No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.
I just can't wait to read it. I just can't.
No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.
Well the DA brought the charges. One would think DA should presumably have some evidence, otherwise, how can she bring charges?
Jenny, dear... the DA did not bring the charges; the grand jury did.
The can throwing is a charge for which Longe specifically is charged. A local reporter is trying to follow up on the specific meaning of the civil rights charges but has yet to get a response from the DA's office. I wonder if the video cameras described in the student news paper captured some activity and disclosing the meaning might tip the DA's hand and reduce her negotiating position.
Precisely BECAUSE this case is atypical, IMO the Grand Jury would need to be substantially satisfied with the "evidence" presented...in order for the D.A. to GET the indictments.
That alone suggests to me there's a LOT of real solid evidence to come.
I fail to see why that would be so.
The Grand Jury deciding to proceed given what was given to them as evidence says much. The DA has enough to continue on with charges against those named. We are not privy to all that has been presented and will not know until this case resumes in the future.
It doesn't matter if you fail to see so, but the Grand Jury has. In their opinion...
imvho
I presume that what I think matters just about as much as what anybody else on this board thinks, unless they have a direct connection to this case. Regarding the grand jury system, a lot of jurisdictions substituted that with preliminary hearings, which to me seems a more fair system, since preliminary hearings allow defense to present its side as well. Also, preliminary hearings don't go on in secret. With grand jury, public has no idea what evidence was presented.
Apparently, you misunderstood my response. I was disagreeing with your point, not (nor ever stated or implied) that your opinion doesn't matter. I quoted your post and gave my opinion.
Topic was Grand Jury and I responded to that. It had nothing to do with the preliminary hearings. Which, in fact, would not be occuring without the Grand Jury's agreement that the DA had enough cause to pursue.
imvho
Preliminary hearing is an alternative method to obtain an indictment that can be used instead of grand jury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preliminary_hearing
No. And I get no answer when I ask for a release date. There's a reason it's not public record or subject to public release; I suspect it has to do with the sex-by-minor and privacy issues.
Thanks, Maureen. After reading your post, I recall you had explained that earlier on, thread #1 or #2, maybe...I had forgotten. :crazy:
So, is this a normal procedure, in your opinion, Maureen? Or do we usually see more by now...this feels like the sahara compared to the ocean of discovery in the KC case...
I have no idea if this is normal or not. I don't usually follow criminal cases this closely. This one just intrigued me - maybe because of the ages of my children (and nieces & nephews) & my involvement in our school district here in town, maybe because of my own past, long ago in school...
It is maddening that this tidbit of info was released, but not the rest of it. I have no idea what is normally released to the public, though (or when). Especially maddening, I think, because people in discussions seem to be making all kinds of assumptions about the charges based on these documents, when really this could just be a sliver of info used to support the motion - not the entirety of the charges (or evidence) at all.