Gotta wonder......

Rick wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Why not just bring charges against the original prosecutor if there is "new evidence?"

Exactly, but there is no new evidence, otherwise every network would be waving it around non stop. How about we bring charges to the scumbags who destroyed the future of an entire town while we're at it?

"New evidence" isn't necessarily the issue here. But, then you knew that, didn't you (rhetorical). Procedurally speaking, the Grand Jury investigation and presentation of evidence is what is being called into question and how that all played out in their decision making. I don't fault the Grand Jury. However, the prosecution arguably went about their "prosecution" with the pre-determined mind set to exonerate Officer Wilson. If that is, in fact true, then a re-opening of another Grand Jury investigation is appropriate.

So bring charges against the original prosecutor.

HEARTLESS wrote: So bring charges against the original prosecutor.

Why?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: So bring charges against the original prosecutor.

Why?

Why convene another grand jury?

HEARTLESS wrote: Why convene another grand jury?

Obviously you haven't been following the previous conversation as to "why".

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: So bring charges against the original prosecutor.

Why?

For the simple reason that "some" believe he failed to perform his duties. That, after all, is the supposed reason behind the push for a new grand jury with a different prosecutor, isn't it? The original prosecutor failed in his duties?

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Why convene another grand jury?

Obviously you haven't been following the previous conversation as to "why".

I followed the opinion pieces posted by you from the articles, and say, if there is evidence of wrong doing BRING CHARGES!

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: So bring charges against the original prosecutor.

Why?

For the simple reason that "some" believe he failed to perform his duties. That, after all, is the supposed reason behind the push for a new grand jury with a different prosecutor, isn't it? The original prosecutor failed in his duties?

No. That's your assertion. The irregularities in the Grand Jury investigation process are what is being questioned.

I don't know - did the original prosecutor fail in his duties?

Is there a law or even a rule that says the prosecutor may not introduce exculpatory evidence Z? Whether it is often done or not, isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is permitted.

PrintSmith wrote: Is there a law or even a rule that says the prosecutor may not introduce exculpatory evidence Z? Whether it is often done or not, isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not it is permitted.

No, P, there isn't. That's not the issue, though. The issue, of which you are well aware (or should be by now), is whether or not that exculpatory evidence was intended to "sway" the Grand Jury toward their ultimate finding.