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.
I linked to the direct and said START here, because that is where the testimony starts and you had claimed the topic hadn't been discussed on direct when it had. I even linked your cross exam link for someone later. I appreciate that part because that's where the detective states explicitly of the streaks "you can definitely see it".
I don't appreciate being told I said something I did not. I'm very precise in discussing testimony and everything I said is backed up in testimony. I don't know why you mention the picture business as if I said something other than two photos entered and they were magnified. I've always said that since that is the state of the record. The detective did say the nurse observed them so they were photographed. If trial ever comes about and she testifies she can explain in detail how she came to see the injuries. If you look up how big a centimeter and a milimeter are you will see they are not microscopic.