On 11/27/2014 6:28 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 11/27/2014 5:12 AM, gonjah wrote:

snip

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?

It was a very strange grand jury proceeding with the prosecutor
essentially acting as a defense attorney. It's very unlikely that this
is over. I don't know who started this thread, but there was no "no
sic guilty" result, that's not what a grand jury does.
Which is not what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to decide if
there is probable cause to think he might have done it. That is a VERY
light burden compared to reasonable doubt. If the evidence can' satisfy
that burden, then why should it be supposed that the higher burden would
have been reached?

Because the prosecutor chose not present all the evidence.