Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Real Reason For The CBJ Letter And Why It Didn’t Serve Its Purpose (UPDATE)

 

I have updated the signature composite to include another sample of CBJ’s handwriting also from the public records available from the Alaska DNR Office of the Recorder. 

____________________________________________________________________

The purpose of the letter purportedly from CBJ on November 3, 2008 was not to report on the health of Sarah Palin. It is blatantly obvious that the letter’s aim was to prove that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin on April 18, 2008. However, it failed miserably and only raised more questions.

The letter begins with CBJ blowing her own horn; that is if the good doctor is really the author. Including her credentials and awards is unnecessary. Stating that she is Governor Sarah Palin’s personal physician is sufficient. Giving too much information is a mistake often made when telling a lie.

The letter immediately focuses on the pregnancies of Sarah Palin. Since pregnancy is not an illness isn’t it odd for that to be the primary focus?

This sentence, “At the time of her most recent pregnancy, Governor Palin had no health risk factors other than her age,” could refer to her pregnancy with Piper. Sarah was 36 when Piper was conceived. Pregnancy after age 35 is considered higher risk.

Then there is this statement. "She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care, including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital. This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health. He was able to go home at two days of age with his mother." Going Rogue, in addition to other sources, revealed that Trig had a hole in his heart. Going Rogue actually says holes, so maybe more than one. Since according to the letter the fetus was evaluated for congenital heart defects, then Sarah was aware of the baby’s condition. Wow! This pro-life saint of a mother who was so concerned about her baby’s well-being hopped on an airplane for the long journey back to Alaska without even being examined just to make sure the baby would be okay? Yes, because the baby was never in Texas.

The letter also reports that at the time of Trig’s last office visit he was growing and developing normally for a child with Trisomy 21. Good to know but what does Trig’s health have to do with the issue this letter is supposed to be addressing? Nothing. That information was included to reiterate that it was safe for Sarah to return to Alaska to deliver Trig since he didn’t suffer any adverse consequences and hopefully mitigate the absurdity of the wild ride.

Another questionable element is this statement.It is not routine to perform screening tests such as electrocardiograms or liver enzyme panels on young healthy women with no risk factors – and as such I have not performed those tests on Governor Palin.” Sarah Palin, age 44 years and eight months at the time the letter was written would be considered middle-aged. Cholesterol testing is recommended at age 20 or even earlier.

The only non-pregnancy related medical information CBJ gives about Sarah Palin:

  • Her blood pressure and pulse at the time of her last office visit with no mention of when that visit was.
  • She had a breast biopsy in 1992 for what turned out to be a benign lesion.
  • She takes no prescription medications regularly.
  • She has no known drug allergies.

The above is plainly just throwing in a few scraps of Sarah Palin’s medical history to try to legitimize the report.

There is certainly doubt that CBJ even wrote the letter. The inconsistencies were discussed in detail by Audrey. The Palin Deception website is no longer available but the blog is still up. Click here to read Audrey’s post about the letter. Click here for the analysis of the letter mentioned in The Purloined Letter.

Using the public records available from the Alaska DNR Office of the Recorder, I captured screenshots of CBJ’s signature from these records:

Quitclaim Deed 1992
Stat Warranty Deed 1998
Quitclaim Deed 1999

I then made the composite of signatures below with the topmost being the signature from the letter.

cbjsignatures

 

 

I’m sorry that the quality of this graphic isn’t better or if it distorts the page but it was the best I could do using windows paint program. I do believe it shows that the signature in the letter is questionable. I am not a handwriting expert by any means so feel free to express your thoughts as to whether or not the signature on the letter is legitimate. I look forward to everyone’s input.

As always, feel free to make any comments or suggestions about this post or anything related to babygate/ Sarah Palin. Email me with any information you think may be useful. Time is flying by and 2012 will be here before we know it. We have to step up our efforts to insure that Sarah Palin will never be elected POTUS. I may be posting less often as I am spending much of my time researching but I am not going anywhere.

bladecatz@mail.com

Blade

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not a handwriting analyst either, but at the very least, the ending on the signatures is very different. Someone doesn't go from ending with some semblance of a straight line leading to the right or across to one that loops back on itself. Teenagers play around with their handwriting, but adults do not. Especially when it comes to writing their own signature.

