As Aaron Wilson reported on Monday, the office of Napa County (Calif.) District Attorney Gary Lieberstein once again punted any decision in the case involving Raiders head coach Tom Cable’s alleged assault on defensive assistant Randy Hanson until today or Thursday. This is the second time Lieberstein’s office has said more information would be forthcoming and then failed to offer any, and while an update is promised, people have to be asking what’s taking so long?

As a former assistant district attorney and defense attorney and a veteran of more than 1,000 criminal cases, the delay would seem to me to indicate grand jury activity. But grand juries work without a defense attorney or the potential defendant present, so the longer this thing drags on, the more I think an ongoing grand jury presentation is not the problem since it would only take a victim, a doctor and maybe one witness to get an indictment. Rather, it’s the conflicting statements of Hanson and possibly other witnesses that are causing the delay.

When I wrote about Cable a few weeks ago, several readers indicated they thought the case against him was open and shut. They pointed to the fact that in many states prosecutions are carried out against the wishes of the victim, and the district attorney could compel all those present in the room to testify under penalty of perjury. Prosecutors and police like headlines, high-profile cases and “perp-walks,” but they like easy cases more. Hanson, as you may recall, initially denied any assault and only changed his story accusing Cable after meeting with Raiders owner Al Davis and being told he could not return to his coaching role.

In domestic violence situations, it’s true that prosecutors often proceed even if the victim refuses to cooperate. But what enables prosecutors to do so are usually the victim’s initial statements -- sometimes a 911 call or remarks made to a police officer or caregiver -- or the observations of an officer on the scene. Those first-impression statements, often considered the most credible in any case since witnesses are coached as time goes on, can then be introduced as evidence. But Hanson’s first statements are that nothing happened. So Lieberstein’s office seems to be struggling with his credibility. I’ve never heard of a battered-assistant-coach syndrome to explain away conflicting statements.

It’s also true that every witness testifies under penalty of perjury; the vast majority of criminal convictions for perjury do not involve testimonial perjury but intentionally attesting to false facts in documents. It’s rare that someone is tried, let alone convicted, for lying on the witness stand, especially when “I do not recall” is a virtually perjury-proof statement. Prosecutors don’t like to try people for perjury and want to avoid witness-stand surprises even more. So it’s unlikely that Lieberstein will want to bring a case against Cable unless all the other people in the room at the time of the alleged assault corroborate Hanson’s version of events. No prosecutor would just want to put witnesses on the stand and let the chips fall where they may. Prosecutors are expected to get convictions and are careful about the kind of cases they elect to try. As long as there’s a difference of opinion about what witnesses observed, it may be enough to deadlock this matter, especially given Hanson’s conflicting statements.

Lieberstein may also be trying to deal with issues involving the Raiders’ relationship to his county and the revenue they bring by holding training camp there. I think it’s remote that Lieberstein might be looking into a possible cover-up involving Cable and perhaps stretching higher up in the Raiders organization. It would explain the delay, but we aren’t talking about the crime of the century here.

Meanwhile, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to be waiting for Lieberstein’s office to take action against Cable to guide his own disciplinary process. So far, nothing has happened there either.