@girlhasnoname
Yes, I understand that, but it has nothing to do with my point.
What is concerning to me is the aspect I outlined in my previous post #124. Which I will rephrase below:
The prosecution was unopposed during the grand jury, and what is more, they could lay it all out in total secrecy. Yet six of the jurors said we want more. This tells me the prosecution didn't have anything to show them that was of slam dunk "he's guilty" quality. It tells me they don't have much more than what's in the PCA.
The grand jurors were then told the standard is probable cause not BARD, and then they agreed to indict. What this means is these six jurors felt that what they were shown would not have been enough to indict if the standard were higher. Six out of 16 is not a negligible number.
At trial, the standard will be higher, and the prosecution won't be unopposed: the defense will undermine each and every piece of evidence, cross examine witnesses, bring in their own exculpatory elements etc. So it is going to be a lot more difficult for the prosecution, and we now see they were already struggling when it was easy at the grand jury.
We have been led to believe from the beginning that although we aren't privy to it, the prosecution has a lot more than what's in the PCA, but it would appear this is a bluff. This trial is not going to be the cakewalk for the prosecution that some people seem to think it is.
MOO.