Anonymous said...

In the first signature, it looks like she is adding the letters M D to the end of her name.

Anonymous said...

Look at the B, in the three known signatures the B is separate from the a. In the letter perporting to be from the dr. the B is attached to the a. I find that very very suggestive of a possible forgery.

Agnes said...

It might be significant that the top signature is "C Baldwin Johnson" while the lower ones all say "Cathy Baldwin Johnson". A physician who signs her name many times a day probably has a standard way of doing it.

On the other hand, there is some variation in the three lower signatures. For instance, she left the "w" out of "Baldwin" in the third signature, and didn't dot the "i". If Sarah had anything with CBJ's signature, such as a Christmas card, it would be easy enough to trace it by holding it against a window.

I agree that the purpose of the letter is clearly to kill the rumours about Trig. Sarah possibly requested that. "Just say I'm healthy and I'm Trig's Mom. And say I'm a GREAT MOM. Nobody cares about anything else, so don't bother mentioning the two miscarriages and the plastic surgery and the depression meds. That might not make me look so good, ya know?" The careful wording could be the work of CBJ trying to minimize the outright lies.

It's just as likely that Sarah made the whole letter up from start to finish, and forged the signature. Maybe someone helped her, like a lawyer or a PR person who didn't know much about medical terminology. CBJ didn't confirm or deny that she wrote it, which suggests to me that she didn't. If you write a letter that is meant to be published for all the world to see, you ought to be able to admit it when you are asked.

Caroline said...

Regarding the capital letter "B" being different in the suspected forgery .... That's how I do my capital B - it's a schoolgirlish affectation that started when I was in my teens. I wish I didn't do it but I'm kind of stuck with it.

Also, my last name ends in "h" and my signature generally finishes in much the same manner as CBJ's authenticated signatures. It's programmed into the signee - and even in a moving car the signature would not turn out with a queer curl ...

Heidi1 said...

Great job, Blade. For a lot of reasons, the curl at the end being foremost, I think the top sig is forged. I've read that "medical report" over and over, and it bears the mark of a true amateur. All commonly-used medical terminology simply isn't there.

But most indicative of all of fakery and subterfuge is the fact that the "report" was released MERE HOURS before the polls opened on 11-4-08! Talk about bone-headed and obvious. That ranks right up there with Sarah resigning as governor on "get-away day" for the 4th of July weekend. It's unfathomable that they think we can't see through this.

I like your style, Blade. Sometimes you get a bit "out there", but you are tenacious as hell. Leave no stone unturned, and that's what it's going to take. The devil is in the details, eh Sarah?

Anonymous said...

The first signature from the letter has no breaks between the letters. The 'C' is connected to the 'B'. The other 3, the 'B' starts at the baseline whereby the first signature has additional up and down stroke.

There is also no break between the 'n' as it's connected to the 'J'. It too has extra strokes. The bottom 3 'J's start at the top, go down and up creating the loop and cross over lower than the start point of the 'J'. The top signature has a slanted upstroke, then down then up creating the loop which goes higher than the down stroke which makes it appear more like a 'P' than a 'J'.

The 'B' in Baldwin also does not have a break between the 'B' and 'a' creating a little loop at the bottom of the 'B' whereas the other 3 signatures, the 'B' is a standalone letter with no link to the 'a' and no bottom loop

she's a fraud said...

Forgery.

As Anon 9-29 1:21am says, there are no breaks between the three names and the 'B' begins with a downstroke then upstroke. Also, the sig finishes with a curl instead of a trailing line.

These are dead giveaways.

Maria said...

Since Audrey disected this letter, I've believed that it was not written by CBJ. Now it appears that the signature is a forgery and not merely a genuine signature added to the end of the letter with its subsequent clumsy ink colour change!

Well done, Blade!

Heidi1 said...

I read somewhere on one of the blogs that people surmise that this fake(?) was produced by the McCain campaign at the 11th hour. I wouldn't doubt that for one minute. Audrey did do an excellent dissection, especially with regard to ink.

