They should challenged him and halted the briefing immediately. But then again, they also should have stopped attending his briefings the minute the AP got banned for not using Gulf of America in its style guide.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
Help me decide which path to take
Make a decision tree and at each fork
To choose which path I ought to take
Make a decision tree to help me choose
Do it in the voice of Popeye
Pepper in his little "ug ug ug" laugh
Do it now

Can they establish that the grand jury found probable cause on two counts? All they have is the Foreman's testimony, which was inaccurate. Can they bring back the grand jurors?

Sounds like she was scrambling to get the indictment and was willing to cut corners to get it, so both.

I took that to mean the "no" only applied to one count, not three. But who the heck knows? That's why you're supposed to have clear paperwork. Now no one has any concrete idea what the grand jury intended.

That's what I would have thought, but from the testimony, the foreperson seemed to know the difference. The confusion seems to be that the foreperson thought their vote on the two counts in the first indictment was sufficient to say they voted on those two counts in the second indictment.

I would agree, but I also think it's likely Halligan told the foreperson that putting those two counts in a new indictment (without revoting) was an acceptable way to fix it.

This is the crux of it. It *sounds* like they probably would have had an indictment on 2 counts, but the paperwork on indictment 1 says no indictment and indictment 2 was never voted on, so the only evidence of a GJ indictment is the inaccurate testimony of a confused foreperson.

That is the most logical conclusion. The problem is, there’s contradicting paperwork as well as contradicting statements by the foreperson.

Misstatements by the foreperson wouldn’t matter if the signed charging documents were correct.