and in a few other outlets I think.

Well, the problem is not that there are no cross-examinations (in fact, she could have been cross-examined by the prosecutor or even not included in the witness list), but that the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney and not as a prosecutor.

The problem here is that the grand-jury was not convened to decide if there was enough probable cause to indict, but in order for the prosecutor not to take the responsibility for not indicting (hey, regular people did it, So it is not his fault).

What I saw a couple of weeks ago just quoted the testimony to show how improbable it was. Now they know her name and about her history of mental illness and the earlier cases in which she claimed to be a witness despite having no connection to the events.

This is pretty bizarre to say the least.

Witness #40 should never have been allowed to testify and the fact that she did is indicative that the fix was in.

all 3 be facing disbarment and criminal federal charges for misprision of a felony (suborning perjury) and conspiracy to obstruct justice. This has now moved way, way beyond killer cop Wilson.

they will convene a grand jury to look into it any day now.

So, no.

A prosecutor could seat a new grand jury at any time.

Double jeopardy doesn't apply to grand juries, only trials.

That's just for starters.

he should be prosecuted and disbarred.