General Discussion

Thanks for your feedback and challenges. They will help me write in a way that is less prone to misinterpretations.

The Shakespeare myth is very emotional and political. Colls is certainly a scientist but he is not immune to the kind of blowback that comes when science contradicts a national myth and when it diminishes the revenue of the biggest tourist draw in rural England.

The best science is peer reviewed and debated so while it would have better to look at how other scientists reacted to Colls work I stayed with Colls because 1) you suggested that, and 2) Colls admits enough. When I say Colls was being coy in his final report I am referring to how he buried the headline that Reuters and those outside the Stratford tourist business went with:

"Radar scan of Shakespeare's grave confirms skull apparently missing"

https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/radar-scan-of-shakespeares-grave-confirms-skull-apparently-missing-idUSKCN0WQ1G5/

The Shakespeare myth starts mostly in 1769, the 205th anniversary of the birth of William Shakspere. It provides a fascinating look at how myth is created, defended and monetized. Way too much to detail here but the part relevant here is that the myth said William Shakespeare is/was buried beneath an uncarved 3-foot stone on the floor of Trinity Church with no name, no date, no "We are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little lives are rounded with a sleep" Shakespeare quote. It has always been de facto absurd, like almost every other part of the myth, yet it endures.

Many lawyers study Shakespeare as undergrads and nearly all of them balk at the myth. Meanwhile until very recently it was absolutely forbidden to question it with English Literature departments. That is why I love it as an example of what happens when science and literature collide.

Some lawyers become obsessed with the issue. Disproving the myth is fairly easy. Replacing it with truth or warranted uncertainty is far more difficult. This lawyer tries to do both in 45 minutes:

But the lesson here for me is that my OP was not a narrow enough slice of this 'science rewrites history' dynamic to avoid distractions and misunderstanding. The Shakespeare myth is a quagmire which few have the patience to wade through. Colombus is more bite-sized (although not without its own tangents).

Thanks again for your well considered posts and pushback!