Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dewawi

Goodness are you serious? “New” information is what she’d have to have to charge him because the old information didn’t even meet probably cause. The fact she is saying there is “new” information is an indication that will be the justification why she found probable cause when there was none before she came on board.


25 posted on 04/10/2012 6:28:44 PM PDT by snarkytart (http://www.freerepubli224%2C1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: snarkytart
The fact she is saying there is “new” information...

From this article, I can't seem to find where the Prosecutor ever said there was "new" information.

Only the headline and the commentary on the statement makes that claim.

Perhaps I missed it. Does anyone have the statement they released?

37 posted on 04/10/2012 6:39:18 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: snarkytart
Goodness are you serious? “New” information is what she’d have to have to charge him because the old information didn’t even meet probably cause. The fact she is saying there is “new” information is an indication that will be the justification why she found probable cause when there was none before she came on board.

Better read the article again. The only one saying there is "new" information is WAPO. The Prosecutor merely states she is going to make an announcement. That could mean anything from dropping the investigation to charges. I am betting there will be no charges since the evidence for a conviction isn't there. No Prosecutor wants to go to trial when they know they will lose.

86 posted on 04/10/2012 7:15:42 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson