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 Wyatt, the Earps' confession of piping off the money, etc. Ike's direct testimony was fairly focused. The things he testified under cross-examination were things he had already spoken of outside of the courtroom (check W. R. McLaury's letter of November 8 to D.D. Appelgate).
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... more
...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
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
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
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
...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
...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