Original sentence: Again, general consensus is that the watch, though certainly antique, was enhanced by a modern forger adding the initials, although tests conducted by two seperate labs came to the conclusion that the scratches were likely to be at least tens of years old...Also cited are tests conducted on the diary's ink, suggesting the diary may have been written recently, and in only a few sittings, not over the several months indicated in the diary's entries.However the forensic testing carried out by several labs have been contradictory in their results, and a respected ink chemist has stated that based on a visual examination of the diary, the writing could date from 1888/89.It was written in an old scrapbook or ledger with the first forty-eight pages cut out, which may indicate that an old half-used book was found and the original contents had been removed.Many still hold the view that the diary is a modern (late 20th century) hoax.This conclusion was reached after various investigators noted that the diary contains mistaken notions about the Ripper crimes that may have been only introduced in the 20th century, as well as some textual anomalies that seem to refer to a modern Liverpool landmark not present (or not known by the name given in the text) in Maybrick's time, although these errors are not universally accepted as fatal to the authenticity of the document
Edited sentence: Again, general consensus is that the watch, though certainly antique, was enhanced by a modern forger adding the initials.Also cited are tests conducted on the diary's ink, suggesting the diary was written recently, and in only a few sittings, not over the several months indicated in the diary's entries.Generally, the current consensus is that the diary is a modern (late 20th century) forgery.It was written in an old scrapbook with the first forty-eight pages cut out, which indicated that an old half-used book was found and the original contents had been removed.This conclusion was reached after various investigators noted that the diary contains mistaken notions about the Ripper crimes that were only introduced in the 20th century, as well as some textual anomalies that seem to refer to modern Liverpool landmarks not present (or not known by the name given in the text) in Maybrick's time