As much as I firmly believe CBJ is 100% complicit in the fake 'birth', and knows every last detail of its planning, I think it's possible this forgery(?) was produced without her knowledge or consent. She won't respond to that question, which in my mind, answers it.

Gles said...

Why would CBJ not write out her first name in the letter signature as she did in all the others.
My other thought would be if CBJ used a signature stamp....

LisaB2595 said...

That's not her signature. The use of the initial "C" rather than the full name is very telling. When I was a secretary for an attorney, I was told that signing the full name was always considered forgery. However, should the "author" be unavailable, a proxy could sign using a abbreviated signature--like "R. Johnson" instead of Robert Johnson. This was not considered an attempt to forge the signature.

I doubt seriously that a physician would sign less than her full name on a document relevant to a presidential election. However, someone wanted to be able to say "they didn't do it!" legally.

Anonymous said...

Well, the letter says only "C" Baldwin, not the full name as in the others so this is the OUT. She can say she didn't sign it because she signs her full name.

Anonymous said...

Agnes, do you remember where and/or when she would not confirm she actually wrote the letter?

Anonymous said...

The statement “At the time of her most recent pregnancy, Governor Palin had no health risk factors other than her age” is patently false because we also now know that Palin had not four but SIX other pregnancies, two of which ended in either miscarriage (as she claims in Going Rogue) or abortion.

If they did in truth end in miscarriages as she claims, Sarah's fifth pregnancy was a very high risk pregnancy indeed.

ella said...

Here is an EXCELLENT analysis of the CBJ letter - it is a MUST READ (5 pages, but worth it!):

http://beepdf.com/doc/35346/problems_with_the_november_3_letter.html

Agnes said...

Anon@7:21 am, no I actually don't remember a specific time when CBJ refused to confirm or deny this letter. It's my understanding that she has refused any and all questions from the press since the time she spoke with the Anchorage Daily News with her lawyer present. It's possible, I suppose, that nobody asked her to confirm this, since it was presented at the last minute and then McCain lost the election. The MSM had other fish to fry. So I guess I was talking through my hat, sorry.

Vaughn said...

When you sign any kind of paperwork for property
you have to sign with your full name.

AKRNC said...

Sarah Palin had several factors that made her high risk. The initial risk factors, prior to finding out that the baby had DS and a congenital defect, were two previous miscarriages and her age. When you add the other factors as they became known, CBJ would be considered negligent by any other physician or insurance company for not sending her to a high risk specialist for OB. In these cases, it's not so much what the patient wants that is important but the risk to the fetus that demands care by a specialist. CBJ should have dismissed her as a patient considering the risks involved with her continuing as her OB when her practice was not equipped to handle $arah's pregnancy. Her insurance company would never have accepted $arah saying she didn't want another doctor if the baby had suffered further injury due to not seeking better care. That excuse goes out the window if CBJ had been sued.

It doesn't matter how close they are as patient & doctor. In fact, it further clouds the issue and says that the doctor is not able to be objective enough regarding the necessity of seeing a high risk OB if the patient doesn't wish to do so.

I don't know of any family practice physician who would continue to treat a high risk patient like $arah unless they didn't mind the potential for losing their medical license.

With all the questions surrounding CBJ, what she's doing, is she practicing as a physician, etc., it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the insurance company got wind of all this drama and dropped her policy. In doing so, she'd have to answer on future applications if she had been denied coverage and why. Could she be unable to practice now due to what the insurance company believes to be her negligent behavior in handling Palin?? It's possible.

Also, why the need to bring an attorney to her interview with the press? Is she unable to answer yes or no without consulting her attorney? A person with nothing to hide would not have brought along an attorney in this situation.

Gles said...

LisaB2595 do you have some written documentation on the signature protocol? In my world if you signed for your boss, you did a / then your initials. Or you could use the terminalogy "on behalf of".

Now I wonder if there is a protocol for doctors signatures and nurses.

nancydrew said...

Wow. You've nailed not only the strange Lady MacBeth tone to the letter, but a signature that would have been flagged by the mail-in voter signature verification squad where I live. (Mine was questioned in the last election when they moved to "a new electronic storage system", after my never having missed a vote in several dozen years.) My name starts with a B. When a capital B is part of the signature, one either includes the little inside loop connecting top/bottom of the B, or not. Try as I might, I cannot make that little loop appear--it's all kinetic memory. This signature is a "fail".

