Cutting snips and comparing samples is quite easy to do if you download copies to work with,,I use Fastone free software here. If you consider the circumstances when sending the jack-tape to the Police in 1979,, that the sender may have deliberately attempted to disguise the printing is not in any way unreasonable, though it is curious in view of the fact that Police already have about seven hundred written words available. The thing that is different here is that the envelope contained a tape with a voice,,and once again it is curious why the printing was disguised by someone who appeared to be sending his own voice? Detective Hobson said he did not think the handwriting was disguised but in the same breath he refers to a person they have not yet been able to get to,,? Another person I think,,most likely a spouse, they made very many appeals to a spouse during the enquiry. The way this envelope appears to me is that address was deliberately disguised,,the sender reduces the handwriting to an absolute minimum while presenting an easily identifiable wearside voice to the Police.. The question to ask is why ??? minimise/hide/disguise the handwriting while they maximise/present/put forward a voice. What does a tape recording do that a letter does not,?? Why take what seems such an unnecessary risk ??? The so-called-hoax tape recording was played over and over on national TV back in 79-80. The coverage given to the Jack-tape was overwhelming,,, especially in the NE and Yorkshire, anyone who had a tv will have heard it many times.. Voices are easily recognised, and yet this quite distinct voice was not recognised.. Everyone had a theory why, but none were right,, only one answer remains... No good asking a graphologist about this stuff though, it is far too contentious,, you have to make your own examination to see and think for yourselves.