13-02-2018, 04:38 AM
To take up the points by you:
In rereading it, its actually Baker who bright up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can also see from your own quote.
We disagree about Worrell.
The point about second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. Its not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view.
Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you cal him? Please let us know if you did any of these.
But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. Its something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101.
In rereading it, its actually Baker who bright up the excuse for too many people being there under Dulles' questioning, as you can see from your own quote. Dulles brought up the time factor excuse as you can also see from your own quote.
We disagree about Worrell.
The point about second versus first floor is one that I think you are (deliberately?) confusing. Its not vague at all from an evidentiary point of view.
Your point about Spence misses the point. You assume Spence knew about it, and ignored it because somehow he agreed with you. What on earth do you base that on? Did you see the uncut version of the trial? Have you seen the full transcript? Did you cal him? Please let us know if you did any of these.
But if you did not do any of them, then it seems pretty clear that Spence did not know about either Norman or Baker's first statements. Any defense lawyer would have used them to cross examine the witnesses. Its something you learn the first year in law school in Evidence 101.