While inconclusive, it's important to note that the second writing was done on a piece of paper folded in half, meaning it was literally 0.5 the writing space of the first letter. The letters will be more consistent because the writer has the benefit of maintaining the same wrist position for most if not all of the entire note.

This also goes into the changes of the second paragraph of the first note. It was written on an entire sheet of paper, meaning the writer had to move their hand frequently. This is all inconclusive of course.

Last, you have to factor in that no one here knows what the fuck we're talking about. I'm so god damn tired of people acting like they came to a definitive answer on the internet using their extensive training in the school of nowhere using their degree in nothing with an internship at the business of nonexistent and certified in nothingness through the institute of fuckwits.

My comment had nothing to do with anything except the fact that I entirely doubted the credibility of someone who was using less expertise and technique than I could find by googling "handwriting analysis" and learning more in the first 5 links than the person had any idea about that made their "I have some experience" post in the first place. Am I doubting or confirming the handwriting analysis by the original poster? No, not at all to either one. I am confirming that they used a viable sample level, and even then I'm only comparing it the sample level to the other dumbass that was replying to. Let me ask you this: Do you think your analysis was any better, or came with more evidence?