CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

this is just my thought.I suspect the DA presented to the Grand Jurors evidence of the many years of domestic violence as well as the threat to the grandchild and the family on Easter Weekend,and perhaps other incidents as well as her mental state. Additionally, others may have supported that evidence.Obviously,he was not leading them to an indictment as in most cases the Grand Jury does not act contrary to the prosecutions wishes.What would be interesting to know is "Was it unanimous?" or were there less than 2/3rds who wanted an indictment? Again the secrecy surrounding a Grand Jury, will leave those questions unanswered at least for the time being.so perhaps, they would argue that they were not acting in her defense but merely presenting all the circumstances that led up to the crime and why she was justified in shooting Mr. Lancaster.

Buzz,I agree with you. We do have the best legal system.I would;however, have a problem if the Grand Jurors were misled and if some evidence was withheld..Unfortunately, some questions,can never be answered due to the secrecy of the Grand Jury.As I am sure you know, they do not determine guilt or innocence when they vote, and the evidence presented by the prosecution is just that! just what the prosecutor wants the jurors to hear.so very different from a trial.
If you re-read my earlier post,my platform was that A trial would have answered all the questions and guilt or innoncence would have been determined and we would not be having these discussions today.
Your reference to Muslim Law is not only inappropriate it is irrelevent to this discussion.

Had a trial occured, I believe all the citizens would have heard all the evidence presented as to why the doctor was justifed in killing her husband (if that is the case) and may have laid to rest all the questions that are still left answered and still creating such controversy. after all, it is a crime to commit murder, and we as citizens of the commonwealth and taxpapers, as well, are entitled to hear the evidence as to how and why ,(supported by testimony by the prosecution and the defense)this crime occured and a jury of one's peers decides guilt or innocence based on that evidence.This has not happened here. You must ask yourself, why did this case not go to trial???this is the foundation that this great country came to be and no one has the right to deny any of us that .Liberty and Justice for All. our forefathers and most of our families ,even tonight,are fighting for that priviledge!

Jeff, I thought I had misread when I read same, other inconsistencies as well,BTW , why the PI in the same photo with Reddington in the news conference??

In my haste, I neglected to add to your post, the questions need to be asked to many above and beyond the tribe and the town of Middleborough .

excellent post

Buzz,surely, you do not believe everything that you read in media print!