Kelty Is No Better Then Me

I did not vote for Matt Kelty in the primary election back in May. I voted for Nelson Peters because I thought Kelty was too far to the right on several political issues. Not that he was a good or bad guy for which I already knew he was a good guy.
At this time I believe Kelty is innocent of the charges the grand jury returned. Under Indiana law Kelty and it may include others became "targets" of a grand jury as set forth by a special prosecutor (SP). The SP did assemble material and witnesses he felt was needed to explore if any crime(s) MAY have been committed. The SP would ask questions in seeking answers to such. The grand jury would then JUDGE the information, based on what they had heard and seen, if said person should face a formal trial to determine the issues presented.
The target of the grand jury has no right to question any witness or material to clarify anything that is presented. I have no clue as to what questions where ask of witnesses about the Indiana state provided filing forms that do not provide any place for information that now is being argued. If you read the Indiana law about the issue you can get two different opinions if you are open minded. So who is right? The court will decide after a full hearing.
When it comes to the perjury charges they are most serious charges. Again, we do not know what witness or witnesses said which resulted in the charges. I believe, we do know two things. Kelty did not take the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid answering the questions and that he kept the same story when he was asked multiple times.
I do not think the grand jury or the SP had an axe to use against Kelty. Each did their job and did it the best they could. The grand jury believed, based on what they heard crimes MAY have been committed. That a formal trial was warranted to explore the issues and issue the final verdict.
While many people think this is some kind of game then they are very sick people. Kelty is fighting for his name, his family, his professional life and freedom. I for one think he should be afforded that chance to defend himself in a court of law and, before group of his peers with all evidence from both sides presented and questioned.