Uncategorized
The handwriting analysis that convicted Alfred Dreyfus is for sale
The false conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a captain in the French military, for treason against France in 1894 is remembered by historians as a flashpoint of antisemitism in modern history. It spread a renewed hatred and suspicion of Jews throughout French society, birthed Emile Zola’s famous J’accuse and spurred early Zionists like Theodore Herzl, who referenced the Dreyfus affair as proof that Jews could never be safe in Europe.
The case turned on a document known as the bordereau, a handwritten memo offering French military secrets to the Germans. But the handwriting didn’t resemble Dreyfus’ script. So, key to the case was the testimony of a celebrated handwriting expert, Etienne Charavay, whose analysis confirmed a theory that the bordereau was an example of “autoforgery,” a convoluted theory that Dreyfus was purposefully disguising his handwriting, yet it could still be identified as his — in short, that the lack of resemblance between the handwriting somehow was further proof of Dreyfus’ guilt.
However far-fetched, the theory that Charavay’s report advanced convicted Dreyfus in the public eye as well as in court. Now, those papers — tracings of Dreyfus’ writing alongside the script from the bordereau, an analysis of letter shapes and the expert report — are for sale by the Manhattan Rare Book Company at the Antiquarian Book Fair this week for the low price of $175,000. They are all the more interesting for the fact that Charavay emotionally recanted his testimony against Dreyfus several years after the trial, in 1899.
When I went to see the documents for myself at the fair, I found myself applying my own — admittedly amateur — handwriting analysis to the letters. In the first few pages of the dossier, composed of intact only slightly yellowed paper, Charavay outlines the differences between Dreyfus’ hand and the bordereau document, not similarities. There, his writing seems assured; it is unfailingly neat without corrections or ink marks.
But as Charavay turns to the similarities between the letters, arguing that there are, in fact, particular letters that bear a resemblance to those in the bordereau, he begins to repeatedly cross out lines and make cramped corrections. There are lines of analysis that look almost mathematical, comparing individual letters in quasi-equations. The conclusion of the report has almost as many lines crossed out as there are cleanly written.
When I spoke with Michael DiRuggiero, the owner of Manhattan Rare Books, and his colleague Jeremy O’Connor, both marveled repeatedly at the upside-down logic, which violates a cardinal sin of identifying writing. “As professionals who deal with manuscripts, you can’t argue from differences back to validating manuscripts,” O’Connor said. “He’s working his way back from a conclusion that the handwriting is not Dreyfus’.”
It’s hard to know for sure why exactly the French government was so set on convicting Dreyfus, or what pressures were operating on Charavay when he wrote his much-edited report.
“I don’t know if he believed it or if he’s trying to make an argument that he doesn’t believe,” DiRuggiero said. “I don’t know if that can ever be known, what’s in his head, but the French government wanted a scapegoat.”
Handwritten drama
Dreyfus’ handwriting and that in the bordereau were so obviously different that, before Charavay entered the case, there were many attempts to get Dreyfus to produce the same script. Another officer in the army, Major Mercier du Paty de Clam, tasked with the case, attempted to trick Dreyfus into writing out many of the same sentences as in the bordereau in hopes of reproducing the letters, without luck.
Initially, an expert in signatures at a bank was consulted on the handwriting in the bordereau; he said it appeared “spontaneous,” which is to say written fluidly and freely, an idea that would seem to contradict the later autoforgery theory. (Charavay initially concurred with the analysis of a spontaneous hand.) He pointed out many differences and concluded Dreyfus did not write the traitorous note.
But then a French police officer, Alphonse Bertillon — a forensic expert but not in handwriting — originated the “self forgery” theory, putting forth a report concluding that the writing was Dreyfus’. His testimony was not enough, but it influenced the three people consulted next, including Charavay.
Charavay had risen to a sort of celebrity in France a few years before the Dreyfus trial, when he proved that thousands of letters a collector had bought — including supposed writings from Julius Caesar and Mary Magdalene — were all forgeries. He used a newly scientific form of analysis, comparing individual letter shapes and fluidity with unprecedented precision.
At the time, DiRuggiero told me, science was increasingly being brought to bear in prosecutions. Forensics, including fingerprinting, was a new and buzzy frontier. Charavay’s advances in analysis brought him fame and credibility, as did his titles: the highest form of academic paleographic credential and an appointment as the premier forensic document specialist in the country.
“Without Charavay’s credential, the auto forgery theory is just a nutty theory,” said DiRuggiero. With it, however, papers ran with the story, including a piece in the antisemitic paper La Libre Parole, which had long campaigned against Jews in the French army due to their supposedly treasonous nature. With this, the case became a national controversy.
“If you’re told that’s probably Dreyfus’s hand and you pick up a newspaper and that’s what you’re told,” said DiRuggiero, “the public will just believe that.”
As time after the conviction continued, the public — which had divided into Dreyfusard and anti-Dreyfusard camps — continued to debate the case, with prominent intellectuals including Zola and the novelist Anatole France defending Dreyfus’ innocence. Knowledge of the thin evidence began to disseminate, with Zola specifically castigating several of the handwriting experts by name.
