29 April 2006

Judge's secret Da Vinci code

This particular jouralist was reading the judge's final pronouncement from the case of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail against Dan Brown of the Da Vinci Code. He writes,
while reading the judgment, I noticed something odd. Throughout the text, the occasional letter has been italicised. There was an "m" in the word claimant in the second paragraph, and an "i" and a "t" italicised in the next. I supposed it was simply a word processing fault. but I did not seriously consider that the judge could have implanted a hidden message in the judgment. High court judges simply do not do such things.

It then transpires that the judge in this case has a bit of a sense of fun because that is precisely what he had done. I can't help feeling that he missed an opportunity to say something a bit more significant in the grand scheme of things; something like a clue to buried treasure or something, but the fact that it was there was interesting. It seems implausible that a judge might do this, but then again: there you are listening to loads of evidence about hidden messages and codes and the like and after a week or two it must start to get inside your head quite a bit. I could see this as a way of trying to get the thing out of your system. Of course, the significant thing here is to ask what the judge would have done if no-one had noticed. The indications are that the lack of 'pick-up' was concerning him.

The next question is what will I do if people don't with my own response here?

Guardian Unlimited Books | News | How judge's secret Da Vinci code was cracked
Filed in: , ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

you also tried to hide a code ;-)

Anonymous said...

"I wonder if [it] could be a spoof." But instead of finding the letters for "it" I actually found "th" italicized, I'm assuming you meant "it". The letters I found were: iwonderifthcouldbeaspoof
Thanks for the fun!

Andii said...

It's a harder thing to do than I expected! There's a hint in the article that the judge may have needed a generous interpreter to do error correction. In actual fact the 'th' was meant to have been followed by 'is' making 'this'. However, as I recall, I was simultaneously realising that I could run out of text to use, and was also composing further comment to give me more suitable letters. Again that's not as easy as one might suppose.

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...