Merrell wrote:

> Scott Creighton wrote:
>
> > I do believe in an earlier post I already acknowledged that
> > the Allen/Brewer testimony COULD all be bunk.
>
> Some statements in the logbook do have some recognisable basis
> in fact. Other statements don't.
>
> > But given the
> > nature of Tricky Dicky, it COULD also be true
>
> You've already rejected evidence that Howard Vyse's behaviour
> in 1807 was no worse than most of the rest of the English
> political establishment. He viewed himself was as an
> honourable man - i.e., one who didn't go around forging
> inscriptions (especially as he didn't even understand what they
> were). Bestowing derogatory nicknames on him doesn't alter the
> situation.
>
> In my view, the statements in the logbook would have to be
> treated with caution, and compared with other evidence, before
> they can be admitted as evidence themselves.
>
> 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.

You're entitled to your view. In my view the Brewer/Allen testimony, rightly or wrongly, casts a dark cloud over the claims of Tricky Dicky. And given what we have come to learn of Howard-Vyse's character, that becomes a very dark cloud indeed and calls into question Howard-Vyse's 'notes'. Furthermore, Howard-Vyse clearly made mistakes/contradictions in his own 'notes' so, on the basis of your argument, surely then Tricky Dicky's account should also "...be treated with caution, and compared with other evidence, before they can be admitted as evidence themselves."

Hence why I consider an independent forensic examination of the inscriptions to help settle the issue is a reasonable and responsible approach.

At the end of the day, the situation boils down to the analogy and question I presented you in a previous post which you did not answer - would you happily accept a fifty banknote from a known fraudster without checking it (even though the known fraudster was known to have done some good things with his fake banknotes)? The fraudster claims the banknote he has offered you is genuine. To compound matters further, someone slips you a note claiming that they saw the fraudster in his workshop that afternoon making fake banknotes. What would you do?

SC



Post Edited (17-May-13 10:37)