@#2 ... the star detective crashed as a witness among other strange evidentiary revelations. ...

OK, so the accusations seemed to have had evidentiary issues?

Is this the first time this has happened?

While I do admit, it may be significant, but wow, for days this has been a main news story.

Why this case?

Why has it bled from the Boston area into NYC media?

What is so significant?

@#5

Thanks for the follow-up.

But, at this point, I still do not see the significance in this case.

Yeah, law enforcement may have over-reached.

And a re-trial fixed that error.

Great!

But, why the brouhaha?

@#7 ... Just an interesting factual case. In order for her to be acquitted, the jurors had to believe that the testimony of numerous police officers who were at the party that night was not credible beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

And, unlike the Rodney King case or the seven minute choking death by cop case in MN some years back, the jurors did not have a video of the incident to reassure themselves the police officers were not fully credible. This does not happen very often.

Jurors pretty much always side with the cops, especially when there are a lot of them pointing the finger at the same person. As EtAl said, there were many demonstrable evidentiary inconsistencies coming from law enforcement during the trial that an intellectually honest juror could not simply ignore. ...

Bodacious gratitude to you and Et_Al for the comments.

I learned things on this thread.

thx.