Von Pearson Update

#3,127
#3,127
sjt18 said:
No one knows what he was actually accused of doing... do you?
Click to expand...

From reading the thread, it seems the accuser's story changed from the first-hand account of he flashed her to the rape-kit coming back negative. It is unknown what her final allegation to the police and university was.

As far as LSU, that is wrong they would let him back on the team in that situation. It should come back to bite them too unless the fiance decides to not press charges. From the description of the incident, I'd imagine there would be physical evidence to proceed even if she doesn't cooperate.
 
#3,128
#3,128
jakez4ut said:
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".
Click to expand...

Yep. That's the difference. Without stepping on political toes, look at 2 recent high profile cases: Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

Strictly talking case structure: Zimmerman was exonerated at the trial because the jury found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. However, there was definitely the reasonable possibility he broke the law, hence the trial.

Wilson was not indicted because the grand jury found the evidence did not present the reasonable possibility he broke the law.

Public reaction and social issues aside, Wilson was much more in the clear than Zimmerman.

Von's case didn't even get to the point where evidence was shown to a grand jury because there was nothing that pointed to him breaking the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,129
#3,129
Face said:
Yep. That's the difference. Without stepping on political toes, look at 2 recent high profile cases: Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

Strictly talking case structure: Zimmerman was exonerated at the trial because the jury found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. However, there was definitely the reasonable possibility he broke the law, hence the trial.

Wilson was not indicted because the grand jury found the evidence did not present the reasonable possibility he broke the law.

Public reaction and social issues aside, Wilson was much more in the clear than Zimmerman.

Von's case didn't even get to the point where evidence was shown to a grand jury because there was nothing that pointed to him breaking the law.
Click to expand...
:eek:k: good stuff, thanks again.
 
#3,130
#3,130
GoVols#18 said:
There is no hopefully to it. He is already practicing with the team.
Click to expand...

Is this true????? I thought he had to be re-instated by the university before he could practice with the team.


Nevermind!!!!!!!!!! - Should have finished the thread before I even gave this small amount of credit to the poster. My bad!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,131
#3,131
jakez4ut said:
:eek:k: good stuff, thanks again.
Click to expand...

I don't typically have inside info or anything like that, but I try to chime in when I have something I can contribute.

I am a CPA, not an attorney, but I do have a degree of expertise in the area and know enough to be able to interpret the legal jargon. Hopefully someone will a JD will straighten me out of I've erred in my explanations. :hi:

(Disclaimer: nothing said by me on this board shall be construed or interpreted as tax, investment, or financial regulation positions recommend by me or the profession)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,132
#3,132
Face said:
I don't typically have inside info or anything like that, but I try to chime in when I have something I can contribute.

I am a CPA, not an attorney, but I do have a degree of expertise in the area and know enough to be able to interpret the legal jargon. Hopefully someone will a JD will straighten me out of I've erred in my explanations. :hi:

(Disclaimer: nothing said by me on this board shall be construed or interpreted as tax, investment, or financial regulation positions recommend by me or the profession)
Click to expand...


So, what you're saying is, don't put my 401k on the Vols to win it all?

Got it.

*winks*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,133
#3,133
Face said:
I don't typically have inside info or anything like that, but I try to chime in when I have something I can contribute.

I am a CPA, not an attorney, but I do have a degree of expertise in the area and know enough to be able to interpret the legal jargon. Hopefully someone will a JD will straighten me out of I've erred in my explanations. :hi:

(Disclaimer: nothing said by me on this board shall be construed or interpreted as tax, investment, or financial regulation positions recommend by me or the profession)
Click to expand...
nice.

and, no, that's fine. i was more concerned with the structure of the process than specifics of this particular case.
 
#3,134
#3,134
Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. 100% this.

Also, as an aside... I don't want to gloat too much (OK, OK, I do), but I called this a long time ago. The statistics tell us that the vast majority of rape claims (even rape claims that are actually reported to police, and would presumably be more likely to be credible than others that are not reported) are not supported by any credible evidence--and more than you think (especially among relatively well-off demographic groups) are completely fabricated. This is why I said from the beginning that Von should be afforded some benefit of the doubt until an investigation is concluded.
 
#3,135
#3,135
Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I have to believe that this case would have gone to GJ if there were any meaningful evidence at all supporting the accusation.
 
