I understand that when the testimony is "The nurse observed", or the detective, when speaking of the shirt says "you can definitely see it" to mean one can see it.
As to he implies he saw it when he first testified until Mackey cleared it up, that's not the way the testimony reads from the link I provided giving his direct. In fact the DA says "To this day you haven't observed that T-shirt" and the detective corrects him to say "I have" and they clarify and that's it.
It's all pretty straight forward.
No, I am saying that in #115 YOU said: "And the record shows (I'm not claiming firsthand knowledge--just the record) that the blood on his shirt was "smears" and plainly visible to the naked eye."
Now where does it say that in the transcript? That's what you've been saying for weeks, and I'd just like to see it myself.
I understand that when the testimony is "The nurse observed", or the detective, when speaking of the shirt says "you can definitely see it" to mean one can see it.
That may be how you understand it -- or want to understand it -- but that is NOT the testimony.
As to he implies he saw it when he first testified until Mackey cleared it up, that's not the way the testimony reads from the link I provided giving his direct.
In fact, the link that you provided is ONLY for the Direct Examination and not the Cross where he admitted only after Mackey pressed him that didn't see the smear.
Frankly, I am at a loss at to why you insist that all this blood -- you know, "as much as she bled" -- was visible to the naked eye, as it's nowhere in the testimony. The nurse didn't say she saw it with HER EYES; and the judge plainly says two photographs were admitted into evidence and both were magnified!
Since it's fine with you to assume, I can assume that if it had been visible to the naked eye, they would have admitted a picture of it into evidence. At the very least, the detective would have said he saw blood smears with his own eyes.