Ignoring the Evidence As It Suits You

After ESPN reported that Michael Vick is unlikely to be indicted in connection with dog fighting, some have continued to insist on Vick's guilt when actual evidence, not the innuendo that has fueled this story, supports the position that Vick is unlikely to be indicted. Indeed, very few of the developments in this situation have ever truly suggested that Vick would be indicted of a crime. You would think people would have learned after the Tank Johnson faux DUI. Some insist that he was still in the wrong, when the facts show he didn't do anything. Still, some insist on manufacturing qualifications to the truth.

Via The Big Lead, the always reliable Pro Football Talk insists that "apologists" are covering things up concerning Vick.

"ESPN reports that at least three people are expected to be indicted. But that could merely be the first wave of the indictments. Doesn’t anyone think that the folks who are charged will receive offers of leniency or immunity in exchange for giving up others who might have been involved?

And why would the feds tell the Falcons, the league, or anyone else that Vick likely won’t be indicted? If that aspect of the report is true, maybe the feds are hoping that Vick will let his guard down a bit, perhaps by not focusing his efforts on ensuring that the guys who get indicted won’t snitch."

Also, The Fanhouse expresses skepticism that the omission of Vick's name from the complaint has any significance.

"...many readers were left to think it's somehow meaningful that Vick's name isn't mentioned in the papers, when in reality the government has additional information not included.

That doesn't mean the investigators have strong evidence against Vick, either. The ESPN report that Vick is unlikely to be indicted may prove correct. But when you read the whole document and see the evidence removed from Vick's property of a 'blood-stained fighting area' and the statement that 'Many of the pit bulldogs recovered or observed in the search had scars and injuries consistent with injuries sustained in dog fighting,' it's hard to understand why the filing has been portrayed as good news for Vick."

You can read the government's complaint yourself. It's pretty easy reading.

The complaint was filed for the purpose of seizing the dogs. Once the dogs are formally seized by the government, they will have control over them for the purposes of using them as evidence.

The seizure action is a limited action. It is not meant to represent the government's whole case and it clearly says so. "This verified complaint is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing the grounds for forfeiture and providing notice to the interested persons, it does not include all of the information known by the government in this action." However, this is a standard disclaimer sentence that would be included in any complaint, so its inclusion should not be overexaggerated.

Still, the complaint is an important step in outlining the government's case. Indeed, it does provide "notice to the interested persons." And that is why it's reasonable to assume that Michael Vick is not one of those interested persons. The complaint does not mention Michael Vick at all - even as the owner of the property. In fact, the complaint is focused solely on Bad Newz Kennels, which is not the kennel Vick owns.

I am certainly not going to guarantee that Michael Vick is in the clear.

However, there would be little penalty if the government introduced all of its potential targets now. But if the government haphazardly identifies new targets down the line, it will make it easier for the defense to claim reasonable doubt to the extent that they could accuse the government of casting too wide a net and not really knowing who did what.

The complaint mostly reads like a generalized description of what could be any dog fighting operation. It offers very few specifics. Still, animal lovers should be happy. By omitting Michael Vick's name from the complaint, the government has indicated its priorities are not celebrity and publicity. Instead, they are focused on prosecuting the major crimes at hand.

Contrast that approach to the prosecutor in Pacman Jones' Las Vegas case. Although Jones is essentially accused of biting someone, the prosecutor only accuses Jones of coercion - not assault. That's an indication that there is questionable evidence to support the allegations and that the prosecutor is interested in attaching Jones to the case for the purposes of garnering attention.

Vick should be encouraged by the complaint. It is an actual indication that he may escape indictment. Just an indication though.

We should keep our focus on the actual crimes at hand and not just the undermining of Michael Vick. Lest, you really get called out.