I really don’t see what other information they can gather - there are less than a dozen witnesses, and you can only interview them so much.
I have a feeling that the prosecutor and the political establishment are desperately looking to be able to indict Zimmerman, but they know they have nothing to do it with. So they are dragging it out in hope something will show up.
There may be lab tests don’t have results in yet. There may be documents that they haven’t gathered yet – waiting on court orders, or responses from the document holders. Or who knows?
Like I said, if the prosecutor knew they had nothing and were unlikely to get more, IMO she would submit what she has to a grand jury and let it take the hit for refusing to bring charges. Remember, she’s an elected official, not a career state’s attorney, and if she can avoid the political hit of not making any charges, she will.
70 pages…yikes.
I do admire the dedication you guys are putting into this discussion. 
The NBC reporter on the scene is giving this an opposite spin to my reading of it. According to him. she “doesn’t need” the grand jury, and so has already decided to bring charges and is looking ahead to the next phase of preparing for a trial. I don’t buy it, because if she’s that confident she would already have brought charges, or simply announced she was bringing charges instead of going to the grand jury.
Corey has decided to redo all the evidence from scratch and has only been on the job for 2 1/2 weeks and only has two assistants. This may just mean that she isn’t ready yet. As long as she doesn’t indict Zimmerman, she doesn’t have any time constraints.
Based on what I’ve read about Angela Corey this isn’t surprising. She’s also not afraid of controversy whatsoever, if she thinks there is a case she’ll bring it under her own initiative which means she will take full blame if she loses at trial. For any of the potential crimes they might charge Zimmerman with a grand jury is not required under Florida law, so in reality the real use for them in such cases is it provides the prosecutor an “out.”
If the grand jury doesn’t indict, the prosecutor can say “well, the case was so weak it could not survive grand jury scrutiny, so obviously it would not be wise for me to have filed charges without a grand jury.” If the jury indicts but the prosecutor loses at trial they can say “well, we had to respect the decision of the grand jury to indict, but really this case was not one that we would normally have charged on ourselves.”
Corey was portrayed very early on as someone that did not use a grand jury unless legally required, because she wants whatever decision that comes down to be represented as her decision under the law. If she thinks there is any case against Zimmerman I think she’ll file charges against him–and given her previously having no problem with causing massive controversy I also think if she feels there isn’t a case she won’t hesitate to come out and say she isn’t going to charge him.
I knew she had a history of not using grand juries, but the info in this quote is new to me. Can you provide an example of her causing a “massive controversy”?
So much time has passed. I hope Uhrig and Sonner aren’t coaching Zimmerman to embellish his account. 
From what I read, her decision to try 12 year old Cristian Fernandez as an adult would qualify as ‘massive controversy’.
I wasn’t wrong about what you wrote. What you wrote was not a mea culpa, because it did not acknowledge anywhere that you had made an error.
Now, why do I care? Because you have been a very vocal participant to this thread – every post you make says, in essence, “Care about my opinion!!” So I care about your opinion because you asked me to care about your opinion.
This reminds me of a scene in the Tom Cruise classic “Risky Business.” Cruise’s character Joel is a straight-laced, obedient kid, constantly urged by his trouble-making friend Miles to abandon caution, to take a chance. “Joel, you wanna know something?” Miles exhorts. “Every now and then say, ‘What the fuck.’ ‘What the fuck’ gives you freedom. Freedom brings opportunity. Opportunity makes your future.”
Sure enough, Joel throws caution to the winds and gets into semi-serious trouble. In a panic, he begs Miles for help; Miles refuses, saying he has no time because has to study for his SATs.
“But what about all that ‘just say what the fuck’ business you were telling me?” Joel demands. “Didn’t you mean it? Or was that all just bullshit?”
“That was all just bullshit, Joel,” Miles calmly replies. “I’m surprised you listened to me.”
Aren’t people outraged about this? I mean, your post as much as admits that the decision to bring charges against Zimmerman is being driven by public pressure, not a dispassionate analysis of the legal merits of the charge. Is that how we want our justice system to operate? Isn’t anyone going to be outraged at this assault on Zimmerman’s rights?
And I don’t demand that you disembowel yourself in shame. But it would be nicely honest if you admit that you relied heavily on that 250 pound report, and it was wrong.
And it’s this that goes to the heart of my disagreement with you. I kept saying, in effect, we don’t know – let’s hold off judgment until the facts are in. You, in effect, said that we didn’t need to; that sufficient facts existed for us to form conclusions.
Now we see that one key fact you relied upon was wrong. You didn’t make it up (unlike some of your true flights of fancy) but accurately relayed it from published reports. But the problem with early reports is: they often get it wrong. which is one reason I counseled patience and forbearance.
What else that you relied upon was wrong?
I don’t know.
And neither do you.
How many times did I type those lines in this thread?
My post doesn’t ‘admit’ anything. It’s my spin on explaining Corey’s rational, which may or may not be true.
You think it is a “miscarriage of justice” for a prosecutor who is not confident of an indictment or ultimate conviction to nevertheless present the available evidence to a grand jury?
BTW, I’ve now seen Crump, the defense attorney, commenting on the announcement, saying the family anticipated this, because there is no need for a grand jury to establish probable cause for an arrest. The interviewer didn’t ask, not did Crump volunteer why, if this is true, an arrest hadn’t already been made.
I think the family’s position is that probable cause exists right now, and an arrest should be made immediately.
And what I think is an outrage (although frankly an all-too-familiar one) is a prosecutor deciding what to do based on public reaction, rather than based on the application of law to the facts as she believes them to be.
Then you can feel more comforted by another spin more favorable to your your view, because in fact the prosecutor has done nothing, and may end up doing nothing. Or is doing nothing in the hope that more evidence will be available later to assist in making a decision, which is not at all antithetical toward your hopes.
My spin is one based on her being an elected public official, more concerned with her own political future than any particular issue of the moment. Perhaps not every single elected official thinks this way, but I’m hard pressed to name one.
I’ve stated more than once that Zimmerman deserves the full protection of the law, and that any case against him should proceed solely on it’s merits, and not because of the howling of a mob.
So yes, if Zimmerman were to be arrested, charged, and tried, and it turn out at the trial that the evidence doesn’t reach the level where he should have been arrested, I would feel his rights have been violated. As it is, I don’t particularly like the situation where every detail of the characters of both Martin and Zimmerman are revealed, and feel that there would be ample time for that when the case is concluded.
I’m not currently outraged at the treatment of Zimmerman, but I’m disappointed how many people have no respect for the law.
I’m not seeing an “if” in that paragraph. Are you saying that has already happened?
There are other ways to indicate the subjunctive mood besides ‘if.’
For example, “I wish” or “I think…” is sometimes a clue that the immediately following sentiment is expressed in the subjunctive.
So, no. I’m saying I think that would be a terrible thing, if it happened.
And? So what? You’re the only one who cares.
Not exactly. He’s the only poster poster paying any attention to your claims at all. Bit i agree with you that it works out to the same thing.