Supposedly, that desktop wound up in possession of the CA DOJ if I remember correctly, I hope he had a chance to examine it

I know what you’re saying norse and I understand because I’ve been through all the same thoughts as most have. That’s what inspired me initially to look more closely at things like the desk and the letters because we weren’t convinced of their solidness as evidence or if we were then what it was telling us. I’ve had my doubts over the years too regarding certain aspects but I’ve come to see, and be convinced, that he wrote that poem and those letters. Even recently I’ve revisited it (the desk) and with a few years under my belt I’m seeing more to suggest it was him.

I’m kinda coming full circle because I have played with the ideas and theories that people have suggested and still do and for a time perhaps allowed for them to be the case but it keeps coming back to what was originally compiled as evidence in this case. There is nothing wrong with speculating and theorizing, it’s why we are here and I sometimes worry that my little interjections come across as dismissive or know-it-all. That’s not the case. They are more like breadcrumbs so we can all find our way back (myself included) because this case seems almost designed to take us into a very dark and dense ‘forrest’.

and I sometimes worry that my little interjections come across as dismissive or know-it-all.

Yep – you do strike me as a singularly arrogant bas**rd!

No, seriously – you certainly don’t. Quite to the contrary, I should say. And I respect your views on the provenance of the poem. You know far more about the handwriting technicality of the thing than I do – which I try to keep in mind.

My opinion as such, however, isn’t based on what I think about the handwriting (I think pretty much every suspect put forth has handwriting which resembles Z’s more or less!) – but rather on the fact that there was disagreement on the matter among the professionals working the case back then. That tells me there is some reason not to – simply – go with Morrill’s verdict.

And that, in its turn, makes it somewhat legitimate to theorize that Z was not the author, given that there are several details which – regarded in isolation – certainly seem to point to a different provenance.