1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 62:
Line 62: − The above perception of Bryan's superior exchanges is contradicted by Linder(2002)cited by above contributer: − − [Bryan, who began his testimony calmly, stumbled badly under Darrow's persistent prodding. At one point the exasperated Bryan said, "I do not think about things I don't think about." Darrow asked, "Do you think about the things you do think about?" Bryan responded, to the derisive laughter of spectators, "Well, sometimes." Both old warriors grew testy as the examination continued. Bryan accused Darrow of attempting to "slur at the Bible." He said that he would continue to answer Darrow's impertinent questions because "I want the world to know that this man, who does not believe in God, is trying to use a court in Tennessee--." Darrow interrupted his witness by saying, "I object to your statement" and to "your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes." After that outburst, Raulston ordered the court adjourned. The next day, Raulston ruled that Bryan could not return to the stand and that his testimony the previous day should be stricken from evidence. − − The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow was reported by the press as a defeat for Bryan. According to one historian, "As a man and as a legend, Bryan was destroyed by his testimony that day." His performance was described as that of "a pitiable, punch drunk warrior."] − − Linder, Douglas. The Scopes Trial: An Introduction (2002) − − Notice also how above contributer changes Darrow's testimony from "your fool ideas that no intelligent Christian on earth believes." cited in footnote 8 and Linder above to "your fool religion..."
Reverted edits by Chrisfite (Talk); changed back to last version by Learn together
Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).
Bryan--No, sir. I have no way to know. (Laughter in audience).
===The conclusion===
===The conclusion===
The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But instead of upholding his end of the bargain, Darrow stunned the public by taking the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>
The next day, it was Darrow's turn to be cross-examined. But instead of upholding his end of the bargain, Darrow stunned the public by taking the unprecedented step of asking the jury for a guilty verdict against his client, the defendant teacher John Scopes.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day8.htm</ref>