I do not want a bunch of "anonymous said" people answering this post.
I have a legal question for anyone who understand the legal process.
I hope that one of the lawyers who reads this blog can answer my question.
Please look at the 1st two counts of the Indictments against Matt Kelty.
Do these indictments mean that the Grand Jury feels that Matt Kelty's testimony directly contradicts the testimony of Fred Rost and Don Willis?
I am not a lawyer and I hope that Mr. Barranda and Doug over at Masson's Blog can tell me more about this.
Other readers may understand the legal process more then I do and I would like to know more...