#3,136
#3,136
Face said:
Yep. That's the difference. Without stepping on political toes, look at 2 recent high profile cases: Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.

Strictly talking case structure: Zimmerman was exonerated at the trial because the jury found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. However, there was definitely the reasonable possibility he broke the law, hence the trial.

Wilson was not indicted because the grand jury found the evidence did not present the reasonable possibility he broke the law.

Public reaction and social issues aside, Wilson was much more in the clear than Zimmerman.

Von's case didn't even get to the point where evidence was shown to a grand jury because there was nothing that pointed to him breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there is a strong argument that the prosecution of George Zimmerman was politically motivated and not appropriate given the facts, but in general, you're basically right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,138
#3,138
drylo said:
This. 100% this.

Also, as an aside... I don't want to gloat too much (OK, OK, I do), but I called this a long time ago. The statistics tell us that the vast majority of rape claims (even rape claims that are actually reported to police, and would presumably be more likely to be credible than others that are not reported) are not supported by any credible evidence--and more than you think (especially among relatively well-off demographic groups) are completely fabricated. This is why I said from the beginning that Von should be afforded some benefit of the doubt until an investigation is concluded.
Click to expand...

It's not my intention to drag the girl through the mud and call her claim false. However, at this point it looks like the only thing that backs up her claim is... her claim. So people can make of that what they will.

I will say that the DA's stance is that it's unreasonable to conclude a crime was committed based on their review of all available information. With that determination, UT needs to support the legal system's due process and let Von live his life.

It's preposterous that a committee at the school should overrule the professional opinion based on examination of evidence by the KPD and DA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,139
#3,139
TheBigOne10 said:
Typical troll effort by another May 2015'er
Click to expand...

I may have missed something, but the needs to be reviewed by the Code of Conduct Board and it will more than likely have to go through some clearance Channels for Title IX.

Both boards should already ruled pending the DA decision. VP should have been reinstated immediately as soon as the DA Decision was final.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,141
#3,141
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I had to do a double take to make sure that was you who posted this.
 
#3,142
#3,142
I'm no expert, insider, or anything else but I'm betting the delay is just going through some extra steps because of the federal investigation. I think he still gets reinstated and plays but the DA just said yesterday that he wouldn't be charged. I can see the University going through their own process of evaluation before allowing him back and that makes sense given the federal scrutiny we're under currently. I don't see a need for panic at least not yet.
 
#3,143
#3,143
Volunteer08 said:
Already got a call back...a man named Gary from the DA office called me and explained that there are lots of variables that go into cases like these. It can start as a regular investigation and then once they determine it's a dead end that they'll want to take it to a grand jury to decide if the case should be brought before a court. That's a separate process and can essentially start the investigating process over. That could be what's taking so long.

I then asked if there were any circumstances that would be in place to ask them to expedite that process. He said unless there's someone/a suspect that comes forward and claims responsibility or admits to it then it's pretty clean cut from there. From the innocent side there's really nothing you can do.

Gary even asked if I had anymore questions after I apologized for taking his time. He couldn't share any specifics to the Von case and said he honestly doesn't know much about the situation at all. He just focuses on his work and isn't involved with that.

I know this doesn't help much, but thought I'd share since he called me back.
Click to expand...

qfr
 
#3,144
#3,144
Volview said:
Working for a city government, I have seen first hand that citizens "shaking the trees" can help speed up the normally slow government pace.
Click to expand...

Working in state government, I can tell you that this is accurate. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. One phone call from a citizen to a well-placed middle manager is all it takes to get things moving. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it happens all the time.
 
#3,146
#3,146
Face said:
I don't typically have inside info or anything like that, but I try to chime in when I have something I can contribute.

I am a CPA, not an attorney, but I do have a degree of expertise in the area and know enough to be able to interpret the legal jargon. Hopefully someone will a JD will straighten me out of I've erred in my explanations. :hi:

(Disclaimer: nothing said by me on this board shall be construed or interpreted as tax, investment, or financial regulation positions recommend by me or the profession)
Click to expand...

The attorneys on the board have tried to straighten you out, but you don't seem to understand. Stick to numbers and leave criminal law to those who have been trained in the subject.
 
#3,147
#3,147
Hearing rumblings from Hubbs that Pearson should be a go by the end of the week.. Now we just need an 18 from PW and we are at full strength
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top