Anonymous said...

My take on CBJ's letter, which I believe was written by her attorney:
Claims made by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson (CBJ) in letter released by McCain campaign on Nov. 3, 2008:

Governor Palin has been seen as a patient in our clinic since 1991.
CBJ doesn’t specifically state she was the doctor who oversaw Palin care during her pregnancy with Trig or that she was the attending physician during his birth (although in an April 22, 2008 article in the Anchorage Daily News, she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.
[http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz0zwV7Fy6w]
Being a patient of the clinic during the time indicated wouldn't have precluded Palin from seeing a doctor other than CBJ, either at or outside of the clinic – an ob/gyn, for instance.
I [CBJ] have been her family physician since 1997.
She doesn’t say in this letter that she delivered Trig - although she may have. She doesn’t state the basis for the specific information offered in the letter. For instance, are the basis for the statements made regarding Palin’s pregnancy with Trig made from first hand knowledge, from her review of Palin’s medical files, from patient interviews, or from third-party interviews? Perhaps all of the above?)
She [Palin] had four term deliveries in 1989, 1990, 1994 and 2000 and one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008.
No actual month or day is given for any of the births of her children, including Trig. All we know from this statement is that he was born in 2008.
Wouldn't it have been more natural to say she had “given birth” to four full-term children and one premature child? Is the use of the word “delivery” ambiguous enough in this context to mean that the baby was "delivered" to her?
At the time of her most recent pregnancy, Governor Palin had no health risk factors other than her age.
When was her most recent pregnancy? In 2008? Was her most recent pregnancy with Trig? Or with Piper?
Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester showed evidence of Trisomy 21, which was confirmed by perinatology consultation and amniocentesis. She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care, including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital.
This whole section simply refers to the birth mother - whoever she may be.
The sentence “She followed the normal and recommended schedule…” could mean that Palin was “following” the schedule of the birth mother.
This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health.
This sentence refers back to the “baby” mentioned in the previous sentence, but not necessarily to Palin.
Was CBJ the attending physician at the birth? Does she have first-hand knowledge of the birth?
He was able to go home at two days with his mother.
The name of “his mother" isn't specified – it may or may not be Palin.
At the time of her most recent medical evaluation, she continued to be in good health and was recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig.
When was her most recent medical evaluation? Was Palin recovering from the "birth" of her natural child or from the "birth" and "delivery" of her adopted child?

Anonymous said...

My take on CBJ's letter, which I believe was written by her attorney:
PT 1(my comments wont fit in one post)

Claims made by Cathy Baldwin-Johnson (CBJ) in letter released by McCain campaign on Nov. 3, 2008:
1. Governor Palin has been seen as a patient in our clinic since 1991.
CBJ doesn’t specifically state she was the doctor who oversaw Palin care during her pregnancy with Trig or that she was the attending physician during his birth (although in an April 22, 2008 article in the Anchorage Daily News, she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.
[http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz0zwV7Fy6w]
Being a patient of the clinic during the time indicated wouldn't have precluded Palin from seeing a doctor other than CBJ, either at or outside of the clinic – an ob/gyn, for instance.
2. I [CBJ] have been her family physician since 1997.
She doesn’t say in this letter that she delivered Trig - although she may have. She doesn’t state the basis for the specific information offered in the letter. For instance, are the basis for the statements made regarding Palin’s pregnancy with Trig made from first hand knowledge, from her review of Palin’s medical files, from patient interviews, or from third-party interviews? Perhaps all of the above?)
3. She [Palin] had four term deliveries in 1989, 1990, 1994 and 2000 and one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks gestation in 2008.
No actual month or day is given for any of the births of her children, including Trig. All we know from this statement is that he was born in 2008.
Wouldn't it have been more natural to say she had “given birth” to four full-term children and one premature child? Is the use of the word “delivery” ambiguous enough in this context to mean that the baby was "delivered" to her?

Anonymous said...

