so It held up pretty well, because he made several mistakes along the way, which made much harder than It is to figure out.
ebeorietemethhpiti
Maybe none.
This person killed several people, and THAT is your biggest problem?
There's a discussion about how strong the cipher is, and:
thatwasunusual> ...and still the killer is unknown. That's pretty good, IMO.
Someone pointed out that measuring the strength of the cipher by the fact that the killer is unknown is a bad metric, and you seem to believe this as a defence of murder?
They are merely pointing out there is no connection between the fact the killer is unknown and if the cipher was strong or weak.
The answer to this can tell how easy it may be to create a similar problem today.
Given he fooled everyone for 40+ years I find it hard to believe he would overlook details, especially when it's about his main publicity tool.
swiches instead of switches, cid instead of kid, figgure instead of figure, cerous instead of curious
There are more.
Even if it was intentional, I am not sure that spelling mistakes would make 60s/70s decryption attempts any worse. They did not work by brute force and it's unlikely he predicted someone will use a supercomputer to crack his code decades later.