Quote:
Originally Posted by lanny9
Don't know why you would think it is a joke? I mean, the grand jury had access to all of the information gleaned from the science, from the witnesses, from experts in gun related shootings etc. These men and women did not think there was enough good, reliable evidence, or that the science in this case was so damning that they decided it would have lost had it gone to trial.
After all of the emotions are taken out of something like this you let the science speak and I'm guessing the science portrayed a different act taking place than what the witnesses were saying. Such things like DNA inside the vehicle, blood patterns and just maybe some contrary witness accounts most likely due draw a separate conclusion than the people on the streets wanted. We know what the vocal witnesses have said but we have no idea if there were other witnesses that saw something completely different.
|
America convicts people every single day on accounts of eye witnesses.
But not enough for a cop to be convicted I guess.