...the testimonies of Wyatt and Virgil and why the Prosecution didn't catch any of this.

Usually, when someone relates a past occurrence, they might say 'they thought' or 'they were under the impression', or something similar. But Wyatt and Virgil KNEW, by the time they appeared in court, several things they referred to had been established against their argument.

For example, they both KNEW when they testified, that Ike and Tom had not retrieved their weapons from the location they were left at. Yet both men related their belief that Tom, at least, was armed and also, that as Virgil tried to put across, that Ike appeared to have a weapon hidden in his shirt. The lawyers did not correct them when they first interviewed them. I get the impression that either these two men were not very bright or they already knew the case was a slam-bunk and so it didn't matter much what they said.

Of course, this also demonstrates how inept the Prosecution was. Virgil claimed that Behan told him not to go down there or they would get murdered! But Virgil also claimed Behan had said he disarmed the men. How, then, can one get murdered? What was wrong with Prosecution, who should have jumped all over such contradictory statements? How can they be regarded as a 'dream team?' Wouldn't someone have asked Virgil; "Why didn't you ask how they could get murdered by men who were supposedly unarmed, according to Behan?" It boggles the mind.