In article , gonjah
wrote:


I found a chart at PBS that points out both the consistencies and
inconsistencies. I don't see anything unusual. Eyewitnesses see things
from different angles and with different biases. ****, some maybe lying.
Which, to me, is one of the reasons this should have gone to trial.

If you will remember that this whole dust up is based on "eyewitness"
testimony saying he was shot in the back with his hands up which the
forensics and the autopsy should have put to rest.
The work of a grand jury is to look at the evidence and decide if
there is probable cause to take a person to trial. This is a MUCH lesser
burden than beyond reasonable that is needed to convict. If the evidence
did not even get that far, why bother with a trial.
This below is a nice discussion of the issues:


"The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a rubber stamp.
It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the government
prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are
presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and
expense of a trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have
committed a serious offense."

"If we are going to uphold our Constitution, it does not matter that
thoughtful commentators suppose a public trial would best serve the
community. The Fifth Amendment holds that a person has the right *** not
to be subjected to a public trial*** - i.e., the right not to be
indicted - unless the state can prove to a grand jury that there is
probable cause to believe he committed a crime. (emphasis mine)
Officer Wilson had a constitutional right not to be indicted in the
absence of sufficient evidence. That right to individual liberty
outweighs the media's abstract claim that a public trial would serve the
public interest."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...dment-grand-ju
ry-protection-still-matter-andrew-c-mccarthy
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein