[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, it isn't my theory, just a possibility.

And considering that this is one of the longest GJ investigation in Northern California history, and it spanned 3 seperate Grand Juries, 3 AG's, 2 US attorneys, 4 years, and untold amount of tax dollars....I would hardly call this case "normal".

[ QUOTE ]
Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally, sure. In this case, when former US attorney Ryan announced publically that they were conducted the GJ investigation, and courtesy of the illegal leaks....it was very much public....and a failure to indict would have been very public as well.

Considering also, that the GJ term was set to expire on Friday, it would have been unlikely to empanel a new 4th jury under the new AG, and they indicted with what they had on the next to last day, without any new evidence in over three years....

All in all, I think they felt they didn't have enough to indict without Greg's testimony, which is what they've said in open court, and despite his continued refusal to cooperate, they went with what they had and are hoping it's enough to influence public opinion (potential jurors), as they're only otehr option was to dismiss without indictment.

At least, I hope that is the case....otherwise the DA's office lied to the court, and they wrongfully and punitively imprisoned Greg for his refusal to testify, despite their previous agreements with him that he would never have to testify again.

Plain and simple, the US attorney's office was extremely shady and dishonest in their dealings with witnesses, attempting to coerce them and going back on previous deals, and it didn't work.

Like Mike Rains said, everything you need to know about their case was that it was sent to every major media outlet in advance of the conference, and prior to informing the defense or the accused.