Steve,

Thanks for those interesting thoughts.

Yes, I guess that Fellehy could have been terrorized by the Earps, or he could have been running away from seagulls with Tippi Hedron. Anything is possible. All that we can do is evaluate what makes sense and seems most likely.

The problem with this is that the Nugget did not make it an issue when it complained about the outcome of the preliminary hearing. This is such an incendiary comment that it would have fixed prior intent and become a lynchpin of the hearing. Yet the prosecution lawyers did not bring it up, and the Nugget did not focus upon it. It simply evaporated. The most likely conclusion is that after investigation, Fellehy’s comment was deemed unreliable.

I find it almost impossible to imagine that Behan could have forgotten such a statement when he remembered so much else from the conversation. If Behan could not back up Fellehy’s assertion, then it would be considered useless.

If Fellehy left town when he was under subpoena to testify, I would think it would have been mentioned prominently in the newspapers. He also would have been subpoenaed for the Contention hearing. His testimony alone should have been enough for a second hearing — if it was reliable.

You make an interesting point on using this to support Behan’s credibility. However, please consider this: If Behan had changed his testimony to include the Kill ‘em on sight statement, he would have faced a grilling by Fitch on why he had left that out at the coroner’s inquest. It would have been a very poor decision by Behan, and would have further diminished his credibility.

In this case, it still seems to me that the most likely course of events was that Goodrich’s team of investigators determined that Fellehy was an unreliable witness and chose not to call him.