(1)"he was killed and you can not really say that he could have survived his death, which is very well documented."..... and ..... (2) "Marlowe writes unlike Shakespeare"
This approach can be seen as paradigmatic of the stagnation of the authorship question.
1) Which reasonable person might get the absurd idea that Marlowe has survived his death, which is rumored as short notes at the end of the 16th century : once he died of the plague (1593 Harvey), once of a struggle because of a love affair with a rival (1598 Meres), once he stabbed himelf in defense in the eye! (1600 Vaughan). Vaughan must have borrowed from Meres. Could one call this "very well documented " ?.
2) Their different styles mutually exclude each other. - Really? Marlowe and Shakespeares writings at different ages would suffice to explaine their changing style, as a result of a maturation process (compare the situation to Beethoven's early String Quartet op.18.1 with the late op.94. the composers never could have been be the same! ).
The interview did not deal with the all-important question how Oxford can be compatible with Shakespeare, who died already in 1604. Stanley Wells beats him up with this missing argument?