Yes, really. I'm not sure the game you're playing here. I've made reference to this being a she said she said situation, based on the facts presented. You attempted to refute the claims by Mrs Hart, by referencing "numerous witnesses" also apparently heard her make these supposed threats. Strangely, you've not provided any names or specifics, just apparently your gut thinks so......based on.....because I guess sirs thinks the opposite. Here you have referencing a nameless employee, who, for all we know, could have easily been providing comments passed on by Mrs. Hammond, or without a name, may even Miss Hammond herself. And EVEN taking this as supposed gospel, hardly equates to "numerous witnesses"
Seriously, I have no problem acknowledging if there were other witnesses that reported threats from Mrs Hart. But lets see them and hear/read what they claimed Mrs Hart said. But until that time, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and for someone who apparently isn't looking for guilt of innocence in Mrs Hart, the amount of time you're trying to paint her as guilty sure digs a hole into that notion. By all means, you can keep focused on speculation, I'll stay focused on the facts
