On 11/27/2014 6:17 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , gonjah
wrote:


I wouldn't go quite that far.

The real travesty of justice occurred at the grand jury when the
prosecutor acted like the cop's defense attorney. Wilson should have, at
least, gone to trial, as far as I can tell. I haven't read the grand
jury transcript, but that is what most of the experts I've heard have
said. Then again, I don't watch Fox News. I usually get my news from NPR
or PRI.

Did any of them suggest the trial should have occurred because of
the evidence or because the "community" should have it?
(Serious question)


From what I gathered; there was a shooting, with eyewitnesses that
contested the cop's version of the story. That should have been enough
to indite. It wasn't the grand jury's job to determine who was telling
the truth. The prosecutor's softball cross examination didn't help
either. The whole thing was odd.

Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for law enforcement.
I want to believe Wilson, but we can't just ignore the witnesses.