SC: But as indicated in Walter Allen's note, his great grandfather said that "faint marks were repainted, some were new." In other words there were, according to Brewer's testimony, already some inscriptions in the chambers.
CM: Until the doubts about the factual accuracy of Allen's logbook are resolved, it wouldn't be safe to rely on any of those statements.
SC: I do believe in an earlier post I already acknowledged that the Allen/Brewer testimony COULD all be bunk. But given the nature of Tricky Dicky, it COULD also be true and it may actually be Tricky Dick's testimony that isn't "safe". Hence why I have consistently stated that perhaps the only way this issue might be resolved one way or t'other is through the gathering and analysis of further evidence and that can be achieved by forensic analysis of the inscriptions in question. Rightly or wrongly, the charge of fraud has been made against Howard-Vyse (a known fraudster) and it must be thoroughly investigated if we really want to get to the real truth of this situation. Forensic analysis of the inscriptions might help us do that.
Post Edited (16-May-13 22:47)