...I suppose you and I, Bob, have a different sense of justice. I thought the judge's or justice's responsibility was to weigh the evidence or testimony and evaluate it in such a way as to arrive at a fair decision for one side or the other, in effect, truth. However, as I go through Spicer's summation, I see him favouring the Earp side in the manner in which he lays out an argument, presenting their side in a favourable manner while presenting the other side in a negative leaning, repeatedly.
You might say that is because the ranchers' side was repeatedly negative, but you have to realize that cannot be true. Some witnesses presented testimony that supported the position of the ranchers. Are we to ignore those, as did Spicer, viewing them as 'cowboy' supporters? Is that a completely just view of the situation? Is there no argument to accept any favourable viewpoint toward the ranchers?
Shall we say Behan was a liar and so were others, like Mrs. King? Were they and others trying to cover up for the ranchers' bad behaviour?
Are the ones who support the Earp side such as Virgil, Wyatt, and Sills the only ones to be trusted? How do you arrive at that determination? Spicer couldn't.
Joyce, you are referring to his decision in the hearing. Yes, he is leaning in one direction. That was his job, after hearing all the facts, to lean in one direction or the other. You just happen to n... more
Spicer's decision making... — Joyce Aros,Wed Jun 02 17:25
Justice Spicer used these enlightening words when praising Marshal Virgil Earp's conduct: "...Virgil Earp was at this time the chief of police of Tombstone and charged as such officer by the city ordi... more