What decided this case for you?

[joko104]

Nearly off of us long ago concluded GZ is likely guilty or likely not guilty. Now we just present and repeat everything over and over and over - then someone knew starts at square one and we all go thru it again.

1. Want "fact" (or circumstantially based speculation) MOST caused your decision,
2. Outside of statutory law, do you have some personal opinion that forms your moral decision on the incident and,
3. Is your moral/ethical view of the case different than what you think the legal outcome should be in law?

I had stated for weeks that one piece of evidence unknown would make my decision - the forensics report on TM's body. Specifically was there "fight" injury against TM and more importantly what was the range of the gunshot?

Personally, I think TM and GZ were both losers. TM was a look-at-me! defiant punk. GZ was a lower than average (half of people are) nobody and failure in life trying to find anything to make him valuable. In my opinion, both stupidly proactively walked into potential violence neither were prepared to deal with. "A man has got to know his limitations."

I don't care if GZ's story has contradictions. Everyone lies to protect themselves and no one can give a full recount of a fight - even those in it. The last real fight I was in that person told the investigator that I just kept hitting and beating on him - though actually it was likely less than 3 seconds I was hitting him. Though he believed what he said 100%. He wasn't lying to his mind, and his story did change in details otherwise as he retold it. So I don't care about inconsistencies in what GZ or anyone else said.

Since the facts do show 1.) GZ was on the ground and 2.) he has fight damage and TM did not, the decisive question then was the range of the gun shot. If within inches or a couple feet, there is at least reasonable doubt that he fired in self defense against an assailant (I don't care if later examination determined it life-threatening or not). If it was at a range of many feet, it was not self defense, it was minimally retailatory - thus manslaughter or murder.

My decision then made when it learned the shot was fired at nearly point-blank range. And only 1 shot fired.


I think my opinion is consistent with Florida criminal law.


My ethics are a bit different from law. I think if two men both proactively enter into an aggressive and violent situation, however it turns out is just between them. It is not our concern of the outcome and certainly not to spend millions of we-the-people's money on it. There are millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of victims of violence that they did not proactively get her/himself into and instead hopelessly did everything possible to avoid it. So since GZ and TM both proactively entered the events leading to violent, I don't care that TM died and wouldn't if instead it had been GZ. I have no interest is splitting hairs in the context of non-existence utopian nature of how men should behave when it becomes violent between them.

What "fact" or aspect of the case made the decision for you (unless you just let the initial media reports do it for you from the start)? Since most of us are 100% familiar with each other's overall opinion and on all specific "issues" too, what DETAIL most matters to YOU?

 

[tessaesque]

I don't know about "guilty" vs. "not guilty". I believe based on what has been provided that George Zimmerman 100% thought he was in danger at the exact moment that he shot Trayvon Martin. What I don't believe, however, is that GZ ended up in that position through no fault of his own. And that's where things get tricky for me.

I have a hard time reconciling no-fault self defense given what we know. It certainly seems like GZ made several bad decisions, including his decision to actively ignore the guidance of the 911 operator by tailing TM as he walked around the complex property. I think most logical people, NW members or not, would call to report suspicious activity, provide a description of the person/activity observed, and then provide their contact information for police to follow-up. I don't think most people would actively make themselves known to a suspected criminal and interject themselves into a risky scenario, gun at hip or not.

So it comes down to two things for me:

1. Martin shouldn't have confronted GZ (corroborated by the girlfriend and GZ).
2. GZ shouldn't have trailed Martin through the complex, attempting to interject in the assumed commission of a crime on TM's part.

Both guys made terrible decisions and the result was one guy dead. I think GZ and TM both behaved poorly. I don't know if that is enough to warrant 2nd degree murder, but I also don't personally think it should exempt GZ from responsibility under the guise of self-defense. Of course, as the law is written, he absolutely would retain those exemptions under the SYG terminology.

 

[ric27]

The way, the state has confabulated every prosecutorial trick in the book to disingenuously maintain a charge of M2 when the facts simply in no way, shape nor form support that charge.

