Behan's quality as a witness was on trial as was the quality of every other witness. I don't think Behan's life record was as good as you seem to think. Here is an obvious example. When the time of his appointment as Sheriff ran out in late 1882 and an election was going to be held, his Democratic party went into convention to nominate a candidate for Sheriff. On the first ballot Behan came in fifth out of five in number of votes for the nomination. Breakenridge finished ahead of him. His own party didn't give him the nomination or was even close to doing that. His own party believed he would damage the party by heading their ticket as his reputation was so bad as Sheriff. Sounds like they thought Behan would fall short of a good Sheriff in the minds of the voters by a considerable margin. Why if his life record is so good, don't those that know him best want him as their candidate for their party by a dramatic vote?
Some say Spicer should have let the Grand Jury decide this matter as it was not his job to do their work. Spicer invites them to question his decision and change it if they wish. They consider it twice and do not take the case and you want that to mean something other than they agree with him? If they can change it and don't after Spicer's invite to them what alternative meaning do you suggest?
By the way the Grand Jury had members on it that would support the police as would be inevitable in a small town. This was mentioned at the time. This means very likely the Grand Jury was not about to indict their police. Also, the Earps would have gone on trial in Tombstone where their case would go if no change of venue was successfully sought by the prosecution. There you would need 12 out 12 to vote that their local police were murderers. The chances of that happening would be virtually zero. Thus the Earps might have been destroyed financially if they had gone to trial but the odds of their being convicted of the murder Ike was paying for them to be charged with was zero.IMHO
So you will get the same outcome with the Grand Jury or the District Attorney. Sorry:-)
I know it is not just Bruce today but whether or not this or that group was happy about the results doesn't change what they were or would have been no matter which place it was heard. Father Ike the Confessor still loses the case as his credibility and the case goes down in a sea of laughter.
Tom Behan was more trustworthy than Wyatt or Virgil. And he was not on trial here. And I would like a legal opinion on to what extent the lack of action by the Grand Jury, and those other courts... more
Williams was on the grand jury (December term, 1881) that would not indict the Earps. That grand jury had several people we can identify as Earp supporters, for instance (besides Williams): Sylvester ... more
Are you sure about Behan's life record? Tom Gaumer,Wed Apr 18 00:21