They asked for his testimony to be read back because he stated that when he pulled up to the driveway he noticed two cars in the driveway. And when Johnnie was cross-examining him Johnnie laughed and said, "Well, of course, that's not true, Arnelle was not home yet.” Alan Park was remembering the photos taken by the police after the fact. I asked him about that and he said, "Yeah that's true so there might have only been one car.” It wasn't really important to me how many cars were in the driveway. It wasn't important to anyone. But the jury said, Oh see. He said there were two cars in the driveway, so we can't trust anything he says. And if there could ever be a more clear illustration of the fact that a jury will buy exactly and only what they want to buy, that has to be it.
And if there could ever be a more clear illustration of the fact that a prosecutor will buy exactly and only what they want to buy, THAT has to be it. The prosecution bungled this case because they had too much faith in the blood evidence and never considered alternate defense tactics and ways to counter. Eyewitness testimony is typically least convincing, least accurate. I would've disregarded this testimony also and not because I had the verdict decided in advance.