Its simply prosecutorial misconduct and abuse rearing its ugly head

 

[joko104]

So it comes down to two things for me:

1. Martin shouldn't have confronted GZ (corroborated by the girlfriend and GZ).
2. GZ shouldn't have trailed Martin through the complex, attempting to interject in the assumed commission of a crime on TM's part.
absolutely would retain those exemptions under the SYG terminology.

^ Very rational way to look at it.

 

[joko104]

h

The way, the state has confabulated every prosecutorial trick in the book to disingenuously maintain a charge of M2 when the facts simply in no way, shape nor form support that charge.

Its simply prosecutorial misconduct and abuse rearing its ugly head

^That is the only reason I think this case is such a big deal. If it had just been sent to the grand jury thru normal police and DA procedures, then those citizens decided to indict or not, it wouldn't be.

 

[JackFrost]

George Zimmerman's recorded call to police dispatch decided it for me. I can easily evaluate and determine his intentions from that call. He is responsible for escalating the situation, and TM's death. A clear cut case of murder to the 2. I predicted the charge, and now I predict a conviction.

I also successfully predicted:

1. Joe Horn not being charged
2. Casey Anthony's non-conviction
3. Emmitt, Apolo, Brooke, Shawn, Jennifer and Hines Ward winning on DWTS in their respective seasons <---100% win ratio, did not see the other seasons
4. Lakers winning it all in '09 & '10<----I was wrong in '08

So yeah I feel pretty confident about my prediction

 

[tessaesque]

George Zimmerman's recorded call to police dispatch decided it for me. I can easily evaluate and determine his intentions from that call. He is responsible for escalating the situation, and TM's death. A clear cut case of murder to the 2. I predicted the charge, and now I predict a conviction.

I also successfully predicted:

1. Joe Horn not being charged
2. Casey Anthony's non-conviction
3. Emmitt, Apolo, Brooke, Shawn, Jennifer and Hines Ward winning on DWTS in their respective seasons <---100% win ratio, did not see the other seasons
4. Lakers winning it all in '09 & '10<----I was wrong in '08

So yeah I feel pretty confident about my prediction

I told somebody about half-way through the trial that Casey was going to be cleared of all of the murder and manslaughter charges (though she might get neglect/child endangerment) and I thought they were going to have a heart attack. They were, of course, HUGE Nancy Grace fans.

 

[Pinkie]

I am waiting for the trial. I'm not convinced there's a better way for me to know what happened.

I, for one, do not believe the SYG law is an invitation to seek out violent confrontations so as to be able to kill another person.

 

[Pinkie]

I told somebody about half-way through the trial that Casey was going to be cleared of all of the murder and manslaughter charges (though she might get neglect/child endangerment) and I thought they were going to have a heart attack. They were, of course, HUGE Nancy Grace fans.

I was 100% shocked by that verdict. Why did you expect it?

 

[tessaesque]

I was 100% shocked by that verdict. Why did you expect it?

Few reasons:

1. The trial was long, and I think it numbed the jury to some of the evidence.
2. The expert witnesses completely contradicted one another on first testimony and on re-calls.
3. There was no physical evidence that satisfactorily proved Kaylee had been murdered based on the level of decay at the time her body was discovered. The ME based her classification of homicide on the body's resting place and the evidence around the body.
4. While there was plenty of evidence to convince the jury that Casey was a walking hot mess, every single witness with knowledge attested to her being a doting mother, and I think the jury had a hard time reconciling that testimony with the cold blooded killer the prosecution presented.
5. The biggest circumstantial evidence was the trunk, and the evidence was so conflicting and full of holes that it was hard for the prosecution to convince the jury that a body had ever been in there.

 

[joko104]

George Zimmerman's recorded call to police dispatch decided it for me. I can easily evaluate and determine his intentions from that call. He is responsible for escalating the situation, and TM's death. A clear cut case of murder to the 2. I predicted the charge, and now I predict a conviction.

I also successfully predicted:

1. Joe Horn not being charged
2. Casey Anthony's non-conviction
3. Emmitt, Apolo, Brooke, Shawn, Jennifer and Hines Ward winning on DWTS in their respective seasons <---100% win ratio, did not see the other seasons
4. Lakers winning it all in '09 & '10<----I was wrong in '08

So yeah I feel pretty confident about my prediction

I have a 100% batting average on end of the world predictions. I have always said it wouldn't and I have been 100% correct.

