> Even here, there is no claim that Humphries Brewer witnessed an
> act of forgery. The relevant paragraph in full is as follows:
Faint marks were
> repainted, some were new. Did not find Tomb.
> On close
> consideration, it’s remarkably non-committal. Do you see what
> I mean?
This is one of the most damning things I've seen. That this guy believed there was any kind of "painting" going on would seem to put a paint brush in Vyse's hand. The painter and observer would necessarily have different perspectives. How closely was this processed watched?
Now there is a complicarting factor as well since it would be expected to find some "later" paint in some places. How strange that in so brief a description that "repainting" would even appear. It suggests the author found this important.