It makes no sense otherwise. The GJ isn't deciding if the guy is guilty or not. It's whether there's enough evidence to make a credible case. I sat on a grand jury: The rules are that if there aren't enough votes for a bill, it's "no bill." Get it? Kind of simple, really. There's no requirement that a majority vote against a bill—the onus is on the DA to convince a majority that he has a ham sandwich.
So what did the jury do—not vote? If I were his lawyer, I'd argue right now that that's "no bill." They wouldn't vote for it, so it got zero votes and lost.
I guess you’ve probably read far enough by now to see that this was a case of a bad headline and sloppy reporting. All the GJ did was go home for the weekend without coming to a decision, and will reconvene Monday.
No story there, just bad reporting.