Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
For those of you who are convinced that the grand jury came to the correct conclusion based on the evidence, please take a look at this accounting of the evidence from a lawyer who went through all the transcripts. Pretty damning stuff, and in my mind its pretty clear that a trial was necessary to test and potentially impeach Wilson's testimony.
https://storify.com/tessalaprofessa/story#publicize |
Am I missing something?
she talks about profanity, and that he had a red mark on his face. Oh and the cigars, but if those cigars were still wrapped in plastic and he switched them to his non punching hand its not for sure that they would break and end up in the car.
She's right and I said it that there wasn't a strong cross examination, but I've read on some other Grand Jury discussions and the prosecutor usually doesn't do a heavy cross examination because of how often they indict. The prosecutor saves his cross examination for trial in case the defendant takes the stand.
I'm not saying that the prosecutor did a great job. But there was enough doubt created by poor witnesses and forensics and the audio recording of the shots that there was no indictment