Re: The question was; which of the...
Wed Jul 13, 21:13

If you closely observed, assessed and read Ike’s rambling, inconsistent and semi-incoherent testimony (along with his publicly threatening the Chief of Police)

Ike single handedly unraveled the prosecutions case against the Earp’s and Holliday.

The Defense’s legal team used Ike’s own testimony against the Prosecution case against the Earp’s and Holiday.

In effect, Ike became the defenses best witness. The Prosecution should never have allowed Ike to take the stand. Just saying.

  • The question was; which of the...Joyce A. Aros, Wed Jul 13 16:46
    ...DEFENSE witnesses was the most beneficial. No fair cheating, BJ! You have to do better than the 'old scapegoat' everyone falls back on.
    • Re: The question was; which of the... — B.J., Wed Jul 13 21:13
      • unravelingpaul j, Thu Jul 14 7:31
        Ike's unraveling of the prosecution case was what he said under cross-examination. So, in effect, it was the Defense team that elicited his most damaging testimony - the nature of his conspiracy with... more
        • Re: unravelingB.J., Thu Jul 14 21:43
          Thank Paul. That is an improved clarification of my previous post.
        • Paul/ thank you for your input...Joyce A. Aros, Thu Jul 14 9:08
          ...as this really becomes a convoluted discussion at times. I do not see Ike's admission of a conspiracy with Wyatt & Co. over the Benson stage talk. I see Ike relating from his point of view what the... more
          • Re: Paul/ thank you for your input...B.J., Wed Aug 03 23:11
            As Paul has indicated, Ike’s problem was subjecting himself to cross examination by the defense and devolving into off-script diatribes.
            • BJ/ off script?Joyce A. Aros, Thu Aug 04 6:29
              Ike's testimony, according to my reading ability, consisted of questions from the Defense and direct answers from the witness, Ike Clanton. I am not aware of a written script referred to; fill me in on... more
              • Re: BJ/ off script?B.J., Fri Aug 05 2:00
                Joyce, do you really believe that Ike chose to provide testimony without being advised and prepped by the prosecution attorney’s? I think you're taking “off-script” a little too literally. You don’t... more
                • BJ/ you are quite right...Joyce A. Aros, Fri Aug 05 5:31
                  I did take your comment too literally, but I wanted to make clear how badly the Prosecution lawyers handled the whole presentation. My newest book out is an extension of Turner's examination of the... more
      • BJ/ could you give me a few examples of Ike's...Joyce A. Aros, Thu Jul 14 5:51
        ...rambling, inconsistent and semi-incoherent testimony? It is hard to defend generalities. One needs a few recognizable details, but it should open up an interesting discussion that seems long over-due.... more
        • Joyce, if Ike's claim the Earp's were 'piping off" money (from the Benson stage robbery attempt) was true, why was there no evidence of an actual robbery and no reports of missing money?
          • BJ/ that is the $64,000 question...Joyce A. Aros, Fri Jul 15 7:06
            ...However, Ike did not actually claim the Earps and Holliday did the job. He was asked pre-planned questions which described all the events and he simply answered as to what the Earps and Holliday told... more