I think that phone call is very decisive for many people.

Did I read you predict "Murder 2" conviction?

 

[JackFrost]

I have a 100% batting average on end of the world predictions. I have always said it wouldn't and I have been 100% correct.

I think that phone call is very decisive for many people.

Did I read you predict "Murder 2" conviction?

Second-degree murder. I call it murder 2 for short. And yes- I predict a conviction.

end-o-world predictions are too easy. Anyone can predict those.

I am not always right though. I thought for sure some bank CEO's and/or Wall Street fat cats would have charges filed on them concerning the housing crisis. Boy was I wrong:lol:

 

[ric27]

Few reasons:

1. The trial was long, and I think it numbed the jury to some of the evidence.
2. The expert witnesses completely contradicted one another on first testimony and on re-calls.
3. There was no physical evidence that satisfactorily proved Kaylee had been murdered based on the level of decay at the time her body was discovered. The ME based her classification of homicide on the body's resting place and the evidence around the body.
4. While there was plenty of evidence to convince the jury that Casey was a walking hot mess, every single witness with knowledge attested to her being a doting mother, and I think the jury had a hard time reconciling that testimony with the cold blooded killer the prosecution presented.
5. The biggest circumstantial evidence was the trunk, and the evidence was so conflicting and full of holes that it was hard for the prosecution to convince the jury that a body had ever been in there.

That's the aftermath....and easily, you get, the end result. The beginnings is the crucial part and this happens when...

The prosecution jumps the gun, and tries to get a big glamorous 1st degree murder (death penalty) case with out having any/enough conclusive, physical, evidence. If the prosecutor wanted his 15 minutes of fame for sending Casey to jail. Well he has fame. Not quite what he hoped for though.

This the same result that will happen to Corey

 

[JackFrost]

That's the aftermath....and easily, you get, the end result. The beginnings is the crucial part and this happens when...

The prosecution jumps the gun, and tries to get a big glamorous 1st degree murder (death penalty) case with out having any/enough conclusive, physical, evidence. If the prosecutor wanted his 15 minutes of fame for sending Casey to jail. Well he has fame. Not quite what he hoped for though.

This the same result that will happen to Corey

This is clearly not the case with this trial. The prosecutor did not jump the gun (hehe) here. Second Degree murder is appropriate. If this was first degree, then I would be your brother in arms fighting all the Travonites:lol:

 

[joko104]

From the start I felt the prosecution screwed up by giving the jury no choice but murder on Casey Anthony. Felony child abandonment and neglect/abuse should have been in the charges. Her child missing and her lying to the police about it - and it proven she had lied about where her child was. Losing a child, lying about it when the police start questioning to block any search, isn't murder. But it sure is unlawful. You can't just lose a child, not give a damn and lie when the police and others do.

 

[joko104]

Why does no one see significant or even tend to mention/consider the first encounter? That is TM coming towards GZ while he is talking on the phone to the police telephone receptionist, and then (apparently) seeing GZ on the phone turning and running? But for that, I don't think GZ would have gotten out of his truck - and if TM already seemed suspicious that would add to it.

If you were on the phone to the police reporting someone you thought acting suspicious around your neighbors house - and the person approached you, saw you on the phone and then ran - would you try to see where that person ran off to - with the police on the way?

This is what GZ "should" have done. Nothing. he should have waited for the police to arrive. Then when asked if he saw where that person ran off to, GZ should have answered "Of course not. Who the hell do you think I am, Judge Dread? Its not MY job to watch where he went. It's YOUR job to go find him!"

To me, that's absurd. If the suspicion was worth calling the police to my mind and I had gotten the police coming, I think I have an obligation to at least minimally tell the police where that person ran off to. Watching this from the street or sidewalk isn't chasing the person. Its minimally trying to maintain some idea of where the person is - knowing I had the police on the way.

Again, but for that, I do not believe GZ would have gotten out of his truck. I believe THAT first encounter - started by TM (though not illegal) - is what got the ball rolling. The second encounter - also an approach that appears initiated by TM - is what turned it to violence. Who did the actual whatever that took that face-to-face with both demanding the other answer a question - starting with TM making a demand - from non-violence to violence none of us can ever really know, can we?

