Wells: ...Diana Price writes that ‘Shakespeare is the only alleged writer of consequence from the time period for whom he [we?] must rely on posthumous evidence’ to prove that Shakespeare the writer was the man from Stratford.’ So far as documentary evidence goes this is true, but as I have said I see no justification for discounting posthumous evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence.
In a → Swiss-TV Interview Stanley Wells Nov.11th 2009 (starting at min.17:00 ) underlined this position:
`...to dismiss all posthumous evidence out of hand, as some of the Deniers [AntiStratfordians] do, is patently absurd.'
Comment: Doubters do not `dismiss all posthumous evidence out of hand.' There are, however, significant reasons to question the validity of the posthumous evidence in the Shakespeare case, starting with the fact that it is uncorroborated by the kind of contemporaneous evidence found for other writers of the time. This oddity led doubters to scrutinize the posthumous evidence and see that it is problematic.