...that I have had to rely on the very references you refer to; i.e., Turner, Hayhurst, Nugget, and Epitaph because unfortunately that is all we have.
There is no doubt whatsoever the records have been bastardized by Hayhurst and neglected by others. I did not want to play with guesswork other than to depend on the available testimony records we have to fall back on, but I find from never-ending discussions and books, there needed to be attention drawn to certain points in the Hearing as well as the Inquest statements. I thought a lot had been missed, either carelessly or deliberately. For example, the Defense attorney was a loud-mouthed show-off and intimidator, in my opinion, who did no research or investigation but depended totally on the words of Wyatt and Virgil Earp and the mysterious Mr. Sills.
The Prosecution guys were way in over their heads as was poor McLaury. None were trial or crime level lawyers; they were mining businessmen and sat with their heads on the table most of the time. They also did no footwork or any investigation.
You don't even want to get me started on Spicer!
So now you know what my book examines. I want people to know where I am coming from so they don't waste their money, but I think a lot of questions are brought out with the application of logic and reason that may be beneficial.
I hope you will agree. Thank you for asking,'
I still have a question on where you got the word for word of testimony you used for the Spicer hearing, as that court record has been lost. For the Coroner's inquest we have the actual court records.... more
Gail/ I have to admit... — Joyce A. Aros,Sat Apr 30 11:02