That's different from your previous "I think there is enough evidence to indict." which is what I was responding to.
Your remarks didn't address the evidence, just the politics, and the process, in general terms.
No evidence that Wolfinger met with or spoke with Sanford police? None? Well then, what's to discuss. Wolfinger's denial then covers EVERY point in Crump's accusatory letter, and there is no reason for confusion.
See above it’s from
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html
Read more tab of Faq letter
“Your remarks didn’t address the evidence, just the politics, and the process, in general terms.”
Yes, that is true. But you don’t really need much evidence to get an indictment. If the prosecutor says she wants the grand jury to indict, the mere fact that it was Zimmerman’s gun that fired the shot will be more than enough, I think.
More likely, the prosecutor would conclude that she doesn’t want to prosecute this case because she doesn’t think she can win. But since the family and the black community are pushing for it, they are going to let the courts and a jury decide this. The “we can’t win” thought is something you have when you don’t want to waste public resources bringing a case that you’ll ultimately lose anyway. But the public resources are going to be a secondary concern here. They are more concerned about preventing a riot, and preserving their own credibility with the black community. They are advocates, which means that they don’t have to pretend to be unbiased. It’s the jury that needs to be unbiased, and it’s the jury that needs to make the decision.
It sure seems to to me. Plurality, "lies". Not much wiggle room there....