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 testimonies. In almost every case, the Prosecution performed very badly. They sat on their hands and did not question, rarely objected, and apparently did no investigation or preparation of their witnesses. Following the conduct of the Prosecution is almost more interesting than listening to the witnesses.
So please don't be offended; I am trying to encourage more than the usual superficial examination of the Hearing. I doubt if Ike got much worthwhile counsel from these particular men, and in some fairness, that could be due to the lack of time allowed to do any real homework or investigation. Also, it is possible they assumed the case was so obvious it would go to Grand Jury and therefore they might have been saving their thunder!
At any rate, I cannot agree with you about Ike. I think he was being badgered in frustration by the Defense who really did ask some illogical questions. It seemed obvious to me he did not do much homework or preparation either; he was totally relying on Wyatt's word.
I still look at all this as "the man on the street," not a person familiar with Law as some of you might. But maybe it will keep the folks on the board having fun!
But I think there is room for more digging, as always.
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