A Grand Jury Presentment is neither true nor false. It is merely the prosecutions argument as to why the Grand Jury should indict. I am staunchly of the opinion that the presentment should NEVER be made public, it should remain within the confines of the Grand Jury secrecy rules. IF the Grand Jury indicts, THEN the prosecutions argument can be made, in court, where the defendants rights can be upheld. PA failed in that regard as it pertains to JS. Does that constitute a new trial? I'm not qualified to make that judgment. I don't feel that you are either but I do respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion.My point is that the GJP was false, that it caused the Press and the Public to turn against Joe Paterno and Penn State, and that it resulted in the patently unfair trial of Jerry Sandusky.
BTW, I don't recall seeing a reply to my question to you of what you view are the right circumstances for vigilante justice.
When the guilt of a defendant/perp is unquestionable and the wheels of justice turn too slowly or not at all, then vigilante justice may be justified, it all depends. I have much patience but little to no confidence in the legal community, it is not beyond my boundaries to act if I feel the need.