Von Pearson Update

#3,102
#3,102
Brave Volunteer said:
Fingers crossed! I really hope you're right. I just refuse to be optimistic until we receive confirmation.
Click to expand...

Its hard for me to believe the timing is coincidental with the start of fall camp. IMO, there are significant powers at UT that want Von back on the field as bad as we do. IMO, I think everything is just a dog and pony show from this point forward because of the negative press and investigations that are on going. I would be shocked if Von isn't moving in this weekend.
 
#3,103
#3,103
zqvol said:
I don't believe that anyone has said that nothing happened, all the DA said was that they elected not to proceed with the matter. BIG DIFFERENCE
Click to expand...

which means you should go with "nothing happened" until theres a reason to believe otherwise. Bc right now this girls claim is lookin pretty bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,104
#3,104
Can someone clarify with me what the accusation was?

I admit I got tired of this thread and have missed some relevant facts. Maybe others are in the same boat. So last time I saw the specific offence... it was that he had exposed himself to a woman perhaps in an assertive but not aggressive way in the hopes of having sex with her. Is there something more?

If there isn't... and the university is going to be consistent... there are A LOT of guys around campus that should be considering other educational opportunities. Oh, and while we're at it, let's round up all of the women who have flashed guys, exposed their cleavage, et al.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,105
#3,105
zqvol said:
I don't believe that anyone has said that nothing happened, all the DA said was that they elected not to proceed with the matter. BIG DIFFERENCE
Click to expand...

There's a lot of stuff on here floating around about how the DA just a didn't have enough to go forward with this thing and that doesn't prove nothing actually happened. I explained some legal terms yesterday and will reiterate them again so people know what actually was stated by the DA.

This is not my opinion on the matter. This is what the legal terms used by the DA mean, and what those terms infer based on the process' conclusion.

The DA said there will not be charges brought against Von due to "insufficient evidence." This is very different from a trial. In a trial, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed. So, insufficient evidence in a trial might mean that it's pretty clear the accused is guilty, but due to certain evidence that suggests otherwise, reasonable doubt exists, and the accused is found not guilty. This is NOT the context of insufficient evidence we're looking at here.

In this case, the DA was trying to decide whether to indict Von. There are 2 steps here. First, finding the reasonable possibility a crime happened, then presenting that to a Grand jury. The only thing needed for indictment is for a grand jury to, based on the evidence, believe there is a reasonable possibility a crime was committed. There are cases that the DA believes they can bring charges, but a grand jury doesn't think the evidence suggests that there is a reasonable possibility a crime happened. This case didn't even get that far.

So, back to Von's case. "Insufficient evidence" means that, not only is there not enough to take to a grand jury, there is not enough evidence to even suggest to investigators the reasonable possibility that a crime occurred.

Think about that.

To people who prosecute and investigate for a living, the case lacked the reasonable possibility of a crime, according to the evidence.

What does that mean?

It means that based on testimony, the rape kit, and any other evidence collected, it would be UNREASONABLE to suggest a crime occurred.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 12 people
#3,106
#3,106
VolsFan1972 said:
Its hard for me to believe the timing is coincidental with the start of fall camp. IMO, there are significant powers at UT that want Von back on the field as bad as we do. IMO, I think everything is just a dog and pony show from this point forward because of the negative press and investigations that are on going. I would be shocked if Von isn't moving in this weekend.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's coincidental. I think Pearson's lawyer tried to let the system play out, but it took too long. So, he started throwing some names around in the press, and things picked up pace. I too think he'll suit up. If he doesn't, the school is guilty of injustice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,107
#3,107
Well, I believe that the reason is the appearance of not only bias, but of impartiality.

Student discipline (in a perfect world), is supposed to be after what the court system is supposed to strive for; justice. It therefore has to be "blind" and not favor someone because they play football, have more money, etc. Outside pressure gives the appearance of interference of that "impartial" process, especially coming from someone that has power over those making the decision.

Now, we all know that our justice system is rarely concerned with justice, or impartiality. But we are supposed to try to live up to the ideal, not the reality. We, as humans, have to strive to be better than our poor, flawed selves, and try to achieve more.
 