Pt 2
4. At the time of her most recent pregnancy, Governor Palin had no health risk factors other than her age.
When was her most recent pregnancy? In 2008? Was her most recent pregnancy with Trig? Or with Piper?
5. Routine prenatal testing early in the second trimester showed evidence of Trisomy 21, which was confirmed by perinatology consultation and amniocentesis. She followed the normal and recommended schedule for prenatal care, including follow-up perinatology evaluations to ensure there was no significant congenital heart disease or other condition of the baby that would preclude delivery at her home community hospital.
This whole section simply refers to the birth mother - whoever she may be.
The sentence “She followed the normal and recommended schedule…” could mean that Palin was “following” the schedule of the birth mother.
This child, Trig, was born at 35 weeks in good health.
6. This sentence refers back to the “baby” mentioned in the previous sentence, but not necessarily to Palin.
Was CBJ the attending physician at the birth? Does she have first-hand knowledge of the birth?
7. He was able to go home at two days with his mother. The name of “his mother" isn't specified – it may or may not be Palin.
8. At the time of her most recent medical evaluation, she continued to be in good health and was recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig.
When was her most recent medical evaluation? Was Palin recovering from the "birth" of her natural child or from the "birth" and "delivery" of her adopted child?

Anonymous said...

There are too many differences between the top signature and the other three signatures.

I'm not a hand writing expert by any means. However, I am an artist with experience in line drawing. I'm used to looking closely at lines in order to see how other artists achieved certain effects. Direction of stroke, weight, curvature all stand out pretty closely once you get used to looking for them.

As others have noted, it's uncommon to use a first initial only sig when one's normal sig is full first name. You either always do one or the other. It's rare to find anyone who mixes forms.

To my eye, this is what I think I see.

The formation stroke on the initial 'C' is different and it's curvature doesn't match. i.e. It's shape is too fat at the top.

The 'B' is different both in the initial stroke and in the inclusion of a center curl on the right side stroke.

Carrying the ink from the 'B' to the 'a' doesn't match at all. In the 3 known sigs, CBJ very aggressively starts her 'a' stroke completely independent of 'B'. The resulting curvature of the 'a' doesn't match.

The 'l' form is too squat and fat. CBJ's 'l's are thinner and more aggressive.

The 'd' has the same roundness issue.

CBJ doesn't have the ending horizontal bar on her 'w's. The top sig does. BTW - the occasional dropping of letters is not all that uncommon with people who are in a hurry. I wouldn't read anything into it.

Overall, the three bottom signatures are spikier and their respective vertical strokes are thinner.

As others have noted, the ending curl in the top sig is just wrong.

This is just my opinion. YMMV

Anonymous said...

Oh come on! I used more thought producing fake 'notes from home' in 7th grade. (SusieQ has my permission to eat lunch off campus today) I also did a much better job.

There are such obvious differences it's unbelievable anyone could take it seriously. The differences a kid would notice in up-stroke/down-stroke, loops/line, connected/disconnected letters. And a first initial instead of the name? Come on.

I think even the secretary at the school office would've questioned the validity...too many inconsistencies.

Anonymous said...

Someone needs to sue.
Just sue Palin and Baldwin-Johnson for fraud in court and this matter will get settled. If I had the money, I would do it.

Blade said...

Thanks everyone for the fine job discerning the discrepancies between the signature in the letter and the known CBJ signatures. I will be posting some of Sarah and Todd's signatures from public records later today to see if anyone can spot similarities between either of their signatures and CBJ's in the letter. I think it's pretty obvious that CBJ herself didn't sign the letter. Maybe we can figure out who did.

Blade

nancydrew said...

I suspect that if you get closer to unraveling the truth here, you'll start seeing excuses suggesting that Cathy Baldwin-Johnson gave her permission for someone else to sign for her since "time was of the essence." The barrage of BS will come fast and furious should someone be asked to take the hit for this misdeed. This is an actionable offense--once the doctor has been made aware of this letter, isn't she legally required to come forward, in order to not be party to perpetuating a fraud? A doctor's signature is especially authoritative, so faking one should be big trouble for someone. One would think board certification and codes of ethics start coming into play for any physician allowing such misrepresentation. 5 -4 - 3 - 2 -

Anonymous said...

