by Christina G. Waldman
Revised June 1, 2025
Several years ago, I told Mark Johnson, an administrator of the “Oxfraud” group Facebook page, that when I had time, I would provide a written evaluation of their self-styled “Prima Facie Case (PFC)” (without conceding they have one) for the proposition that William Shaxpere/Shakespeare of Stratford was the true author of the Shakespeare works, as is traditionally assumed (presented at https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html).
Using a legal analogy, the “Oxfraudians” (“Stratfordians” who reject the claim that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), was the true Shakespeare) have claimed their statement of the case was so strong that it entitled them to a presumption a favorable legal stance–which would put the burden on their opponents to rebut their proof. Under modern rules of civil procedure (New York, for example): if the rebuttal was insufficient (as hypothetically decided by an impartial judge), they would win the case on the pleadings. If the rebuttal raised reasonable doubt, there would be a full trial on the evidence.
