Maybe "guess again" was too complicated a concept for you. When you're completely clueless, Wikipedia ain't necessarily your friend.
I'm not sure what you're rambling about, but what I posted refutes the statement that was made, and has nothing to do with anything you've said.
Here is the (false) statement I was referring to:
Quote
Guess again.
Grand juries receive and evaluate the evidence presented to them by the prosecutor. They have no right to demand additional evidence
Instead of whining about WIKI, why not prove it's incorrect if you believe that's the case, by showing your own source
Well, I must admit I failed.
I tried to present my post in such a way that even a complete idiot couldn't misread it.
I failed to anticipate the depths of your stupidity.
As I clarified in the later post, which you also were unable to comprehend, grand jurors, sitting on grand juries, (the people from the community making the decision whether or not there exists probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and the individual to be charged was involved in committing it), have no right to demand any additional evidence be presented. The prosecutor runs the show, for good or bad.
