Ah, my favorite technique: taking one term I used and completely twisting it around.
I said "willy nilly" not to you, dear lady -- I used that term while addressing UK Guy, and I used it in response to his belief that the grand jury would simply charge both parents with Murder One, even if they didn't know exactly which parent committed which act. They wouldn't, and they couldn't. This isn't "People's Court" here.
Congrats: you just lost all your credibility with this post, at least with me. Never once had I ever said that a grand jury doesn't ever charge for murder one, so don't put words in my mouth: I said, this particular grand jury wouldn't do so, because they simply couldn't -- this is obvious in the indictments, and any ethical jury wouldn't just charge one person, let alone two, for murder one without sufficient evidence. The whole point of a grand jury is to be objective and to determine the exact grounds why a trial should move forward. To expect this grand jury to charge both parents with murder one when the evidence they had at their disposal didn't clarify which parent was responsible for which act is utterly ludicrous. You are assuming (I don't need to use the old adage here) that the "30,000 pieces of evidence" would clearly show which parent committed which particular, specific act, even though you have zero idea of what any or all of that evidence was. You weren't in that jury; and neither was I, but based on what the jury did charge the parents with, one can rationally assume that said evidence didn't illustrate which parent committed which act.