It does appear TM made the first face-to-face approach, then TM made the second face-to-face approach and the first aggressive/challenging demand. All GZ did was call in a non-emergency report to the police and then try to see where that person went - best the facts seem to tell me.


I believe the first encounter is what got this all spinning out of control. Yet it seems no one else thinks it has any relevancy at all.

 

[joko104]

This is clearly not the case with this trial. The prosecutor did not jump the gun (hehe) here. Second Degree murder is appropriate. If this was first degree, then I would be your brother in arms fighting all the Travonites:lol:

In bypassing the grand jury I think that is exactly what the prosecutor did. The SWORN testimony before a grand jury on transcript would have locked down every witness, cop and invesigator's statement - rather than basically everyone perpetually changing their story generally and in specifics - with none of it sworn to.

For nearly every witness and every cop, and GZ, including all prosecution witnesses, it is now a matter of multiple-choice for each witness of which of multiple statements they made you want to believe? That should not happen in any case, certainly not a murder case, and it was - specifically - bypassing the grand jury that is the reason.

That is one of many good reasons the US Constitution's Bill of Rights guarentees a person can not be brought to trial on an "infamous charge" UNLESS a citizen's grand jury first indicts the person - which never happened in this case.

If a murder case starts out this screwed up it can never be made fully legitimate. That does not preclude a guilty verdict being reached. I don't know how this case will turn out.

 

[Pinkie]

Why does no one see significant or even tend to mention/consider the first encounter? That is TM coming towards GZ while he is talking on the phone to the police telephone receptionist, and then (apparently) seeing GZ on the phone turning and running? But for that, I don't think GZ would have gotten out of his truck - and if TM already seemed suspicious that would add to it.

If you were on the phone to the police reporting someone you thought acting suspicious around your neighbors house - and the person approached you, saw you on the phone and then ran - would you try to see where that person ran off to - with the police on the way?

This is what GZ "should" have done. Nothing. he should have waited for the police to arrive. Then when asked if he saw where that person ran off to, GZ should have answered "Of course not. Who the hell do you think I am, Judge Dread? Its not MY job to watch where he went. It's YOUR job to go find him!"

To me, that's absurd. If the suspicion was worth calling the police to my mind and I had gotten the police coming, I think I have an obligation to at least minimally tell the police where that person ran off to. Watching this from the street or sidewalk isn't chasing the person. Its minimally trying to maintain some idea of where the person is - knowing I had the police on the way.

Again, but for that, I do not believe GZ would have gotten out of his truck. I believe THAT first encounter - started by TM (though not illegal) - is what got the ball rolling. The second encounter - also an approach that appears initiated by TM - is what turned it to violence. Who did the actual whatever that took that face-to-face with both demanding the other answer a question - starting with TM making a demand - from non-violence to violence none of us can ever really know, can we?

It does appear TM made the first face-to-face approach, then TM made the second face-to-face approach and the first aggressive/challenging demand. All GZ did was call in a non-emergency report to the police and then try to see where that person went - best the facts seem to tell me.


I believe the first encounter is what got this all spinning out of control. Yet it seems no one else thinks it has any relevancy at all.

Even if your read on the facts is correct, I don't buy the corollary you seem to imply: that if I see a stranger acting suspiciously, I have SYG license to hunt him up, confront him, and kill him.

I don't think I can arm myself, seek out violent confrontations and then claim SYG absolves me of any guilt.

 

[Pinkie]

In bypassing the grand jury I think that is exactly what the prosecutor did. The SWORN testimony before a grand jury on transcript would have locked down every witness, cop and invesigator's statement - rather than basically everyone perpetually changing their story generally and in specifics - with none of it sworn to.

For nearly every witness and every cop, and GZ, including all prosecution witnesses, it is now a matter of multiple-choice for each witness of which of multiple statements they made you want to believe? That should not happen in any case, certainly not a murder case, and it was - specifically - bypassing the grand jury that is the reason.

That is one of many good reasons the US Constitution's Bill of Rights guarentees a person can not be brought to trial on an "infamous charge" UNLESS a citizen's grand jury first indicts the person - which never happened in this case.

