YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. FIRST OF ALL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HE WASN'T PRESENT AT THE EXPERIMENT, HE SAW SOME PICTURES AFTERWARDS. AND THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT WAS ON THE BANISTER, SO THIS QUESTION IS VAGUE AND IT IS INDEFINITE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE AND I WANTED TO APPROACH SO I COULD AT LEAST EXPRESS THAT. WHAT WE HAVE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS A TEST DONE AFTER I RAISED THE ISSUE IN FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS. HE WASN'T AT THAT TEST HE ONLY HAS A PICTURE AT THE END. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE SAME ICE CREAM OR WHATEVER BY VIRTUE OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS OF SOME PEOPLE HE DID NOT TALK TO, AND SO I THINK THAT THIS HAS A VERY LITTLE PROBATIVE VALUE AND IT IS AN IMPROPER QUESTION.
THE OBJECTION WILL BE OVERRULED. IT DOESN'T GO TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE. IT GOES TO WHATEVER THE JURY WANTS TO ACCORD IT. SINCE THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO WHAT ICE CREAM IT WAS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TEMPERATURE IT WAS WHEN THIS EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED, BUT THAT GOES TO THE WEIGHT THAT YOU WANT TO ACCORD WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED TO BE VALID. A LOT OF ARM WAVING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REAL IMPORTANT.
WE DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE SAME ICE CREAM OR WHATEVER BY VIRTUE OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS OF SOME PEOPLE HE DID NOT TALK TO
A LOT OF ARM WAVING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REAL IMPORTANT.
IT DOESN'T GO TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE. IT GOES TO WHATEVER THE JURY WANTS TO ACCORD IT.