosa2000 wrote:

Looks interesting. No expert in handwriting.......are any of you!  

We know there are no experts on here involving hand writing, no one claims to be. But Im sure people can makeup theirs minds if the writing looks the same.

Chard what's the relevance of this. ?   

Hi Chard'79,
Comparing the formation of the letters in the two sample signatures I note that there are at least 16 dissimilarities between them, and would therefore conclude, on the balance of probabilities , that the signatures were not made by the same hand .

regards

barry

Me and me mate from next door, have been study the images for hours, with the use of a magnifying glass. And we agree that most of the letters could be from the same hand. The "K" is the only one that's dissimilar, mainly because of the incomplete loop at top!

Ray63. apology's   

xhosa2000 wrote:

Ray63. apology's   

Xhosa, can't you see any similarities between the two. Not sure you have to be an expert to see them.

Gets the Brainbox working!

Xhosa, can't you see any similarities between the two. Not sure you have to be an expert to see them.

Gets the Brainbox working! Old Historian2   

i usually rise about 7 or 8 which is now post 5 hours..i would never
describe my brain as 'working ' i feel some functionality from time to
time   

concur with Barry, although i'm no graphologist either, they look like
a different hand to me also..is it not interesting that i'm the only one
to ask...why?. Jenkins..         

Just seeing how many agree it's the same hand writing, not looking bad so far.

looks like the top is copying the bottom
or vice versa.

Is this another topic to do with Jenkins. Or is it something else.?

So what surprise does Chard1879 have in store for us. Found a hidden document in the attic?

It is the note on the preliminary sketch by Lady Butler.

I think we know, that but what's the point!

It's something I have been looking at for a while. My theory being, that both signatures are that of David Jenkins. One is from the Butler Sketch as mentioned the other from Jenkins RD Bible.

Someone mention way back in the Jenkins topic that it was possible that the bibles had been signed prior to the soldiers arriving at the dock. The leaf in side being left blank allowing the soldiers to put there own name inside. Because it was concluded that the Ladies of Natal did have a list to go by.

Jenkins being brought back to England on the same ship as some of the defenders, could have picked up one of these bibles and added his own name. For whatever reason.

It has always been mentioned that Jenkins posed for Butler in the defence of Rorke's Drift painting. My assumption is that Jenkins wrote his name above an image of soldier sketched by Butler. We know non-participants of Rorkes drift posed, as some of the defenders were abroad.

Just a thought, happy to know other members thoughts. No doubt there will be some stupid replys, and I have odds on who there going to be from.

I have merged this to the original Jenkins topic! For obvious reasons.

fair enough   

Another avenue to go down.

Chard
I don't believe that there should or ought to be stupid replies. That's a very clever piece of thinking.   
Doesn't really change my beliefs, Jenkins Autographing both wont really alter the balance of probabilities. The other thought possibly is that Jenkins took his bible along for Lady Butler to see and asked her to write his name in it.
Great thinking mate

Cheers

This is the lady that signed the Rorkes Drift Bibles.
Annie Margaret Wilkinson
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi Springy
Have you read her book yet ? , I've only skimmed through it but it seems there is very little dealing with the AZW , I didnt
notice anything to do with her and the Bibles , but as I said I've only skimmed through it .   
Cheers 90th.

Hi 90th
Busy reading at present. Theres actually some really interesting tit bits but you have to dig for them. The letters end in 1874, so yes predates the war, but wow was this a spunky lady. At one point crossing the country her guide gets tired so she moves of on her own, looses the guide and finishes her journey in the middle of a thunder storm.
Cheers

Good piece of detective work, the signatures do look similar. But I agree that, even if David Jenkins did sign both himself, it doesn't alter the balance of probabilities that he was a defender given the rest of the evidence set out in Julian's essay. One thing does intrigue me though - if you look closely at the photograph of the Bible it looks as though the label with Jenkin's name on it is stuck on top of another. If so, does the one below have any writing on it? May be a complete red herring but someone should shine a light through the page and take a look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Steve

The signatures are not the same. The k is substantially different as is the top loop on the J. The n and s also show differences.
I would suggest that any similarities result from the teaching of copperplate which was universal such that most of the more common letters in handwriting do look the same because unlike today it was rote learnt and rote copied. I also showed it to my graphologist colleague (the one I used for the fake Pulleine-Cavaye order) who said much the same.
Comparisons with other bibles signed by the same lady would no doubt show similarities in the hand (perhaps then someone will come up with the idea that she also signed the Butler sketch!!!).
Interestingly the Testimonial Bible never formed part of my 'proof' in the article I produced. This was largely because it was perfectly possible for someone to be given a bible in error, to steal one, etc., etc. It is an interesting piece of complementary evidence but is of itself not proof positive. MY arguments were based on the appearance of Jenkins's name in the various newly-found contemporary rolls, the eyewitness accounts of his being present, his inclusion and acceptance at official and documented occasions where other RD survivors were feted, the newspaper reports recounting the exploits of and naming of the escort party, and Jenkins's own newly-found 3rd letter which is corroborated by all the aforementioned.

