If there is any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him.
This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the outset as the fundamental mistake of his method.

It is much too forensic.

It takes as its model, not the proper canons of historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law.

Yet the inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider its object and origin.

The rules of evidence current in our law courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of the accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned.