Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1460282" data-attributes="member: 2189">Funny how a character in a Fawkesian mask does that.BTW bbsam: I think you might appreciate <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/use-grand-jury" target="_blank">this piece</a> by legal analyst and former US prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Toobin.&nbsp; As I read the transcript of Officer Wilson&#039;s testimony, I was struck more than anything by the lack of adversarial stance on the part of the 2 prosecutors.&nbsp; I came to the conclusion that the point of the Grand Jury was never to indict Wilson, regardless of what the evidence said but rather the point was to use the Grand Jury as cover for their (political leaders) lack of courage to stand up and just say there was nothing in the evidence to support and indictment in the first place.&nbsp; The Grand Jury was not a judicial move but rather a political one of pure theater.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1460282, member: 2189"] Funny how a character in a Fawkesian mask does that. BTW bbsam: I think you might appreciate [URL='http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/use-grand-jury'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]this piece[/B][/COLOR][/URL] by legal analyst and former US prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Toobin. As I read the transcript of Officer Wilson's testimony, I was struck more than anything by the lack of adversarial stance on the part of the 2 prosecutors. I came to the conclusion that the point of the Grand Jury was never to indict Wilson, regardless of what the evidence said but rather the point was to use the Grand Jury as cover for their (political leaders) lack of courage to stand up and just say there was nothing in the evidence to support and indictment in the first place. The Grand Jury was not a judicial move but rather a political one of pure theater. [/QUOTE]

Verification