Hi Julian
Those two have enough similarities that a graphologist has had to pick out marginal differences. Have a look at my signature after signing a 20 page document and compare 1 to 20. I would agree that the two signatures have no baring at all on the Jenkins standing at RD, BUT, its a very interesting point that Chard has brought up and I disagree that you should dismiss with a degree of sarcasm that frankly is unwarranted.
The two signatures ARE close enough to warrant a degree of speculation and onward investigation. I would dearly love to see the other Bibles in Bills care, one I believe is signed by Annie Wilkinson, the other possibly by Annie Foster. There is a marked dissimilarity in the actually dedications, would this be enough to suggest that Miss Foster did not fill in those details but left it to other hands? Possibly the recipient himself? If that is the case and speculatively we cannot rule it out then there is a 'two pipe problem' to solve.

Regards

Springy
I disagree. The differences are not marginal. Common letters (n, s, o, a, e) will always appear similar in hands. It is the uncommon ones that make a difference - j, k - the k is formed in a totally different way - and remember these were not written after your 20-page document. The letter i is a good example of both. The upright of the i is common enough to be identical in most hands but the dot on the i is not. Those of you, like me, with a lower-case i or j in your name will invariably write the dot in the same place (even when tired) and where it's placed will vary dramatically from person to person. This is basic graphology and the placement of it can be enough to distinguish two hands. Look at the dot in the two examples Chard1879 posted! Q.E.D.
By the by I suggest you all compare Chard1879's two examples with the adjutant's hand-written 'Jenkins' from the 1/24th Records and Cantwell's hand-written 'Jenkins' in the 'Chard' Roll - you may well decide that the adjutant wrote all four of them!
All that said, comparison of the two examples with the hands of the two ladies in question (and indeed of Jenkins himself) would settle the question - but it's an academic one as the Bible is not pivotal.

Hi Julian
Coincidentally Im sitting with a Professor from University of Stellenbosch ( My neighbour and a very old friend) who has had a look at the two signatures. He can appreciate what your saying but believes that there could very well be a case to answer. He wont be named ( unless I pay him a disgusting amount of money,) but has had a pretty long look at the two samples. ( Drank two large glasses of red during).

So Im happy to agree to disagree with you, no choice really unless something else pops up, like the original of one of the letters from David Jenkins.
Im contacting a couple of friends in Durban to see if we can locate any documentation from the Ladies of the RD trust. And again will have a look at Lady Butlers handwriting.

'Two pipes it is'

Regards

[quote="Chard1879"]Would you say this was written by the same person? I can't get the lighted one any clearer. To me some of the letters are of the same style, some with a very slight variation!  The J, e, i, n, s


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

quote]

Ah, this IS something I know about!
My great grandfather trained as a scribe. His profession in censuses is a "scribe." His job was to copy legal documents, such as contracts, wills etc etc.
He went to scribe school and learned how to write. And learned how to write in a very particular style.
In his class would have been 50+ students and they all learned how to form their letters and join them up in a particular way. I have some samples of his hand writing and one would think they had been done by a word processor. Further to that, every student in his class would have finished the course with IDENTICAL hand-writing; you would not be able to distinguish one from another. If all 50 students wrote/copied the same document, you would have 50 identical looking documents.
These 2 signatures have been written by an educated hand.
2 VERY DIFFERENT educated hands!
Was David Jenkind educated?

The educational Attainments of the Rank and File
of the Regular Army 1860-1899.

Year 1878.percentage unable to read or write, 4.7
percentage able to read only, 3.8 percentage able
to read and write, 42.7 percentage possessing a
superior education, 48.8

figures from Alan Ramsey Skelley..The Victorian Army
at Home. McGills-Queens university press 1st ed 1977.

educated hand..kopie    define please!
the lowliest Clark could produce exquisite
copperplate..its all a matter of training surely?.

Correct Xhosa!
An "educated" or trained hand would have produced that signature identically, 100x over, with no differences, just like your printer!
Those 2 signatures are too different to have been written by the same hand!

Think this probably puts it to bed. 295 David Jenkins attestation papers. See two signatures against "signature of recruit" (not the ones written in by the recruiting officer) - look nothing like the examples in the Bible or sketch.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Copyright National Archives

Steve

kopie      Steve    that nails in for me!

And here's his marriage certificate.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
copyright National Archives

Steve

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



I'm of the opinion there very simular. 