Zola noted their reports were “deceitful and fraudulent, unless a medical examination finds them to be suffering from a condition that impairs their eyesight and judgement.” Charavay, however, was not named, a fact O’Connor hypothesized may have been because he was friends with France and may have expressed his doubts in private, doubts France may have relayed to Zola.
In any case, Charavay emotionally recanted his testimony at Dreyfus’ retrial in 1899, just a year after J’accuse…! Dreyfus himself noted the speech in his memoirs. But it wasn’t enough. Though the real perpetrator, Ferdinand Esterhazy, had fled to England and confessed to journalist Rachel Sassoon Beer, Dreyfus was reconvicted. Eventually, he pled guilty in exchange for a pardon; it took several more years for him to be legally exonerated and reinstated in the army.
We will never be sure why Charavay testified against Dreyfus in the first place. Zola wrote in J’accuse…! that one of the handwriting experts “faced military pressure because he dared to come to a conclusion other than the desired one.” Perhaps Charavay bowed to the same. Based on the overwriting, he struggled to make the pivotal argument to himself.
What we know for sure, however, is that the papers are legitimate — DiRuggiero and O’Connor would never make the same mistakes Charavay did. When I asked them how they validated the dossier, they laughed. “There’s no question that it’s his handwriting,” DiRuggiero said.
The post The handwriting analysis that convicted Alfred Dreyfus is for sale appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani touts ‘Babies not Bombs’ messaging after flexing political muscle in the New York primaries
(New York Jewish Week) — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the victories of the progressive candidates he endorsed in New York’s Democratic primaries describing their success as a “shift in the balance of power.”
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, the morning after the primaries, Mamdani touted the triumphs as a shift in the balance of power between “working people” and “special interests.”
Mamdani-endorsed candidates Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won Democratic nominations for Congress. During the press conference, the mayor repeatedly highlighted their calls to restrict U.S. military aid to Israel and redirect federal funding to domestic priorities.
Following Mamdani’s election night sweep in New York, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “America the Beautiful will NEVER be a Communist Country!!!”
The victories offered an early demonstration of Mamdani’s political influence beyond City Hall, as several Democratic Socialist candidates he backed, including Chevalier, defeated established Democratic incumbents in their districts.
“The working person is struggling in our city to afford basic needs,” Mamdani said, adding that Avila Chevalier’s oft-repeated slogan of investing in “Babies not Bombs,” is “the kind of conscience, the kind of clarity, the kind of conviction that has been missing in our politics for far too long.”
Mamdani responded to the president’s post on Wednesday, telling a reporter who asked whether his goal is to make America a “socialist” country that his “goal is to make America a place that every American can afford.”
When asked about federal policies that could be affected by Mamdani’s endorsed candidates, the mayor cited Valdez’s support for “foreign policy that understands human rights for all” and Lander’s commitment to co-sponsoring the Block the Bombs Act, which prohibits the sale of certain U.S.-made offensive weapons to Israel.
Mamdani also dismissed a question about whether he was concerned about how the victories would play out in November as Democrats try to win back the House.
“Every time the fight for working people takes a step forward, you will hear Republicans say that this is actually going to jeopardize the existence of that very fight,” he said.
When asked whether the election of Chevalier, who has faced scrutiny for past social media posts attacking Democrats and her appearance at an Oct. 8, 2023, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square, could “complicate campaigns for Democrats as a whole,” Mamdani replied “No.”
“[Chevalier] often speaks about a politics of life. She speaks about ‘Babies not bombs,’” Mamdani continued. “What could be a better example of what the people of the district want to see versus what the people of the district have been forced to experience, which is tens of billions of dollars being spent at a national level to bomb children overseas, while children in our own districts are struggling.”
The post Mamdani touts ‘Babies not Bombs’ messaging after flexing political muscle in the New York primaries appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jewish anti-Zionist David Orkin defeats incumbent in NY Assembly primary
(New York Jewish Week) — David Orkin, a Jewish anti-Zionist attorney and democratic socialist, defeated incumbent New York State Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. Orkin won State Assembly District 38, which includes parts of Queens.
Orkin, an immigrant workers’ rights attorney and union organizer, received 58.8% of the vote, while Rajkumar, who has represented the district since 2021 and is the first South Asian woman ever elected to office in the state, received 40.9%. The district covers a swath of Queens, including parts of Ridgewood, Glendale, Ozone Park, Woodhaven and Richmond Hill.
“Pro-Palestine candidates are sweeping in NYC tonight,” Jewish Voice for Peace Action wrote in a post on Instagram celebrating Orkin’s win Tuesday. “Palestine was on the ballot — and won. David will be a champion for Palestinian freedom in Albany.”
The post from JVP Action echoed a message Orkin had highlighted throughout his campaign.
“It’s so incredibly meaningful to me to be running this race as an anti-Zionist Jew, to be one of the few anti-Zionist Jewish voices that is in an elected seat in the state government,” Orkin said in an Instagram reel posted by Jewish Voice for Peace Action earlier this month.
