Doggie's handwriting says ...

Expert says diary entries show him to be a fearless loner who needed constant assurance

Tyrone Reid, Sunday Gleaner Reporter

A UNITED States-based handwriting expert has determined that the entries in a diary the police say was taken from the corpse of Cedric 'Doggie' Murray after he was killed were all written by the same hand.

"It is my absolute opinion that all pages were authored by one person. The pattern formation - connection of letters, height and spacing, and number formation - is consistent with one writer," said graphologist Beverley East, president of Strokes & Slants in Washington, DC.

On the assumption that the lone hand belonged to Doggie, East used the handwriting to create a profile of the slain gangster.

Getting ahead was top priority for him. He was fearless. Complete focus was set on his objectives, and he had a way of drawing others along with him. He saw obstacles as molehills rather than mountains. His persistent and strong, deter-mined nature kept him going despite roadblocks.

He was very much a loner and trusted very few persons. He was more comfortable in an uncrowded environment. Fear of the unfamiliar was a major inhibiting factor.

An early childhood trauma may have caused him to constantly second-guess himself. There is an imbalance (not schizo-phrenia) in the personality where he could be both gentle and kind, but also argumentative and confrontational.

He had a strong need for security, which drove him to work hard. He was a deter-mined individual who worked and acted independently of others. He was not a follower. As long as he felt comfortable with what he was doing, he was able to work alone or take directions.

When there was disharmony among his group, he would rather negotiate a settlement than fight it out. If that was not possible, he would do what he could to quickly resolve the situation and restore agreement.

He was a down-to-earth pragmatist, which kept him grounded. However, he was a very restless, unpredictable person with no set of rules for order. A reasonable amount of optimism allowed him to bounce back when things went wrong.

His public reputation was important to him and he did his best to protect it; however, he was a low-key, no-frills kind of person. You would miss him in a crowd.

He had a firm sense of purpose, and the capacity to apply effort towards achievement. He had an average level of self-confidence when it came to taking on new responsibilities.

He tended to be rather uncompromising when he recognised insincerity, and easily disappointed as he was a very loyal person.

He often made decisions based on logic over intuition He had the capacity to accept new ideas and concepts and was creative in problem solving. His lack of structure created problems in his level of organisation. Put to the task, it may take him longer to complete anything that he started because he was a perfectionist.

His methodical mind slowed down his thought process as everything had to be examined, explained, and understood; however, he could be counted upon to finish what he started.

He was not very expressive with his feelings in a personal setting, but would take care to treat those close to him kindly. He had a strong sense of humour and had the ability to laugh at others and himself.

He was not a generous person. He held on tightly to every dollar, and everything earned had to be accounted for. He was not particularly territorial about money and material possessions but not a pushover with a hard-luck story either. There had be a good reason for him to give away something.

On the surface, he took criticism well, but on the inside, every word was like a dagger to his chest. He showed good grace and kept smiling in the face of negative commentary.

On an intimate level, he needed constant assurance and approval. He needed to hear on a regular basis how much he was loved by his partner, and without these expressions he may have questioned if he was really worthy of such love ... . This side of him would only surface in an intimate setting.