26-11-2014, 03:08 PM
It is apparent to me after reading the available material that the reason the grand jury decided not to indict was that they were presented and considered "defensive evidence". This practice is virtually unheard of in a grand jury proceeding, in that the job of the grand jury is to decide if there is probable cause, not guilt or innocence.
On the one hand, allowing defensive evidence into a grand jury proceeding might seem fair, and will certainly prevent many of the needless indictments that clutter our justice system. On the other hand, grand jury proceedings are not public, they are secret; and reaching the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence in a secret proceeding was one of the underlying reasons for the American Revolution.
On the one hand, allowing defensive evidence into a grand jury proceeding might seem fair, and will certainly prevent many of the needless indictments that clutter our justice system. On the other hand, grand jury proceedings are not public, they are secret; and reaching the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence in a secret proceeding was one of the underlying reasons for the American Revolution.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."