You seem to be missing the fact that I AM saying that the grand jury voted to indict.In all fairness AK, your argument IS flawed.
You know exactly the point that is being made and due to your own disdain of the reality of what happened with the GJ, you seem to prefer to focus on the fact that the GJ, nor Hunter FILED the charges. The FACT remains that the GJ voted to indict.
That Hunter did not file the charge, nor the GJ, does not change the FACT that the GJ voted to indict
No charges were filed, but the argument is more than valid and in this argument, you are wrong.
If you prefer to ignore the reality, filed charges or not, that is up to you but the FACT and the REALITY is that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys.
The FACT remains that the GJ heard all the evidence and found the Ramseys NOT innocent
That is the point of all this. Ignoring the point of it all doesn't make the Ramseys any more innocent than if they filed the charges and Hunter refused to prosecute
The bottom line is that they WOULD HAVE been indicted FORMALLY had it not been for Hunter preventing it
Why not focus on WHY the GJ voted to indict instead of the minutia of the paperwork?
That would be more productive than trying to bash Steve Eller for pointing it out, semantics or not
It is all semantics which worked in the Ramsey favor in the beginning of this crime. With all that we now know, the semantics no longer whitewash the facts and the actions of the Ramseys, Hunter, the GJ, etc.
We all know too much and can read between the lines and know what all the unspoken words mean and the unspoken words speak loud and clear
However, while technically correct, it is misleading to say that the grand jury indicted just as it is misleading to say that there was no indictment although this too is technically correct. The former is misleading because no indictment was filed, and, the latter is misleading because the grand jury voted to indict. It is more correct to say that although the grand jury voted to indict there was no indictment because the prosecutor did not agree with the juror’s decision.
Also, it is not true that the Jurors found the Ramseys “not innocent.” The jurors simply found that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge against them.