re: #494 RogueOne

I’m highly cynical and that is a real answer.

The prosecution didn’t say “drop it”, they said they didn’t have enough evidence to support the charge.

They did both. There was very little effort at evidence collection. You know that part too, right?

You seriously don’t think that if the prosecution thought they had even a little shot at getting a conviction they weren’t going to jump on it?

Er, yes. There’s any number of ways that prosecutors decide which cases to prosecute, including political ones, not dependent on whether they can or can’t get convictions. It seems odd you’d not know that, since you and I often talk about how sucky it is that prosecutors are basically politicians as well.

So your allegation is that, with no more investigation occurring, the police having said that it was self-defense, months later the prosecutor would suddenly say ‘actually, charge him now’. Why? What would have changed?