Quote Originally Posted by Pam View Post
Look at the link above about the flaws of the grand jury process. They had enough evidence to put him on trial. Maybe the jury would have not convicted him but the process should have gone forward. The grand jury wasn't supposed to be deciding guilt or innocence, just if they should proceed. You have a dead man and conflicting accounts. Definitely should have been sorted out by a regular jury trial. I don't think police should be immune from prosecution.
I agree with Pam, there is conflicting evidence that needs sorting out. The Grand Jury decided not to indict, which I believe is in compliance with its duties, but in this case, the main testimony was given by the perpetrator in support of his actions, while there was no testimony from the victim. Nothing at the grand jury level could be done to elicit independent information ie character witnesses to counter the apparent stupidity of the victim's last actions. Therefore I would like to see a jury trial with additional information elicited to balance the media and defense destruction of a young man's character. He lived for 17 years with no record of malice, and in one horrible contrary day, he is destroyed forever. Let's examine that.