Was such a high-ranking churchman guilty of these crimes? The consensus seems to be that he was unlikely to have soiled his own hands, but that the attacks might well have been carried out on his orders or with his tacit agreement. Money was scarce after the plague, and landowners were often ruthless in getting it where they could. In regard to the Spynk case, de Lisle argued that the cattle he took were in lieu of money he was owed. Spynk denied it, but the court found in favour of de Lisle anyway, and the matter was eventually forgotten – although probably not by Spynk. The later charges laid against de Lisle by the various other complainants probably left Spynk thinking, ‘I told you so.’