The only "grand jury thing" that I know of was to decide if enough evidence existed to bring charges in the missing Kyron Horman case. To the best of my knowledge, the decision of the grand jury--or if they came to one--has never been revealed. Also, it is my understanding, even if they brought back a true bill, the state did not have to act on it.
I'm not sure if we are talking about the same case. I do have a tendency to agree if you are referring to this latest "murder-for-hire" plot to make the news. I'm wondering if the state is hoping to separate the charges from Kyron's case, and perhaps feel it can stand on its own. Referring specifically to Kyron's case, I think they are more concerned with what charges to bring, rather than lack of evidence as to who was involved--"in order to nail this thing down." It's horrible to even think, but if they are looking at murder, it would be better to have physical proof. With anything less, it would be questionable to ask a jury to decide beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think she should thank her attorney, rather than her "smarts."
As far as I know, there was no gun involved in Kyron's case. I think you must be referring to her upcoming trial in May. Perhaps it was paranoia that made her believe she needed a gun for her personal protection and she had no specific target in mind.
Again and I apologize, but I'm confused as to which case you reference. Unless I missed it, I think the person she stole the gun from is still alive and can most likely appear in court to show that no one else did, either.
We don't know if Kyron was kidnapped and is still alive somewhere; or if he was murdered with a gun or by some other means. And, unfortunately, we don't know the extent of her involvement in Kyron's disappearance.
All we really know is that 7-year-old Kyron is legitimately missing and has been since June 4, 2010.