If a murder case starts out this screwed up it can never be made fully legitimate. That does not preclude a guilty verdict being reached. I don't know how this case will turn out.

I'm not aware the US Constitution guarantees any such thing, but I'm not a criminal lawyer. Please explain which part of the Constitution you rely on for this "protection".

As for using a grand jury, I agree it would have been wiser, but I don't see a fatal flaw in not having done so. The criminal justice system in this country would grind to a halt if that were a prerequiste to every arrest.

 

[joko104]

Even if your read on the facts is correct, I don't buy the corollary you seem to imply: that if I see a stranger acting suspiciously, I have SYG license to hunt him up, confront him, and kill him.

I don't think I can arm myself, seek out violent confrontations and then claim SYG absolves me of any guilt.

If you believe GZ "hunted" TM, then "confronted" TM to kill him, yes, that would be murder. I don't think facts support that, but this isn't really a dispute details thread.

Is there a specific detail(s) that lead you to conclude that GZ hunted and confronted TM?

 

[Pinkie]

If you believe GZ "hunted" TM, then "confronted" TM to kill him, yes, that would be murder. I don't think facts support that, but this isn't really a dispute details thread.

Is there a specific detail(s) that lead you to conclude that GZ hunted and confronted TM?

No, as I don't feel I have any facts yet, other than that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

My point is, if the prosecution can show Zimmerman was eager to kill and sought out violent confrontations he thought would fit the SYG criteria before the night he shot Martin, that would be substantial evidence of Zimmerman's guilt.

Justifiable homicide, even under SYG, still turns on the defendant's reasonable perception of threat and his state of mind.

 

[tessaesque]

From the start I felt the prosecution screwed up by giving the jury no choice but murder on Casey Anthony. Felony child abandonment and neglect/abuse should have been in the charges. Her child missing and her lying to the police about it - and it proven she had lied about where her child was. Losing a child, lying about it when the police start questioning to block any search, isn't murder. But it sure is unlawful. You can't just lose a child, not give a damn and lie when the police and others do.

She was charged with child abuse and manslaughter

On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, but guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

In Florida, a higher count includes all related counts below it. So for 1st degree murder, they can find her guilty of 2nd or 3rd if they do not agree with a conviction of 1st.

 

[ric27]

This is clearly not the case with this trial. The prosecutor did not jump the gun (hehe) here. Second Degree murder is appropriate. If this was first degree, then I would be your brother in arms fighting all the Travonites:lol:

Did you read the affidavit of probable cause - second degree murder in this case?

Tell me EXACTLY where it refers to or establishes, the elements of the charged crime?

 

[joko104]

I'm not aware the US Constitution guarantees any such thing, but I'm not a criminal lawyer. Please explain which part of the Constitution you rely on for this "protection".

As for using a grand jury, I agree it would have been wiser, but I don't see a fatal flaw in not having done so. The criminal justice system in this country would grind to a halt if that were a prerequiste to every arrest.

It does NOT apply to all criminal cases or even to an arrest. Rather only for a trial and only for "captial" and "infamous" crimes. I think "murder" is as infamous crime as can be. In short, it would only apply in death penalty cases, murder cases, possibly serial rapists and treason. No other cases would require a grand jury, though some state DO use a grand jury for all felony cases before taking a case to trial - not as a pre-requiste for arrest.

Instead, after an arrest for a serious felony they then have the grand jury decide should it proceed to trial or not. If not, the person is "no billed" (though with more evidence could bring it back to the grand jury as there is no "double jeopardy" protection regarding grand jury decisions). If the grand jury doesn't think there is enough evidence to "probably" convict the person, they "no bill"and the person is released from jail. Again, if more evidence is learned it can be brought back to the grand jury asking again for an indictment - and there is no statute of limitations on murder either. If, at any time, the grand jury thinks there is enough evidence to probably convict, they indict ("true bill") the accused, who is then re-arrested if not already and taken to trial.

Since it is MUCH easier to get an indictment than a conviction in trial, if a DA believes he/she can't get an indictment it is a waste of time to take to trial and only a harassment at best.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The grand jury process also avoids wasted trials. The standard of a jury is ONLY to find 1.) a crime occurred and 2.) the accused "probably" did it. However, at trial, this escalates to "beyond any reasonable doubt" did it. Thus, if a case can't clear a grand jury with the lesser standard it likely then certainly can't clear a criminal trial of the stricter standard.

