On 11/27/2014 7:53 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , gonjah
wrote:

It appears to me; the prosecutor was bowing to public pressure to do
something, so he brought it before the grand jury, and then acted like
the defense attorney. Was it all for show?

I'd agree in part/

Well, that in itself is troubling.

disagree in part. First and foremost this was a high
profile case so whatever was going to happen was going to **** off a
large swath of voters.. and the prosecutor is an elected office. That
was 100% prosecutorial ass covering... and rather blatantly so. He
basically punted the decision on charges to the GJ so he could say
(either way) this wasn't his decision, but rather the considered
decision of the Grand Jurors.
I would disagree with the defense attorney part, though. I have
read through about 75% of the information he released. He presented
evidence on both sides and it seems very thorough and balanced, at least
so far in my reading. He knew no matter what happened, he would have a
bunch of people calling for his head. So, this was more for the 40% or
so of people who wouldn't be ****ed merely because a decision had been
made unless it was perceived as a witchhunt. These are the people that
really elect any politican to any position.


Anyone can do the permutations of statements like that. Thanks for being
candid. BTW: That's about what I surmised.