1.). You write: "Hayhurst's word is not evidence...". Then why do you continue to treat it as evidence?
2.). How do we factor in the description by Mrs. King? All she says is that she saw a tall man. Your logic would seem to be:
A.) Mrs. King saw a tall man. B.) Marcus Smith was a tall man. C.) Therefore Mrs. King saw Marcus Smith.
Since there were numerous tall men in Tombstone, C does not necessarily follow from A and B.
Then you write: "That he (Smith) was called to testify but dismissed because of obvious legal reasons also leads to the equation." How? That Smith was called to testify but didn't leaves us totally in the dark as to what exactly he would have testified about. Given this, there simply is nothing substantial "to add to the equation".
Sheriff Behan testified that after leaving Virgil Earp at Hafford's, "I then went down Fourth street to the corner of Fremont, and I met there Frank McLowry holding a horse and talking to somebody."... more
From the EPITAPH, cross examination, third "Q": "Q. Where were you when you heard the words to which you have just testified? A. In the first folding door. "Q. Do you know to whom these words were... more
I treat it as evidence because of a few supporting factors associated with Hayhurst putting his name in the documents. Did Hayhurst pull that out of thin air? Is that the contention? We factor in... more
You never fail to disappoint either by going on the personal attack. Whether it be Nick or whoever you feel should suffer from your insults. I have always expected more of you, but I consistently get ... more