...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 of those who were there.
...But I run into trouble because I cannot understand the negligence where obvious testimony might clarify a situation if developed. But some of these lawyers on both sides did not follow up on things that should have been almost self-explanatory.
...I know I am beating a dead horse but justice is what I am after, not good guys/bad guys as many people think. I believe it was deliberate intent to commit murder for reasons we suspect but cannot prove. Many things that were neglected in that courtroom seem to support my position. The more I read, the more I find wrong.
Hope I am not being unreasonable. Just too many questions. I am sure you saw a lot of that in my book.
But to address your post I think I made the point in my response to Casey regarding Mrs. King's testimony. She covered your point quite well, I thought.
I might argue about whether Frank's response to Behan was aggressive language or not. I don't get that sense from Frank or Behan. And I do know the thought that Marcus Smith was the walking buddy but cannot source itn either.
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... more
Bob/ that is entirely possible... — Joyce A. Aros,Sat Nov 19 15:48
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