wow.

as a defense lawyer that's exactly how i would've defended Wilson.

spot on.

well done.

FOR THE FUCKING DEFENSE.

as he talked about the various credibility problems of certain eyewitnesses i figured he had a real weak case. but then when he talked about the physical evidence i couldn't understand how the grand jury would've failed to indict if he'd only presented 1 or 2 witnesses whose stories best fit the physical facts. and had recommended a charge or charges that best fit the good evidence presented. b/c, you know, that's what prosecutors do at the grand jury. and he could've. and clearly didn't b/c he wanted to pass the buck to this grand jury. and protect Wilson.

i wish one of those reporters had asked homeboy if it's now his office's policy to present grand juries w/all of the evidence in EVERY case. and if not, why'd he do it in this case?

i mean, i know why he did it but i want to hear him lie about that.