Joyce, you state: "For example, I would expect the Prosecution to subpoena the fellow Frank was walking and talking with on Fremont just before Behan caught up with him. Would it not be beneficial to learn what was discussed and whether it had anything to do with Frank's immediate plans? Would it establish if Frank was there for trouble or business; what his attitude was, his concerns? Are these the things a lawyer would want to develop to protect his client or am I off base?"
It would seem that one possible reason that they did not subpoena Frank's companion is that his testimony about their conversation would not have helped Frank. That could have been because Frank said nothing about his immediate plans or the Earps, or Frank used the kind of aggressive language toward the Earps that he did when speaking to Behan. I have never been clear on the source, but I have seen it alleged that one of Ike's attorneys, Marcus Smith, was the person speaking to Frank.
Casey, you have really been up all night on this one, I think, and now it will keep me up all night! Thanks a lot! But I don't have enough sense to quit even though I am only a little behind. I,... more
Re: remarkable flub-ups... — Bob Cash,Sat Nov 19 13:50
...the problem is this is a court case 140 years old. We cannot guess or assume as we can only accept witness testimony. So we have to derive some logical and reasonable deductions from the statements... more
BJ But when he tried to sell the idea that the Earps and Holliday talked to him about murdering two people, which no one would do, He destroyed his crediibility. Also a good friend of Wyatts was shotgun... more
2nd to last line should be'...why wouldn't the Prosecution...' I have to refer to both of Mrs. King's statements; Inquest and Hearing. The Inquest had to be on their minds if they were as sharp... more