I don't think for a moment the marrage certificate is signed by Jenkins? 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Julian Whybra wrote:

Springy
I disagree.  The differences are not marginal.  Common letters (n, s, o, a, e) will always appear similar in hands.  It is the uncommon ones that make a difference - j, k - the k is formed in a totally different way - and remember these were not written after your 20-page document.  The letter i is a good example of both.  The upright of the i is common enough to be identical in most hands but the dot on the i is not.  Those of you, like me, with a lower-case i or j in your name will invariably write the dot in the same place (even when tired) and where it's placed will vary dramatically from person to person.  This is basic graphology and the placement of it can be enough to distinguish two hands.  Look at the dot in the two examples Chard1879 posted!  Q.E.D.
By the by I suggest you all compare Chard1879's two examples with the adjutant's hand-written 'Jenkins' from the 1/24th Records and Cantwell's hand-written 'Jenkins' in the 'Chard' Roll - you may well decide that the adjutant wrote all four of them!
All that said, comparison of the two examples with the hands of the two ladies in question (and indeed of Jenkins himself) would settle the question - but it's an academic one as the Bible is not pivotal.

As if you would agree Julian! Good side step with the Chard Roll and the adjutant!   

Chard

You have picked the wrong entry in the attestation papers,  Jenkins' signature is after the printed wording, where it says "signature of recruit".

Of course he signed his wedding certificate, as did his wife. And it is signed by witnesses - the ceremony would not otherwise be valid. Even those that could not write in those days  were required to make their mark - invariably an X.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Chard

You have picked the wrong entry in the attestation papers,  Jenkins' signature is after the printed wording, where it says "signature of recruit".

Of course he signed his wedding certificate, as did his wife. And it is signed by witnesses - the ceremony would not otherwise be valid. Even those that could not write in those days  were required to make their mark - invariably an X.

Steve

The one Chard posted is the same as the new recruit section. No difference.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Letter suggesting he was at Isandlwana. Why ? It's suggests he was with Chelmsford. The deaths of his friends could have been told to him when he arrived at RD in the morning.

Samuel Pitt. Bible leaf

Give name in full.  Samual Pitt   ( Jenkins bible states D. Jenkins) ?
Rank None ( Jenkins Pte ) ?
No company. Just 24th ( Jenkins 1st / 24th ) ?

rusteze wrote:

Looks different to me.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

And looks nothing like the one on the marrage certificate?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Letter suggesting he was at Isandlwana. Why ? It's suggests he was with Chelmsford. The deaths of his friends could have been told to him when he arrived at RD in the morning.

Samuel Pitt. Bible leaf

Give name in full.  Samual Pitt   ( Jenkins bible states D. Jenkins) ?
Rank None ( Jenkins Pte ) ?
No company. Just 24th ( Jenkins 1st / 24th ) ?[/quote]

It actually says 1st Batt 24th. And why's Jenkins army number at the top, Pitts is at the bottom.?

rusteze wrote:

Looks very much the same I'd say - look at the k.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Steve

The " K " dont look the same to me?

Now look at the name " David on the marrage certificate and service paper. Totally different ?

Has anyone got a copy of " Pitts " attestation paper?

Julian Whybra wrote:

The signatures are not the same.  The k is substantially different as is the top loop on the J.  The n and s also show differences.  
I would suggest that any similarities result from the teaching of copperplate which was universal such that most of the more common letters in handwriting do look the same because unlike today it was rote learnt and rote copied.  I also showed it to my graphologist colleague (the one I used for the fake Pulleine-Cavaye order) who said much the same.
Comparisons with other bibles signed by the same lady would no doubt show similarities in the hand (perhaps then someone will come up with the idea that she also signed the Butler sketch!!!).
Interestingly the Testimonial Bible never formed part of my 'proof' in the article I produced.  This was largely because it was perfectly possible for someone to be given a bible in error, to steal one, etc., etc.  It is an interesting piece of complementary evidence but is of itself not proof positive.  MY arguments were based on the appearance of Jenkins's name in the various newly-found contemporary rolls, the eyewitness accounts of his being present, his inclusion and acceptance at official and documented occasions where other RD survivors were feted, the newspaper reports recounting the exploits of and naming of the escort party, and Jenkins's own newly-found 3rd letter which is corroborated by all the aforementioned.

Julian why do you think, Jenkins sent that letter to his father giving the impression he was at Isandlwana?

springbok9 wrote:

Hi Julian
Coincidentally Im sitting with a Professor from University of Stellenbosch ( My neighbour and a very old friend) who has had a look at the two signatures. He can appreciate what your saying but believes that there could very well be a case to answer. He wont be named ( unless I pay him a disgusting amount of money,) but has had a pretty long look at the two samples. ( Drank two large glasses of red during).

So Im happy to agree to disagree with you, no choice really unless something else pops up, like the original of one of the letters from David Jenkins.
Im contacting a couple of friends in Durban to see if we can locate any documentation from the Ladies of the RD trust. And again will have a look at Lady Butlers handwriting.

'Two pipes it is'
Regards

Totally agree with the Professor!

John
I think we must agree to disagree. What is fact though is that these are genuine David Jenkins signatures - very different from those on the Bible and sketch.

Steve