We’re on the same page for most of this I think, except that like coding and encoding the ciphers, I think Gregg was used for disguise, just as the techniques from JJ Harris’s textbook on the subject for cuniform, rounded dots, speed differences, baseline changes, etc. was used. Technique. From ’66 onward.

If this guy’s a Secretary or a Reporter, (not a Stenographer in the classic sense – not using a Stenotype machine) we can also rationalise further since:

a) He knows newsroom layout
b) He’s a "student of Crime" – borrowing from Jack The Ripper and the Lindbergh letters
c) He’s a good researcher. (Chemical bomb stuff, electrical circuitry stuff?
d) He’s older. (He likes Groucho? At 25?

And what’s wrong with this picture. Anything?

Nothin’ wrong, as far as I can tell. He would have been all of the above, to a degree.

Possible…counter point: Groucho. If Z was a bit of an eccentric, say, and I think there’s good reason to assume he was, then it’s not inconceivable that he may have liked Groucho even though this would’ve been uncommon for his age group.

Let me get this absolutely clear, smithy: What you propose is that our man used shorthand as a means to disguise his handwriting; the two-step approach you allude to above: He wrote in shorthand, then "transcribed" his own text, the end product thus being skewed to a degree, not natural writing but something more, say, artificial. Correct?

If so, we are certainly on the same page. What I said above may have been unclear on this point – I rambled on about "second nature" and whatnot, but a) this may not be the case and b) if it IS the case, it would pertain to his SPELLING, not the rest of it. The rest of it may be pure artifice – but I have a thing for the spelling being natural. And what is proposed in the article makes sense in that regard: He just translates his originals (shorthand) into written English, simply not caring about the spelling. X (shorthand for "cruise") becomes "cruse" or "cruze" or…whatever. He doesn’t care, he writes it as he sees it – or hears it – without bothering to defer to accepted standards. Demonstratively so, one might even say – to the point where an eyesore like "cid" makes its appearance.

What I propose is this: He wasn’t a good speller to begin with. He wasn’t someone who composed written texts in standard English frequently. And he was decidedly non-deferential in his attitude (not necessarily in everyday life, but definitely when he did "his thing"). And he knew shorthand well, probably to a professional standard, so to speak.

The trick, the two-stage trick of using shorthand and transcription to produce artificial handwriting, combined with the factors proposed above – explains the spelling. It is natural in the sense that he doesn’t strain himself to come up with erroneous ways of spelling words – and in the sense that he simply wasn’t a very good speller to begin with. It’s unnatural in the sense that he clearly knew that the likes of "cid" wasn’t right – but there the element of demonstratively not-giving-a-f**k comes into play.

I don’t think he was a completely "natural" speller – no. I think the Badlands letter demonstrates that – but it also demonstrates that he could certainly spell very well indeed when disposed to do so, or that he reached for a dictionary when he reached his limits. "I would like to express my consternation" huh?
You think maybe he didn’t compose written texts in standard English frequently? I can’t imagine anyone would bother to learn Gregg unless they did, frankly.
If he was a reporter then he may have used a typewriter more often than a pen, yes, but either way I think he did write – often.
Yes, he was decidedly non-deferential in his attitude – at least in the letters.
Yes he seems to have known shorthand well, very possibly to a professional standard, (whatever that might mean.)

What’s wrong with the picture? Well, there’s an elephant in it.
I’m still a fan of the "letters written by a hoaxer" view – which is undoubtedly strengthened by the idea that the letters were put together by a journalist or a reporter, yes indeed-y. Skilled writer + access to information from a reporter’s perspective = Riverside Confession letter and indeed allllll the rest.
Not that people in those careers can’t become multiple murderers, of course, but hey, this background certainly helps if you did NOT commit any murders….
Isn’t a pity about the shirt and the car door eh?

I don’t think he was a completely "natural" speller – no. I think the Badlands letter demonstrates that – but it also demonstrates that he could certainly spell very well indeed when disposed to do so, or that he reached for a dictionary when he reached his limits. "I would like to express my consternation" huh?

Badlands is what it is, I guess. I’m not sure it was written by anyone but a "citizen" myself. But in general I’m open to the idea that he could have reached for a dictionary. I don’t think he was a pathologically bad speller – just a bad one. Plus a really careless one. Plus something else on top of that.

You think maybe he didn’t compose written texts in standard English frequently? I can’t imagine anyone would bother to learn Gregg unless they did, frankly.
If he was a reporter then he may have used a typewriter more often than a pen, yes, but either way I think he did write – often.

Fair point. I suppose people who used Gregg would also be – as per their work, which is why they learned shorthand in the first place – required to write plenty. Not their own things, though, as much as mechanical reproduction work. But, yes – it’s a bit hard to imagine an incredibly poor speller working as a secretary, say.

Yes, he was decidedly non-deferential in his attitude – at least in the letters.

Glad we agree on that, at least.

Yes he seems to have known shorthand well, very possibly to a professional standard, (whatever that might mean.)

