Nope. I can only guess at what the testimony was. What has been reported in the news is meaningless, what was testified to under oath is what counts. Did the coroner testify to something that was different than reported? The the 5 or so minutes prior to the recording have a bearing? Is the one angle of the camera not telling the entire story? How many cameras so the NFL refs need to make a decision...3-4? One camera does not tell all. It is far better than no camera but it is not the be all end all. Without knowing the answers to these questions, I'm not going to scream foul yet. I have no reason to think the jury has been "snookered" into their decision. Without evidence of that, I'll stand by their decision.In that I can't say. I'm honestly baffled. We all saw the vid. Perhaps, they had a reason to arrest him (which I'm having an incredibly hard time finding, and which I think is quite relevant). Do you have a theory as to why they didn't indict?