A grand jury also has inquiry powers - meaning can call witnesses on its own, even conduct its own investigation. It also may allow a defendant to testify. A GREAT aspect of Grand Juries is that other than one prosecutor, NO ONE gets to have their lawyer present. That cuts thru all the crap. Any witness can "take the 5th," but 12 people asking straight forward fact-questions without lawyers interrupting every 5th word makes it EXTREMELY difficult to be evasive. Plus a grand jury CAN hear "hearsay" (what someone heard someone else say) if it wants to. Grand juries are VERY powerful if they want to be at truly learning the truth without all the legaleze games.

And there are a dozen citizens - each their own perspective - each who are asking witnessess questions. It is much more difficult to lie to a grand jury than in a trial. And basically impossible for anyone to change their story after testifying before a grand jury - doing so under oath and on transcript. The grand jury also has FAR MORE investigatory power than police, so can often find out what police can't - because a grand jury has subpoena power and the police don't.

A grand jury also CAN order anyone (except defendant) to testify under oath - like it or not - and jail them if they won't. Anyone can refuse to talk to the police. They can't to a grand jury. IF a person did take the 5th, the grand jury can actually get around that and force it anyway in various ways - again except the defendant. However, they usually DO give a defendant the right to testify and tell his/her side - but with no lawyer covering his/her ass if he/she does.

This was a safeguard and massive investigation and fact-resource that should NOT have been bypassed - but was bypassed because of all the politicians clamoring and even calling for race riots. Regardless of all, this safeguard (and right) should not have been bypassed.

What happened without the grand jury process, then, is every witness, every cop, GZ, TM's father, etc anyone felt free to change their stories however they wanted to with no fear of perjury nor under oath as they told their original and then each corrected version.

No one, ever, has given a good reason the citizen's grand jury was bypassed in this case.

 

[Pinkie]

It does NOT apply to all criminal cases or even to an arrest. Rather only for a trial and only for "captial" and "infamous" crimes. I think "murder" is as infamous crime as can be. In short, it would only apply in death penalty cases, murder cases, possibly serial rapists and treason. No other cases would require a grand jury, though some state DO use a grand jury for all felony cases before taking a case to trial - not as a pre-requiste for arrest.

Instead, after an arrest for a serious felony they then have the grand jury decide should it proceed to trial or not. If not, the person is "no billed" (though with more evidence could bring it back to the grand jury as there is no "double jeopardy" protection regarding grand jury decisions). If the grand jury doesn't think there is enough evidence to "probably" convict the person, they "no bill"and the person is released from jail. Again, if more evidence is learned it can be brought back to the grand jury asking again for an indictment - and there is no statute of limitations on murder either.

5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The grand jury process also avoids wasted trials. The standard of a jury is ONLY to find 1.) a crime occurred and 2.) the accused "probably" did it. However, at trial, this escalates to "beyond any reasonable doubt" did it. Thus, if a case can't clear a grand jury with the lesser standard it likely then certainly can't clear a criminal trial of the stricter standard.

A grand jury also has inquiry powers - meaning can call witnesses on its own, even conduct its own investigation. It also may allow a defendant to testify. A GREAT aspect of Grand Juries is that other than one prosecutor, NO ONE gets to have their lawyer present. And there are a dozen citizens - each their own perspective - each who are asking witnessess questions. It is much more difficult to lie to a grand jury than in a trial. And basically impossible for anyone to change their story after testifying before one.

This was a safeguard that should NOT have been bypassed - but was because of all the politicians clamoring and even calling for race riots. Regardless of all, this safeguard (and right) should not have been bypassed. What happened, then, is every witness, every cop, GZ, TM's father, etc anyone felt free to change their stories however they wanted to with no fear of perjury nor under oath as they told their original and then each corrected version.

No one, ever, has given a good reason the citizen's grand jury was bypassed in this case.

I think you have misunderstood the grand jury and the constitution here, joko.

In any event, I don't believe Murder 2 is a "capital crime", as no one can be sentenced to death for it.