"We will not be filing charges against Ms. Kennedy for the same reason we will not be re-filing charges against Mr. Kennedy. I understand and share the frustration people have with Ms. Kennedy. I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt if she is lying now or if she lied in 2001. If a prosecutor is not firmly convinced of the truth of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, they have an ethical duty not to file that charge."As I wrote in the comment section the first time I addressed this:
It's her JOB to "figure it out."...
Because if he DID do it, then he NEEDS to be locked up.
And if he DIDN'T do it, then his false accuser NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP.
Would it be difficult?
Would it take up some of precious prosecutor's precious time? Yeah, well, too bad.
If it has NOT BEEN PROVEN that the daughter lied at the time, where does the PROSECUTOR get off even attempting to overturn a jury verdict without PROOF?And that's the crux of the matter: It should take proof to let this guy out. Don't have it?
Then no deal.
And in this case, the daughter has testified against herself by admitting that she lied.
Put her on the stand, ask her if she lied, and then put her in prison when she admits it.
Simple, really. Otherwise, why would those girls/women planning to do the same thing down the road have any incentive NOT to?