https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&q=%22faint+marks+were+repainted%22 . . .
We already know that to uphold the “truth” of Allen’s account, Creighton resorts in Void to the desperate expedient of assuming that Allen was wrong about so basic a detail as the identity of the witness.
Where this leaves “Faint marks were repainted, some were new” is as yet unclear to me. If these are not the observations of Humphries Brewer, but rather of “Witness M”, it becomes harder to account for Humphries Brewer having (supposedly) been aware of them. Are we to imagine “Witness M” yelling “Faint marks were repainted, some were new!” at Raven, in Humphries Brewer’s hearing?
Creighton gravitates in Void to a supposition that the “witness” episode was connected with Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber. I noted one small problem with this scenario, in advance, in 2014:
The more marks there are, the harder it is to spot those which are (supposedly) repainted or new. Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber is not a good location for this story.
|Faint hope||271||Martin Stower||18-Jul-21 16:27|
|Re: Faint hope||96||greengirl5||18-Jul-21 21:57|
|Re: Faint hope||90||Merrell||19-Jul-21 08:58|
|Re: Faint hope||85||greengirl5||19-Jul-21 13:06|
|Re: Faint hope||84||Merrell||19-Jul-21 13:09|
|Re: Faint hope||146||Martin Stower||19-Jul-21 14:14|
|Re: Faint hope||107||Martin Stower||18-Jul-21 22:12|