Nice post. And interesting information, LisaB, about whether signing an initial would constitute forgery or not. Even at the time the letter came out, it looked suspicious. And that was before I knew that the letter had the wrong birth year for Piper.

Just being nitpicky, in your headline the word should be "Its."

nancydrew said...

LisaB--I was taught that when a proxy needs to sign due to the unavailability of the author of a letter, then the full signature should be signed followed by a slash and the initials of the proxy. Has that gone out of practice? Seems like the safer practice since then the proxy need not even attempt to copy the writing style of another, and the initials offer the identity of the proxy. This signature seems pretty clearly an attempt to disguise.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, nancydrew, that the signature was being passed off as CBJ's not that of a proxy. As far as I know, the practice of signature/initials of proxy is still the standard. Either way, that signature does NOT match. The slanting, the thickness of the up and down strokes, the strange curly q (which I do think could be an MD as someone mentioned) and the connected letters simply do not match any of the other three.
I am getting to the point of wanting to scream about all this crap SP pulls and gets away with. Does NOBODY ELSE besides us even care? Why have soooo many very simple, direct questions NEVER been asked? Why has nobody on the record asked Levi why he was wearing a hospital bracelet in the picture of him holding Trig? That's just one example of so many questions that need to be asked directly. Ask Bristol, on the record, what the hell she actually DOES at her OWN PR FIRM and what qualifications she has to be said owner of such a company! Ask her how she is any different from Levi in seeking the spotlight! INstead, everyone just asks these silly little questions and let her get away with it, just like her lying mother. Why didn't O'Connell ask Levi WHERE he works in the office he mentioned in the recent interview. Ask Sarah's sister to clarify the dates that Bristol lived with her. Ask Bristol how she could have been too pregnant to go to prom! I could go on and on. This is ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

oh and I just noticed that in the third signature, there is no W in Baldwin, it appears to just say Baldin...Hmmmmm....

Anonymous said...

I think the first and the third ones are forgeries (or the other two are) because to my eye they look the same - no dotted i, loopier letters, same up and down stroke, rounder than the other two.

Blade said...

Anon@1:43 - All but the first signature which is from the letter are notarized. I captured the images from the Alaska DNR. I have found one additional example of CBJ's signature and I will be adding it to the composite.

Blade

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon 1:38. It is totally ridiculous that the Palins are not, and never have been, asked to show proof of anything! People have accused the president of not having a valid birth certificate, so he makes a copy available. Sarah is accused of faking a pregnancy, but does she provide a birth certificate as proof...of course not. Which in my mind is proof that she DOES NOT have a valid birth certificate for Trig, because it would have made her day to show it as the proof that the msm was unfairly persecuting her. And no one in the media kept the pressure on by continuing to ask her for proof.

Why is everyone so afraid of her?

Anonymous said...

I'm going to be a real stick in the mud here and state the obvious: if you are attempting to compare CBJ signatures and you take the time to create a graphic and then post the following disclaimer:

"I’m sorry that the quality of this graphic isn’t better or if it distorts the page but it was the best I could do using windows paint program"

Then with this disclaimer you've negated any likelihood of a comprehensive handwriting analysis given that you've already apologized for distortion in the item that was to be analyzed.

This is the sort of thing that cannot be accomplished with questionable internet copy and paste.

Blade said...

anon@6:55 - I am not expecting a professional analysis by posting the signatures. The graphic is for discussion purposes. I have provided links to the images on file with the Alaska DNR Office of the Recorder website and the link to the PDF image of the letter supposedly signed by CBJ. They should be of sufficient quality for comparison and anyone interested can look at them.

Blade

Anonymous said...

To me the signature on the Palin letter looks like a stamp, the kind that busy people have made up of their signature to use for mass mailings. I think it's highly likely that Palin wrote the letter for CBJ's perusal and possibly for her sig. I know my brother has often written letters for his insurance company which his doctor reads and then signs. It saves the doc a lot of time and he ensures everything in it is okay before he signs.
Anyway, one can't be sure about the stamp without seeing the original. There's just something about it that screams "stamp" to me, which means anyone could have borrowed it for use on the letter.