Well, to me, that makes no sense. I watched the video. I heard his former employee say he can spell, he wouldn't write anything like this, and it was a speech-to-text or other software that made it come out so bad.
No software (spellchecker, speech-to-text, speech recognition, etc.) is going to end up with this many spelling errors that are this bad! IMO. If you're talking out a text, and software is "typing" it out, if it doesn't recognize a word you have said, it won't output a non-word or a jumble of letters that aren't any real word. It will do its best and put a REAL word that is the closest it comes up with to what you said, and the real word will not be misspelled. It won't even use a phonetically-spelled non-word, but even if it did, that would mean RH THOROUGHLY MISPRONOUNCED the words we see that are misspelled. I do NOT think he pronounced disorganized as "disoriginizazized" or however he mangled that word! But even if he did pronounce it like that (impossible, imo) as I said, the software wouldn't take what he said and output a phonetically-spelled non-word that is its best representation of the word he said. In fact, if he said it like that, it would probably just put "disorganized". But he wasn't badly mispronouncing his words anyway imo, so that's moot.
It seems obvious to me that he was NOT using speech-to-text, as this former employee of his thinks. I see no way that that would produce a text that looks like this one, with all the misspellings and non-words that it has in it. I think if she thought about it, she would agree too. They just don't work like that, and they didn't even way back then. She was so sure of herself too that he could never have written this doc in this way that we're seeing it, so I think it's obvious she just didn't think that opinion through enough!
So I don't agree with her that it looks like such a mess due to him using speech recognition software or anything like that. I don't think, as she does, that it's the fault of ANY software at all. Because even if he was typing it in himself, not speaking it, and he misspelled it even that badly, spellcheck or autocorrect-type software would look for a REAL word that is closest to whatever he typed, and would either suggest that as a correction, or autocorrect it to a REAL correctly-spelled word. It may give the WRONG word, but it will be a correctly-spelled recognizable word, not a misspelled word. Not a non-word. And there are a lot of non-words in this document.
I think it's obvious that what that means is that he really was this bad of a speller, at least when writing something where spelling didn't matter! Something that either was unimportant or trivial, say like a shopping list, or something that only he would be reading, like (he hoped) this document. He might very well have known the correct spelling of the word "plastic" and "evidence", for example, but when he typed in "platic" and "evindice", he just left it because that was good enough. He knew what he meant. And so do we, in fact!
I think it just shows that at work, he used spellcheck and/or other editing software for documents that mattered, things people other than him would be reading. Or perhaps, he did manage without software help, by just taking his time, checking his work, correcting errors, and editing so that mistakes were minimal so that others would have no problem when reading it. And so that he looked professional. Which is all this lady in the video must have ever seen. Nothing she'd seen him do at work had these kinds of misspellings and so many of them! So that made her say he doesn't write like this, he can spell better than this, it must have been software making these errors. Which I think is dumb. No software will leave these errors unless you have turned it off! Or changed your settings so that it doesn't correct things, which would make the software useless. And certainly no speech-to-text software will take something you SAY and output something like "dumster" or "tourture" or "originanized"! Which is what she said had happened. That's why I said that was a dumb thing to say and that she must not have given that enough thought before she said it. I think he just made sure it looked right when it mattered, and that's all she ever saw. Until she saw this "kill planner" thing. Where the errors didn't matter. IMO.