He added that, if elected, he would be able to go in front of the state legislature and assert that “criticizing Israel for genocide, demanding an end to the occupation, demanding an end to funding war abroad is not antisemitic.”
Orkin’s victory came amid a strong night for democratic socialist candidates across New York City, including left-wing congressional candidates Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, who also defeated establishment-backed opponents in their primaries.
While Orkin was not endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose winning endorsements of Lander, Chevalier and Valdez signaled a pro-Palestinian lurch for the party in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Nonetheless, his victory elevated a self-described anti-Zionist to the ranks of New York’s elected officials at a time when debates over Israel have become increasingly prominent within Democratic politics.
While Israel-related issues were not listed on Orkin’s platform, which centered on affordability and immigration, he repeatedly expressed his support for a “free Palestine” and attacked Rajkumar’s record of support for the Jewish state during his campaign.
“In the past several years my opponent AM Rajkumar has walked in the Israel day parade but has said NOTHING against the war in Gaza, occupation of Palestine, or Islamophobic attacks faced by the people of New York,” Orkin wrote in a May post on X.
Rajkumar, who was a close political ally of former New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in her campaign platform vowed to combat antisemitism.
After establishing a Jewish Voice for Peace chapter in Tucson, Arizona, in 2014, Orkin remained involved in pro-Palestinian activism as a member of the anti-Zionist activist group.
“I’ve been involved in the Jewish Palestine Solidarity Movement for 12, 13 years,” Orkin told Democratic Left last month. “I’ve dedicated part [of my] life to making sure that Jewish people are creating religious spaces outside of Zionism, and to making more space for Palestinian organizing to have an impact.”
On the campaign trail, Orkin received a host of endorsements from prominent progressive groups and lawmakers, including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, JVP Action and NYC Democratic Socialists for America.
Rajkumar was endorsed by ActJew, the new nonprofit focused on combatting antisemitism, as well as the Queens Jewish Alliance and Assemblymembers Sam Berger, Kalman Yeger and Chuck Lavine.
Orkin received over $290,000 in campaign contributions for the election cycle, including over $156,000 from the office of the state comptroller, while Rajkumar received over $270,000, including $9,000 from health care executive Daniel Lowy.
“I have dedicated my life fighting for immigrants and workers, I am proud to have earned their support in this election, and I look forward to spending the rest of my life winning the beautiful and joyous lives we deserve,” Orkin said in a statement, according to QNS.
The post Jewish anti-Zionist David Orkin defeats incumbent in NY Assembly primary appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Half of Americans think the U.S. is ‘too supportive’ of Israel
(JTA) — A new survey found that 48% of American voters think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel, the highest since the pollster started asking the question in 2017.
The survey published Wednesday by Quinnipiac University also found that 60% of respondents reported that military intervention in Iran was “not worth it” as opposed to 34% of voters who said it was “worth it.”
The number of respondents who think the U.S. support of Israel is about right is 38%, while just 7% think the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel, the poll found.
Broken down by party, 66% of Democrats think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel, while 9% think it is not supportive enough and 18% think U.S. support for Israel is about right.
Among Republicans, 20% think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel, 69% think American support for Israel is “about right,” and 6% think the U.S. is not supportive enough.
Among independent voters, 55% think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel, 34% think U.S. support for Israel is about right, and 7% think the U.S. is not supportive enough.
The poll data were released one day after three Democrats critical of Israel swept their House primary races in New York City, and in races around the country even some reliably pro-Israel Democratic candidates distanced themselves from the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC.
A survey last year by Gallup found dwindling support for Israel among Democrats, as well as waning support among Republicans.
Still the party divide was also in sharp evidence in the latest poll. In responses to the question about whether the Iran war was “worth it”, Democrats disfavored military action in Iran at 93% and independents at 66%, while 75% of Republicans surveyed thought it was “worth it.”
Given a list of 10 issues and asked which, if any, they considered priorities in their decision-making process in the election for the U.S. House of Representatives, 41% of voters cited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, above AI data centers (38%) and Donald Trump (38%). The high cost of living (70%) and health care (59%) topped the list.
The Quinnipiac poll was conducted from June 18 to 22, and includes responses from 1,165 self-identified registered voters.
The margin of error is 3.4 percentage points.
Among those surveyed, 48% said they had an unfavorable view of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Twenty percent said they had a favorable opinion, and 30% “haven’t heard enough” about him.
“Netanyahu gets poor marks from American voters as their appetite for supporting Israel wanes, with the share of voters who think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel hitting a new high,” Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy wrote in the report.
Voters were also asked about their views on the June 17 memorandum of understanding with Iran, which begins a 60-day negotiation period that does not outline an end to Iran’s nuclear program.
“After months of diplomatic fits and starts, global economic repercussions and a broad loss of life in the region, a majority of voters make their feelings clear: the Iran war was a bad idea,” Malloy wrote.
Voters who are either not confident or “not so confident” that the deal will succeed numbered 59%, and 61% think it is either likely or very likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.
The post Half of Americans think the U.S. is ‘too supportive’ of Israel appeared first on The Forward.
