I do not think there are missing parts of the testimony. Here's why. We have the original court reporters pages, and the Nugget's reporting for the Coroner's inquest. Keep in mind the Nugget's reporter took short hand, and the idea they left large parts of the testimony out is IMO not credible. In addition these were court records. The people giving the testimony had to swear an oath, read over the court reporters pages, and sign them. There are occassional corrections in the court reporter's pages. These are indications of the person making corrections. Why would these people perjure themselves by signing a court document that doesn't contain everything they said in their testimony.
The testimony is certainly frustrating, as we have lots of questions, and the will never get the answers we want from the testimony. However that doesn't mean that the court reporter left out large amounts of what was said, and the newspapers just went along with it.
I found value in all the testimonies. Even those, that for whatever reason, are incorrect.
Regarding the testimony:
I think people under estimate how much is missing. Ike spent two or three days... more
Testmonies, are there missing bits. — Gail Allan,Tue Apr 12 21:02
Ike Clanton's testimony
November 9-15, 1881
Ike spent four days in the court room.
The entirety of his testimony can be read aloud in one hour. That's a lot of court room time for what little verb... more
Jones if you've ever been in a courtroom you'll know it takes a lot more time to get the work done than just the time it would take to read the transcripts out loud. I was in a jury on a medical malpr... more
I've managed to dodge jury duty up to this point so I'll take your word for it.
I didn't realize that only one hour of the spoken word was the norm for a weeks worth of testimony. Only the government... more
I am evaluating the whole thing from the existing recorded testimonies. I do not change a word. I know that there are sure to be many other words spoken at the time but we don't have those, do we? So ... more
...please note in Virgil's testimony how he focuses on Billy Clanton, completely condensing the whole scenario by eliminating the attack on Frank and the shotgun blast at Tom.
Virgil focuses totall... more
Agree with you on the Earp brothers story.
I think the video is plenty clear about my opinion of the lawman story.
I think they chose Billy as the initial shooter because he was farthest into the va... more