Sorry, but all due respect to your faith in the DA, Tugela is right on target. BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN (which is what "appears to be"), this DA has a case that could be based on perhaps-coerced testimony and virtually nothing more. If that's the case, then it's easy to understand all the big DP intimations by the DA, as one approach when you lack substance is to try to amp up the intimidating talk and see if it nets a much-needed confession or three.
From where we sit, with the combination of "big talk by the DA" and "utter lack of evidence that we know about," anyone can draw whatever assumptions they want. It's a blank slate, basically, and what you conclude is simply because that's what you want to see, not because we have anything to support it.
Tugela sees the utter lack of evidence (that we know of) and the pattern of DA big-talk behavior and thinks it indicates a DA who's trying to use intimidation to coerce testimony and confessions due to a lack of anything solid. And that may be exactly right. You see the same combo decide that there must be a boatload of unknown evidence. And you may be right instead.
Frankly, at this point, it's only assumptions and our bias about this DA. He has no track record - he's just a guy who got elected and has talked a big game. Time will tell whether he has the goods, or whether he's all hat and no cattle.
