Skippy Gets Arrested

[me]

Well, I see where a Grand Jury has re-indicted Skippy and this time his brother Roger and Skippy's ex-wife have also been charged with the very same indent(s) that started this topic in the first place. . .

[Palehorse]

And once again the charges are dismissed. . . and he is reinstated. . .

[Y]

This entire fiasco - from the beginning - has been Anderson politics as usual.  Disgusting.

[Anne]

It always helps to have friends in high places.

[The Troll]

It always helps to have friends in high places.

  Anne your a just a man hater, you want to nail every man, just like you hated Bill Clinton for getting a blow job in "YOUR" White House.    Like you wouldn't use any help from someone in a high place.     

[Y]

It always helps to have friends in high places.

Are you suggesting the charges have been dropped twice against Ockomon because of malfeasance by friends of his in positions of authority?

[Anne]

Nope, I am just saying it never hurts to have friends in high places. There was evidently enough evidence for the grand jury to indict but not enough to go to trial so now it is over.

[The Troll]

Nope, I am just saying it never hurts to have friends in high places. There was evidently enough evidence for the grand jury to indict but not enough to go to trial so now it is over.

  You get a sneaky Prosecutor and a flock of Sheeple, you can indict a ham sandwich.  In this case Skippy was the ham sandwich.   

[Y]

Nope, I am just saying it never hurts to have friends in high places. There was evidently enough evidence for the grand jury to indict but not enough to go to trial so now it is over.

I suspect you don't know how a grand jury works.  Grand juries are usually what prosecutors use when they haven't enough evidence, or credible evidence, to indict in front of a judge.  With a grand jury, all the prosecutor has to do is to convince the rubes making up the grand jury that whomever the prosecutor is after should be indicted for trial.  The evidence is far secondary to the prosecutor's ability to persuade.  As far as the idea that there must be something to the case because the grand jury indicted, well that's not an idea worth the effort it takes to entertain it.

[me]

There would be in most cases, however in this case we are talking about minor children who related the information only a few years ago, and the investigating officer, (his brother), failed to follow protocol and did not inform the prosecutors on the case back then, but buried it.

The victim(s) then sought out state police who DID investigate the crime(s) and provided their report(s) to the prosecutors office.

Molestation of minor children often only comes to light as the individuals become adults, and in some cases the  crimes are illegally hidden until the victims become adults and choose to pursue the issue themselves, as in the current case with Sandusky.

The bolded part is what makes this one look suspicious.  Why would they have made his brother the investigating officer in the first place?