Nothing can come from nothing.
The Stratford Shakespeare was a blank. There are only several examples of his signature after an exhaustive mining of the Elizabethian records. The writer of the plays had to have been trained in the law, as they are chock full of correct legal terms, concepts and situations. If Shakespeare had even been a lowly law clerk, his signature would be on many surviving documents. His signature barely exists.
Did I say that Shakespeare did not perform research for his plays? And undoubtedly read widely. Also, being a lofty genius helped.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Besides, there is at least one play manuscript partially in Shakespeare's hand. How many play manuscripts survive in Oxford's hand?
The writer of the plays had to have been trained in the law, as they are chock full of correct legal terms, concepts and situations.
And only a trained lawyer could get this right? I'm not a lawyer, but I can certainly use some of the terminology correctly. I'm not a weaver, but I can describe how to spin and loom.
That's way more than the one signature we have of Christopher Marlowe and of Thomas Kyd, or the none we have of Robert Greene and John Webster.
The writer of the plays had to have been trained in the law, as they are chock full of correct legal terms, concepts and situations.
There's no reason to think he had to have been trained in the law at all.