> Martin Stower wrote:
> > I’m seeing no evidence of a tendency in Vyse’s drawing of
> > circles to hook back across the top.
> It's not a "tendency", as in "Vyse just draws his circles that
> way", but an artifact of haphazardly drawing so quickly which
> obviously the one in question was the only one on the page
> drawn with the least modicum of care.
> Regardless, I know what I see and do not need to debate with
> you the finer points of drawing circles in ink. This can easily
> be resolved by a handwriting expert so until then best of luck
> to you.
Did Creighton consult a handwriting expert, before deciding not to show the lines? You’re not his keeper, but do you not think he should have done? Should he not have presented the evidence as is and argued his case (as you have done), instead of just assuming a conclusion which suited him and concealing the workings if any from the reader? It seems to me that he has let his theory choose what evidence is seen.
You’ve offered a conjecture on the character of the lines. As stated, I do not find this conjecture plausible, in a context where Vyse clearly was deliberately drawing lines in circles — and I’m not seeing evidence which would make me think otherwise. Evidence of tendency would be such evidence. Do you see that I’m leaving a space for such evidence and not just dismissing the idea outright?
Whatever the character or origin of these lines or our opinions on them, they are there. To pretend (as Creighton has done) that they are not there is an unconscionable misrepresentation of evidence.
Post Edited (29-May-14 00:15)