David,
Now you are being silly in your arguments. I'm not having it both ways. That the family would see reason to have the drawings and diaries in their possession for very brief periods of times through the years is not contradictory to the solicitor's having had them continuously since at least before Dr. Scott-Taylor died in 1933.
The "Agency" has not been misled. They are quite aware of the point that at times the drawings and diaries have been in the family possession for very brief periods of times. After all, I'm quite certain that they can read a return address on the package that contained the Tillinghast sketches as they were sent to them directly from Ian Scott-Taylor who has had them in his personal possession for the past year. That certainly is no secret and you've known it all along. I've also stated it quite clearly all along.
The only reason for tracing the drawings and diaries as having been in the solicitor's possession since 1933 is to prove an unbroken chain of provenancial ownership. As you have accused them of being forged, that proof has been given that cannot be denied, this in the form of the documents sworn to by the solicitor's which, if they weren't true would bring very heavy charges against them, and actual court-filed documents which state that they've been in their overall care during this same period of years in the form of various probate filings by the various family members whose estates they've been part of.
Sorry David, but you certainly couldn't have "searched the world over" and found that there was only a single "David Scott-Taylor." If you believe that my statement that the drawings and diaries being in the family hands for very brief periods of time somehow disproves that the solicitor's sworn affidavit and supporting documents are all lies then what about yourself? Let's see your travel receipts for this supposed search that you made the "world over." By your own logic you can't produce them because it didn't happen.
Now I know that what you meant to say was that you did an intensive world-wide internet search looking for another David Scott-Taylor alive during that time period under whatever specific parameters you entered. I have no problem with your not finding another one. The fact is, though, all you had to do was go back to the previous "discussion" and there was that newspaper article from Australia which referred to a different Dr. David Scott Taylor. We know they weren't the same person since Ian's grandfather was in Wales at the time treating coal miners. That also was stated in that thread. So this proves that you missed at least 1 which means you are already wrong in your assumption on the face of it.
So, back to my question to you... I wrote, "In your second post you do exactly what you condemned me of in the past, presenting evidence without context and simply expecting me to take your word for it. In this case that the signature in the lower picture was written by Ian’s grandfather.
What proof do you have for that? What is the date so that you can definitively state that it was written “about a decade later?” Without that information I can’t possibly be expected to provide you an answer since they could range anywhere from it being a DIFFERENT David Scott-Taylor to his wife may have signed a check in his name to any one of a number of answers."
Please provide the answers to the questions I asked as you avoided doing so.
As for the diaries, I have not seen them as only one was sent over to the U.S. and that already sent back. There are many volumes of them and I will get to see them all when I go over next year. Secondly, I didn't say that she signed it, I aid that it was a possible answer. Again, all you stated was that it was signed "about a decade later" than the 1901 date on the Tillinghast drawing. I have to assume that you DON'T have the actual date for the signature or you would have stated "it was signed on such-and-such specific date." If you don't have a specific date then how can you possibly state that it was signed "about a decade later?"
So once again, you're making a claim that you have a document signed by Ian's grandfather within 10 years of May 1901. Its time for you to do what I did by providing exact details whether you accept them or not.
Finally, I know when Ian's grandfather married his grandmother. I'll provide you that date when you provide the above information.
I was just about to post this when I saw your next post in response to Neil. I'm not going to be on for more than a few more minutes as I have other things to do this evening, but whatever search you conducted that you believe to have been "world-wide" wasn't a good one as you certainly didn’t search in the right places. For example, the report contains specific information regarding the details of his military service and how the many mentions of events from the 1914-17 (for example) which were found in that diary occurred exactly as recorded and the specific medical references, or which there are very many, could only have been written by a physician/surgeon alive at that time. As part of the authentication process they also confirmed his military & medical records.
That you couldn’t find them just shows that you were unable to do so, not that others who are experts in these fields and in the country where the information can be found didn’t.
You stated this, “Let's look at it another way, if David Scott-Taylor is who Phil, and Ian (and apparently you) claim he is, there would be some independent record of it somewhere, either on the internet or off.”
How about this as an independent record which verifies one of those wild stories:
So I guess we didn’t make up the “Sir Walter Scott Story” nor that he served in the military during WW I, that his medical practice had him in Wales and that he was married, and here comes a piece of the puzzle that you certainly should have been able to find but couldn’t, that he was married TWICE. That means that there are two marriage certificates. You certainly did miss a lot in your “world-wide search” both via the internet and otherwise. And this from but a single newspaper article.
Those who authenticated the drawings and diaries didn’t as they found a great many things about him, all of which proved the authenticity of the drawings and diaries, and that they shared with the solicitor’s who shared that with the family.
So again, please produce your proof that the signature of Dr. David Scott-Taylor which you posted is his, giving the date and context, otherwise it means nothing in this discussion.