Something Stinks Regarding the AP Situation

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by OrangeBlood79, Sep 13, 2014.

Tags:
  1. OrangeBlood79

    OrangeBlood79 Contributor

    @JayGlazer: Breaking: Adrian Peterson has already turned himself in to authorities in Texas and is out on $21,000 bond. Vikings deactivated him so he could deal w this issue immediately and Peterson has consistently stated he would cooperate with authorities

    Glazer was just on FS1 and stated that, on August 21st, AP turned himself into authorities, gave his testimony to the Grand Jury, which subsequently decided NOT to indict Peterson last Thursday. One week later, they reverse their decision and indict him.


    First off, I have two and one-third kids (wife is due in April with our third)...I'm not using a switch on any of them. I'm not suggesting that AP should not have been indicted, especially considering the photos that have surfaced over the past few days.

    It's the timeline of it all. I am increasingly suspicious that Goddell and his cronies are as crooked as politicians. Is it unusual for Grand Juries to be presented evidence, after their decision has been levied? Could the league office or someone on their behalf have thrown them a bone in effort to deflect the spotlight from Goodell and the seemingly limitless incompetence regarding the Ray Rice situation?

    Put on your tin foil hats and chime in...am I the only one who looks at the timeline of it all and thinks it's all a little too convenient for Goodell?
     
  2. Vol by Birth

    Vol by Birth Member

    From what I understand, the prosecutor can present evidence to a Grand Jury and they can decide there is not enough evidence to justify an arrest or trial. However, if there is new evidence or the prosecutor is just feeling sneaky and wants to just try again they can wait until a new Grand Jury is seated and try to convince this new jury to justify an arrest or trial. So basically this could have been a different Grand Jury than the one who decided to not indict AP.

    That is my understanding of it, however any lawyers feel free to correct what I just wrote.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  3. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Unless there is new evidence, would this not violate double jeopardy?
     
  4. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Grand jury is deciding whether there will be an indictment, not the trial itself. Doesn't seem to qualify to me.
     
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Definitely not the same as double jeopardy, as he was never tried.
     
  6. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    Thanks.

    That seems a bit odd. Law of averages say you'll eventually find a sympathetic grand jury.
     
  7. NYY

    NYY Super Moderator

    Whether or not it was Goodell and his crooked cronies, they are benefitting from this.

    I would trust my wallet and my wife in front of Bruce Pearl before I would trust anything Roger Goodell does.
     
  8. syndicate

    syndicate Well-Known Member

    How about your grill with only enough propane for one more meal?
     
  9. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    No
     
  10. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    No, you can actually be indicted, and the State can nolle the case and present it again at a later date.
     
  11. VB refugee

    VB refugee New Member

    Goodell just made it worse for himself
     

Share This Page