Well, it means that he probably used shorthand in a professional capacity. As a secretary, for instance. I can’t imagine many people would have bothered to learn shorthand unless is was for work. And it wold seem too much of a stretch to propose that our letter writer was someone who learned shorthand just for the purpose of writing the Z letters – no?

What’s wrong with the picture? Well, there’s an elephant in it.

There is? The hoax business you mean? Or something else?

I’m still a fan of the "letters written by a hoaxer" view – which is undoubtedly strengthened by the idea that the letters were put together by a journalist or a reporter, yes indeed-y. Skilled writer + access to information from a reporter’s perspective = Riverside Confession letter and indeed allllll the rest.
Not that people in those careers can’t become multiple murderers, of course, but hey, this background certainly helps if you did NOT commit any murders….
Isn’t a pity about the shirt and the car door eh?

Yes – I gathered as much. And yes – no doubt, a journalist or reporter might very well have had knowledge of shorthand. So I can see why you’d be interested in that angle – certainly. I’m interested in it for a slightly different reason, I suppose – but that’s alright. Interesting is interesting.

Can I ask you a question, smithy? And this is meant in all openness and honesty – I respect you and I like your style as a poster even though I don’t necessarily share your convictions (or suspicions, more like it, perhaps?): Without getting into precisely who did what and when – WHY did he or they construct this thing? What is the motive for the hoax? I’m not saying you absolutely, positively HAVE to come up with a motive in order to support the theory – but I do think it would help a great deal.

All the best,

Norse

Badlands is what it is, I guess. I’m not sure it was written by anyone but a "citizen" myself. But in general I’m open to the idea that he could have reached for a dictionary. I don’t think he was a pathologically bad speller – just a bad one. Plus a really careless one. Plus something else on top of that.

Like booze maybe? A narcotic? Yes, I think that’s quite possible.

…. it’s a bit hard to imagine an incredibly poor speller working as a secretary, say.

Point!

[he was decidedly non-deferential in his attitude – at least in the letters] Glad we agree on that, at least.

We’re three-for-three in agreeing so far; I don’t get that a lot. We agree on quite a few points. No-one else has yet even said they think Gregg’s a possibly contributory feature of the letters! Ha!

[professional standard]… means that he probably used shorthand in a professional capacity. As a secretary, for instance….. no?

Yep. I was thinking of "professional standard" as perhaps the speed and accuracy levels acheived – but it’s a moot point really. Yes, he used it in a professional capacity, agreed. (Say, what’s going on here? We just agreed on something again?)

The hoax business you mean? Or something else?

Yes that damn hoax business – big elephant. Now he knows Gregg, like a reporter, or an ex-editor policeman, as has been suggested in hoax theory discussions elsewhere? Well, phooey.

..Yes – no doubt, a journalist or reporter might very well have had knowledge of shorthand. So I can see why you’d be interested in that angle – certainly. I’m interested in it for a slightly different reason, I suppose – but that’s alright. Interesting is interesting.

Can I ask you a question, smithy? And this is meant in all openness and honesty – I respect you and I like your style as a poster even though I don’t necessarily share your convictions (or suspicions, more like it, perhaps?): Without getting into precisely who did what and when – WHY did he or they construct this thing? What is the motive for the hoax? I’m not saying you absolutely, positively HAVE to come up with a motive in order to support the theory – but I do think it would help a great deal.
All the best,
Norse

Thanks Norse I appreciate that. As message boards go(!) you seem to be a genuine and interesting poster too, who sticks with it and keeps his mind around the details (like the "38 hole" in the Rambler roof, for instance.) I enjoy your posts. And I’m in the minority (HUGELY) lets face it, with this hoax stuff despite my convictions AND suspicions.
I may have already sidetracked things here but I won’t push it too far; I think "motive" is one for another thread, where people know they’re coming through the looking-glass into topsy-turvy hoax land. I’ll start a thread.

Thanks Norse I appreciate that. As message boards go(!) you seem to be a genuine and interesting poster too, who sticks with it and keeps his mind around the details (like the "38 hole" in the Rambler roof, for instance.) I enjoy your posts. And I’m in the minority (HUGELY) lets face it, with this hoax stuff despite my convictions AND suspicions.
I may have already sidetracked things here but I won’t push it too far; I think "motive" is one for another thread, where people know they’re coming through the looking-glass into topsy-turvy hoax land. I’ll start a thread.

You’re very welcome – and thanks!

I’ll have a look a the motive thread – and see if I can’t find something to disagree with there; we can’t have too much of this agreement business, you know, it gets boring!

N.

great post Smithy – and a great series of articles on crack-proof. As a fellow Brit I am also familiar with Pitman shorthand – I used to work for the company (although I know nothing of the actual theory/practice) and it got me thinking that if the British connection to Z is correct then he almost certainly would have used Pitman instead of Greggs if he trained in the UK. This led me to the following picture, which has obvious similarities to both the Halloween ‘ranch’ symbol and also the Bates ‘Z’ . Smithy, any chance you can get your wife to look at the Halloween one (if she hasn’t already) and see if anything clicks?
http://pitmanshorthand.homestead.com/files/vowels.gif