Von Pearson WILL NOT be charged

#152
#152
jakez4ut said:
i don't have any issue with this, i know we're 'presumed innocent in the eyse of the law'.

maybe i'm just stuck on the verbiage used. "insufficient evidence" sounds a lot different than "cleared" or even "found no evidence to support pursing the case any further".

to me, it just sounds like code for "we know what happened, we just can't prove it".
Click to expand...

As a former Assistant District Attorney in Tennessee I can say that's as close to complete exoneration that you'll ever likely get by way of an official statement in my experience. The DA is not judge or jury and doesn't typically declare someone innocent in my experience.

I prosecuted many weak cases in the past for various reasons but when a DA declines to prosecute or take a case to the Grand Jury that's about as compelling as it gets. I think you're trying to make that statement into something it's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 21 people
#157
#157
insufficient evidence would probably mean there was lack of evidence to support a rape conviction. That would tell me there were no signs of an attack or resistance on the victim. If she had bruises, scratches, etc then there probably would have been support for filing a rape charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#159
#159
KBVol said:
What are you thinking here Jake? There was no evidence to even bring charges against Von. If there was, we're talking about a completely different deal and there would be virtually no one on here (there's always one or two) would be supporting him.

Also, please keep in mind that there have been multiple high profile cases on other campuses where the strong accusations of rape vs young men have been totally fabricated and rushes to judgment all but ruined the lives of a lot of innocent young men....Duke Lacrosse, Univ of Virginia fraternity case where Rolling Stone perpetuated the lie and that wacko college chick at Columbia who dragged a stupid mattress around campus "in protest" after all evidence showed she completely made it all up.

And before somebody plays the tired "yeah but if it was your daughter" card....I have a daughter at UT...and I also have a son.
Click to expand...
well, 1st, they didn't say "no evidence", just "insufficient evidence". which, and this is just me, just doesn't instill a ton of confidence that absolutely, nothing happened. i don't know what did or didn't happen. it's just the choice of wording by the DA, and generally, i think they try to choose their words carefully. i would feel alot better about all of this had they said "we found no evidence supporting the claims, and will not be pursuing any criminal prosecution" or something along those lines.

2nd point, agreed 100%.

as to the original ?, what's my angle...it's simply that with the current state of affairs on college campuses, specifically in relation to football players and violence against women, the well documented issues in the NFL with the same issue......that i think UT has to tread lightly when deciding what to do next.

in all honesty, i won't have a problem if he's reinstated. but i would expect some, maybe severe, criticism given the current state of affairs.

but i won't have an issue if he's not either, i would completely understand why.
 
Last edited:
#160
#160
BigOrangeTailgate said:
As a former Assistant District Attorney in Tennessee I can say that's as close to complete exoneration that you'll ever likely get by way of an official statement in my experience. The DA is not judge or jury and doesn't typically declare someone innocent in my experience.

I prosecuted many weak cases in the past for various reasons but when a DA declines to prosecute or take a case to the Grand Jury that's about as compelling as it gets. I think you're trying to make that statement into something it's not.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There is insufficient evidence to suggest the reasonable probability that a crime was committed. Not insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This was not a trial. It was an investigation to see if there was a reasonable possibility a trial might be required. Very, very big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#161
#161
tim said:
False accusations by uninvolved individuals made on different campuses.
Click to expand...

There's this idea that sexual assaults on females are rampant on college campuses all across the country, in part based on some of these high profile cases that have been proven to be patently false and completely made up. I think that very much tied one to the other. Is this case another example to add to the growing list? Without sufficient evidence to bring charges, I'd say yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#162
#162
jakez4ut said:
i seriously don't get why everyone is so excited. "insufficient evidence" just means they couldn't find enough proof to prosecute. it doesn't mean that nothing happened, and he's completely innocent of all accusations.

there's a bigger picture folks.
Click to expand...


Are you seriously saying that just because there's no evidence that something happened doesn't mean something didn't happen?
 
#164
#164
jakez4ut said:
i seriously don't get why everyone is so excited. "insufficient evidence" just means they couldn't find enough proof to prosecute. it doesn't mean that nothing happened, and he's completely innocent of all accusations.

there's a bigger picture folks.
Click to expand...

you do know that if random girl claims that you were inappropriate with her and you get brought up on charges, that once the evidence is looked over and you were found to not be guilty of anything, that exact statement would be read by that DA right?

So should you be doubted about any involvement just because of the way a DA statement is?
 
#167
#167
jakez4ut said:
am i reading this right?

that's not what the DA said.
Click to expand...

It's exactly what he said! If there were any evidence And I mean any evidence he would have been charged. Clearly this came down to a she said he said and that isn't evidence. So without evidence that the incident happened it didn't. You may not like that, but I can promise the university will reinstate him because there isn't any evidence he did what he was accused of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#168
#168
FZJ80 said:
1231185.jpg


Do Work Von Pearson! Do Work!
Click to expand...

Joe is one TV celeb that can actually "whip dey azz".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
I'd think that if there was ANY evidence, a charge would have come down and a jury would be making the call on things.

If it didn't even get to a charge, I'm guessing absolutely nothing happened.
 
#171
#171
wmcovol said:
insufficient evidence would probably mean there was lack of evidence to support a rape conviction. That would tell me there were no signs of an attack or resistance on the victim. If she had bruises, scratches, etc then there probably would have been support for filing a rape charge.
Click to expand...

No. The DA could have charged Von with a lesser crime. The media erroneously labeled this a rape case, but the DA determines the charges, based on the facts of the case. She could have charged Von with a misdemeanor or a felony-- anything from indecent exposure to rape-- but her statement makes it clear that she did not have sufficient evidence to charge Von with a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#172
#172
BigOrangeTailgate said:
As a former Assistant District Attorney in Tennessee I can say that's as close to complete exoneration that you'll ever likely get by way of an official statement in my experience. The DA is not judge or jury and doesn't typically declare someone innocent in my experience.

I prosecuted many weak cases in the past for various reasons but when a DA declines to prosecute or take a case to the Grand Jury that's about as compelling as it gets. I think you're trying to make that statement into something it's not.
Click to expand...

i appreciate the insight. and like i said, maybe i'm just stuck on the verbiage. let me ask you this though, given your formal role, if you go thru several months worth of an investigation like this, and you do come to find you can't prosecute either b/c the investigation turned up NO evidence and can't prosecute, or just that you couldn't get enough evidence to prosecute, does that change the way one might interpret a statement like this?
 
#173
#173
jakez4ut said:
well, 1st, they didn't say "no evidence", just "insufficient evidence". which, and this is just me, just doesn't instill a ton of confidence that absolutely, nothing happened. i don't know what did or didn't happen. it's just the choice of wording by the DA, and generally, i think they try to choose their words carefully. i would feel alot better about all of this had they said "we found evidence supporting the claims, and will not be pursuing any criminal prosecution" or something along those lines.

2nd point, agreed 100%.

as to the original ?, what's my angle...it's simply that with the current state of affairs on college campuses, specifically in relation to football players and violence against women, the well documented issues in the NFL with the same issue......that i think UT has to tread lightly when deciding what to do next.

in all honesty, i won't have a problem if he's reinstated. but i would expect some, maybe severe, criticism given the current state of affairs.

but i won't have an issue if he's not either, i would completely understand why.
Click to expand...

Good thing you are not in charge of making the decision.
 
#174
#174
butchna said:
What have you read on here so far? :huh:
Click to expand...

Exactly.....Its so funny watching the exact same arguments being made, its identical to the update thread...
On another note... I bet ole Anita over at the Tennessean is pissed! She has worked so hard!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top