Sports
Related: About this forumSheriff: Sandoval did not sexually assault Santa Cruz woman...
Thursday also went well for the slugger after the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office completed their investigation report and handed it to Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee.
The report said the San Francisco Giants' third baseman should not be charged with any crime. A 21-year-old woman wrongly accused 25-year-old Sandoval of sexually assaulting her inside the Seascape Resort in Aptos.
"Following a thorough investigation, the sheriff's office determined there is insufficient evidence to support an arrest," deputy April Skalland said.
Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/santa-cruz/Sheriff-Pablo-Sandoval-did-not-sexually-assault-Santa-Cruz-woman/-/5738976/15492646/-/gedcu4/-/index.html#ixzz20QxWPGQc
Needless to say this is great news for Pablo and Giants fans. I believe this has been bothering the Panda...his plate discipline as of late has been even worse than usual.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)Auggie
(31,133 posts)Doesn't make sense
trumad
(41,692 posts)You know---they all stick together.
Upton
(9,709 posts)she could have been looking for a pay day, or perhaps there was some kind of misunderstanding. Pablo's attorney is supposed to be on Chronicle Live tonight. I suppose he'll provide some insight.
Sandoval is not totally without blame, for he put himself in a bad situation to begin with. In the end though, all that matters is this:
On Wednesday, July 11th, 2012, following a thorough investigation, the Sheriff's Office determined that there is insufficient evidence to support an arrest for the alleged crime. During the course of the investigation, the Sheriff's Office conducted interviews and collected biological and physical evidence, some of which was analyzed by the California Department of Justice.
http://www.csnbayarea.com/baseball-san-francisco-giants/giants-talk/No-charges-for-Giants-Sandoval?blockID=739254&feedID=2539
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Doesn't mean he didn't do it...just means they can't prove it. He may be totally innocent, he might not be.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)And it says she"wronglu accused" him...nice editorializing...he may be innocent, he might not be...more of a he said-she said thing and they wouldn't prosecute if the odds are they couldn't prove it in court.
Auggie
(31,133 posts)Civil Trial
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)You and your Barroid lover should understand that.