Originally Posted by Kaz
Honestly, its been so long since I've read the final chapter I've completely forgotten.
think the book is in the attic... up there tomorrow digging out some 80's putes (not Amstrads...hate em)
A huge clue about all of this would be evident in the writing itself, and we have a case where a piece of writing, supposedly May's, was compared to the diary, and found to not match.
In an ideal world, we'd have another piece of writing with which to compare, but it's not clear that we do.
So, we either are content that the two pieces do not match, or we ignore it, but if we ignore it, we cannot possibly conclude that it's certified fact that May wrote it or that he was the Ripper.
So I kind of have to wonder about how anyone can safely conclude it to be the "real deal" like we're hearing about re: this new book.
It can't possibly be conclusive if we can't even compare the handwriting conclusively.