Not at the time. If we object to Michael's sudden recollections, what possible rational basis can we have for accepting theirs years later? None at all, and I don't do double standards, sorry.
"Not at the time. If we object to Michael's sudden recollections, what possible rational basis can we have for accepting theirs years later?"
Simple there was no case for them to testify in until years later. Michael is who brought up the case years later. Not these 2 witnesses. They were simply testifying because Michael brought up the issue.