Quote:
Originally Posted by sufur
The 2nd time, in '08 (I think) they couldn't convict because the [alleged - S.B.] victim wouldn't testify.
Right. And is the implication that therefore's he's guilty? How about this scenario: some parent in the neighborhood becomes aware of DiVita's prior conviction, or more generally that he's a Registered Sex Offender. Said parent has a beef with DiVita, maybe a business complaint. DiVita and the parent's kid have some kind of interaction which involves no crime but which sets the parent off on an accusatory rant. The alleged victim, however, refuses to lie.
I am making this up, of course; does anyone have actual facts about the 2008 charge? But when I observe how much ignorant hysteria surrounds even a
hint of adult sexual interaction with children (some of whom are 17 years old), my instincts lead me to be cautious in accepting the surface picture. I am skeptical of a lot of convictions -- in all areas, not just sex crimes -- not to mention accusations which are followed by dismissal of charges. (For one example supporting my skepticism, read
Mike Matusow's book.)
But to get more on track... as best I can tell at this writing EPL decided to go along with the ignorant hysteria and (threatened to) bar DiVita for a crime committed 20 years ago, while permitting other convicted felons (some of whom I'm comfortably friendly with) to play as League Members; and further EPL deprived him without sufficient cause, in my view, of $18,500 in value that he won in the Pro-Am.
Last edited by Steve Brecher; 09-10-2011 at 01:30 PM.
Reason: 21 years -> 20 years