#3,108
#3,108
I don't get the point in nitpicking whether he did or didn't do anything. He's not being charged with anything and hopefully he'll be reinstated, then this thread should die. Today's society is no better than witch hunters... Self righteous *******s need to get a life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,109
#3,109
There is a fine line with Von, the University must follow what the law has given them. There will be no charges so he is able to be reinstated, there can be no "against UT code of conduct" because there was no charges filed. If they don't follow thru with this I'm sure there could be a legal issue because other like AJ and Williams was allowed to attend classes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,110
#3,110
Face said:
There's a lot of stuff on here floating around about how the DA just a didn't have enough to go forward this things and that doesn't prove nothing actually happened. I explained some legal terms yesterday and will reiterate them again so people know what actually was stated by the DA.

This is not my opinion on the matter. This is what the legal terms used by the DA mean, and what those terms infer based on the process' conclusion.

The DA said there will not be charges brought against Von due to "insufficient evidence." This is very different from a trial. In a trial, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed. So, insufficient evidence in a trial might mean that it's pretty clear the accused is guilty, but due to certain evidence that suggests otherwise, reasonable doubt exists, and the accused is found not guilty. This is NOT the context of insufficient evidence we're looking at here.

In this case, the DA was trying to decide whether to indict Von. There are 2 steps here. First, fining the reasonable possibility a crime happened, then presenting that to a Grand jury. The only thing needed for indictment is for a grand jury to, based on the evidence, believe there is a reasonable possibility a crime was committed. There are cases that the DA believes they can bring charges, but a grand jury doesn't think the evidence suggests that there is a reasonable possibility a crime happened. This case didn't even get that far.

So, back to Von's case. "Insufficient evidence" means that, not only is there not enough to take to a grand jury, there is not enough evidence to even suggest to investigators the reasonable possibility that a crime occurred.

Think about that.

To people who prosecute and investigate for a living, the case lacked the reasonable possibility of a crime, according to the evidence.

What does that mean?

It means that based on testimony, the rape kit, and any other evidence collected, it would be UNREASONABLE to suggest a crime occurred.
Click to expand...
thank you for the insight, appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,111
#3,111
Face said:
There's a lot of stuff on here floating around about how the DA just a didn't have enough to go forward this things and that doesn't prove nothing actually happened. I explained some legal terms yesterday and will reiterate them again so people know what actually was stated by the DA.

This is not my opinion on the matter. This is what the legal terms used by the DA mean, and what those terms infer based on the process' conclusion.

The DA said there will not be charges brought against Von due to "insufficient evidence." This is very different from a trial. In a trial, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed. So, insufficient evidence in a trial might mean that it's pretty clear the accused is guilty, but due to certain evidence that suggests otherwise, reasonable doubt exists, and the accused is found not guilty. This is NOT the context of insufficient evidence we're looking at here.

In this case, the DA was trying to decide whether to indict Von. There are 2 steps here. First, fining the reasonable possibility a crime happened, then presenting that to a Grand jury. The only thing needed for indictment is for a grand jury to, based on the evidence, believe there is a reasonable possibility a crime was committed. There are cases that the DA believes they can bring charges, but a grand jury doesn't think the evidence suggests that there is a reasonable possibility a crime happened. This case didn't even get that far.

So, back to Von's case. "Insufficient evidence" means that, not only is there not enough to take to a grand jury, there is not enough evidence to even suggest to investigators the reasonable possibility that a crime occurred.

Think about that.

To people who prosecute and investigate for a living, the case lacked the reasonable possibility of a crime, according to the evidence.

What does that mean?

It means that based on testimony, the rape kit, and any other evidence collected, it would be UNREASONABLE to suggest a crime occurred.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly right...and at this point there is just as good a chance that the girl made a false accusation as there is that Von did something wrong. When people say "they just said lack of evidence, not innocent" that's totally unfair to Von.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,112
#3,112
bUTchLookin4Dimez said:
I don't get the point in nitpicking whether he did or didn't do anything. He's not being charged with anything and hopefully he'll be reinstated, then this thread should die. Today's society is no better than witch hunters... Self righteous *******s need to get a life.
Click to expand...

There is no hopefully to it. He is already practicing with the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,113
#3,113
jakez4ut said:
thank you for the insight, appreciate it.
Click to expand...

No problem. And, it's possible something happened and it isn't shown by the evidence. But, according to the DA, that assertion is unreasonable.

I wanted to make sure people understood the difference between trial evidence and evidence to press charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,115
#3,115
FayetteVol1 said:
Thats exactly right...and at this point there is just as good a chance that the girl made a false accusation as there is that Von did something wrong. When people say "they just said lack of evidence, not innocent" that's totally unfair to Von.
Click to expand...

It's pretty strong that there's not even enough evidence to suggest charges to a grand jury. It essentially means that there was not any evidence collected that supported the claim a crime occurred.

UT, regardless of his status as a football player, needs to clear him based on that. When there is nothing that substantiates the claim against him, he needs to be allowed to live without this over his head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,116
#3,116
Face said:
There's a lot of stuff on here floating around about how the DA just a didn't have enough to go forward this things and that doesn't prove nothing actually happened. I explained some legal terms yesterday and will reiterate them again so people know what actually was stated by the DA.

This is not my opinion on the matter. This is what the legal terms used by the DA mean, and what those terms infer based on the process' conclusion.

The DA said there will not be charges brought against Von due to "insufficient evidence." This is very different from a trial. In a trial, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed. So, insufficient evidence in a trial might mean that it's pretty clear the accused is guilty, but due to certain evidence that suggests otherwise, reasonable doubt exists, and the accused is found not guilty. This is NOT the context of insufficient evidence we're looking at here.

In this case, the DA was trying to decide whether to indict Von. There are 2 steps here. First, fining the reasonable possibility a crime happened, then presenting that to a Grand jury. The only thing needed for indictment is for a grand jury to, based on the evidence, believe there is a reasonable possibility a crime was committed. There are cases that the DA believes they can bring charges, but a grand jury doesn't think the evidence suggests that there is a reasonable possibility a crime happened. This case didn't even get that far.

So, back to Von's case. "Insufficient evidence" means that, not only is there not enough to take to a grand jury, there is not enough evidence to even suggest to investigators the reasonable possibility that a crime occurred.

Think about that.

To people who prosecute and investigate for a living, the case lacked the reasonable possibility of a crime, according to the evidence.

What does that mean?

It means that based on testimony, the rape kit, and any other evidence collected, it would be UNREASONABLE to suggest a crime occurred.
Click to expand...

:good!: Excellent Explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,118
#3,118
First the question.

There's been so much clutter that it has been very difficult to keep track of the facts. So, in the end, what was Pearson actually accused of doing? The first reports were that he exposed himself to a woman and perhaps tried to pressure her for sex. Was there something more?


Second the comparison.

Here's how LSU handled something that appears to be MUCH worse than Pearson did unless a rape actually occurred:

LSU reinstates OL Jevonte Domond with domestic violence charges pending
 
#3,121
#3,121
GoVols#18 said:
There is no hopefully to it. He is already practicing with the team.
Click to expand...

Well practice was last night and he wasn't there and practice isn't again until this evening. Now Von may be reinstated before tonight but if you want to try and build e-cred, some simple advise would be to know the practice schedule before commenting on it. You're welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,123
#3,123
jordan4vols said:
Well practice was last night and he wasn't there and practice isn't again until this evening. Now Von may be reinstated before tonight but if you want to try and build e-cred, some simple advise would be to know the practice schedule before commenting on it. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Typical troll effort by another May 2015'er
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,124
#3,124
Kristy* said:
I don't think it's coincidental. I think Pearson's lawyer tried to let the system play out, but it took too long. So, he started throwing some names around in the press, and things picked up pace. I too think he'll suit up. If he doesn't, the school is guilty of injustice.
Click to expand...

Working for a city government, I have seen first hand that citizens "shaking the trees" can help speed up the normally slow government pace.
 
#3,125
#3,125
Face said:
No problem. And, it's possible something happened and it isn't shown by the evidence. But, according to the DA, that assertion is unreasonable.

I wanted to make sure people understood the difference between trial evidence and evidence to press charges.
Click to expand...

i think most do in general, but may be using terms or phrases as interchangeable parts, that really aren't.

for me the distinctive phrasing was "insufficient evidence", so this, was a very good explanation:

"So, back to Von's case. "Insufficient evidence" means that, not only is there not enough to take to a grand jury, there is not enough evidence to even suggest to investigators the reasonable possibility that a crime occurred."

and at least provided some clarity for me. as i originally took it to mean "we know what happened, we just can't prove it, so we're giving up".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top