Varlo Davenport is not guilty. A jury of his peers decided this as mandated by law, and in the eyes of the court and proxied as such, no person may hold him to account for the criminal act he was accused of. He is innocent.
Dixie State University is trying Varlo Davenport yet again.
Within hours of the verdict being announced, DSU yet again doubled down on the fleeting gamble that anyone will not see through the charade and released a repugnant and rapacious statement further libeling the man and apparently any who stands by the notion of his innocence.
C.S. Lewis said that good theology must exist if for no other reason than that bad theology must be answered, and it is in this vein that it can be reasonably stated that the statement by the school must be answered if for no other reason than to continue in the arduous process of bringing this institution into account for what could be years of malfeasance at the reckless expense of innocent people. To remain in silence after such a maliciously libelous and spiteful response is to allow one and all to think they have gotten away with it. This we must not, we cannot, abide.
Fallacy No. 1: Dixie State University did not take part in the charges filed against Davenport
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” —Vladimir Lenin
If it were true that Dixie State University did not take part in the charges filed against Davenport, why then during the entire proceeding of this case was the prosecution represented by the Utah Attorney General’s office as well as an unlicensed attorney hired as general counsel for DSU? If the school is the disinterested third party it is presenting itself to be, why the public statement outlining details of the case and explanations thereof?
You can read the statement yourself, and I encourage you to, but the simple truth here is that the the school was in fact intimately involved in the investigation and prosecution of Davenport. Saying otherwise is a categorical lie affirmed by some of the hundreds if not thousands of emails between the parties that, while the court surreptitiously found irrelevant, demonstrate without question.
The simple truth is that Davenport was prematurely fired in spite of being at least once if not twice exonerated by his peers in a process mandated by policy and law. And when DSU President Biff Williams began to feel pressure for overriding that exoneration, only then was the mention of “another shoe that would drop” brought about in an attempt to assuage people he and the college thought either too stupid or too preoccupied to notice.
The school earnestly believed a conviction of something, anything for heck’s sake, would vindicate them for initially having no legitimate justification for their actions.
The school, via their statement, is attempting to try Davenport yet again — something, I would add, that is unconstitutional as hell.
But in the wake of a verdict of not guilty, the school in its statement now wants to change the narrative. Shifting from the other shoe being the failed assault charge, they now state that the other shoe was actually a probationary status for alleged aggressive behavior toward, of course, an unnamed faculty member. The initial bullshit other shoe is now this new unsubstantiated charge.
The fact is that even a conviction would not vindicate the abuse of power and failure to follow procedure and law in this case. But even with the numerous constitutional violations from the bench of the Washington County Justice Court and the “tail wags the dog” relationship between city attorney Robert Cosson and Judge Karlin Myers, the combined prosecutorial efforts of both DSU and the city could not prevail. The judges in this case committed ex parte communications in favor of the prosecution. They violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. They withheld evidence in discovery. They violated the First Amendment by attempting to silence the press on at least three occasions. And yet they could not prevail.
That’s right, the combined efforts of DSU’s lawyers and law enforcement, the Utah Attorney General office, the city prosecutor, and a duet of complicit and capitulating judges could not prevail.
One more time: Three highly paid public attorneys with the help of a sympathetic bench could not win a simple assault case.
To demonstrate what is meant by a sympathetic judge, at one point in the trial at the beckoning of Cosson, the court ruled that it did not matter if campus police chief Don Reid conducted a proper investigation. In essence, the judicial branch ruled that the conduct of the executive branch — the police — was only relevant if the prosecution deemed it so. Let that sink in.
Fallacy No. 2: Witnesses for the defense perjured themselves
A notable point on the investigation is that while the school’s statements throws the word “perjury” loosely around and accuses almost every witness of the defense of it, in point of fact the only person who may have done so was Don Reid when he told the court that there was no security camera in the room at the time of the event.
A witness testified that not only was there a camera but that it had been removed after the event. The suggestion that there was the possibility of footage of the event that may have exonerated Davenport could not have been more salient. But the more important point is that not only was Reid immune from cross-examination for his investigatory practices, he was also immune from scrutiny about the existence and disappearance of that camera … a camera that his department monitored.
Detective Barry Golding of the Washington County Attorney’s Office even testified that he had been told no such camera existed. (Mr. Golding and Brock Belnap, you paying attention here?)
Fallacy No. 3: This is an isolated incident that happened in a vacuum
The school and the prosecution tried to contain this trial by contextual manipulation, asserting that this incident happened in a vacuum. That extenuating circumstances such as possible illegal or unethical conduct on behalf of law enforcement was irrelevant. That the administration and faculty members who partook in the investigation, the violation of policies, and the conspiring to pay off dissenting voices like professor Joel Lewis were not relevant and could not be called to account via subpoena. (This was possibly a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.)
The school and the prosecution wanted to limit the scope of this to the context of a questionable testimony by the alleged victim (who is no longer such by way of a verdict of not guilty) as well as a singular witness where there were in fact more than ten. They wanted to sell the jury on the notion that not only was the conduct of a cop not relevant, neither was the conduct of an administration.
But the jury, an extension of the community by default, saw through it. And what is bittersweet here is that the school and court have been sent a message by this community, via a jury, that in spite of a complicit court and a weak prosecution, neither jury nor public can be swayed from seeing through the school and the local power structure’s charade. (Make no mistake, this goes higher than Biff.) And what is coming to light are the multiple instances of similar egregious behavior on the part of both of these entities.
What is now known is that they can bleed. They can lose. And this is huge.
See you out there.
RELATED ARTICLES
Judge Karlin Myers tries to gag press in Davenport case
Varlo Davenport verdict is in: Not Guilty
Government accountability in southern Utah? Think nationally but act locally
A patriot should not bow to the southern Utah theocratic oligarchy
Dixie State tried to coerce a grade from Varlo Davenport
St. George Justice Court: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The Varlo Davenport circus is an abomination of the highest degree
I could not have said it any better! As a mother who has sent 4 of my 5 children to DSU (there is no way in hell the 5th is going there now) I am SICK of how this school has treated not only Varlo and not only the other teachers that have been retaliated against but the students! Thank you for this well written article. Wake up St. George! Get this institution cleaned out! Varlo -I hope you sue the life out of DSU and I also hope those other teachers get together with a lovely lawsuit as well. Conspiring to ruin a mans life is despicable -what comes around goes around. Can any of you reading this imagine yourself to be put in Varlo’s shoes. How would you like to lose everything you worked for your entire life over a hair pulling accutation!?!? This has been insanity from the get go. The attorney’s office that prosecuted this is a joke. You all have the power of your voices and votes-please clean up St.George and DSU!
Two people you don’t want to vote for are Rep. Stanard and Josh Warburton. From my experience dealing with these two I believe they can be bought.
Perhaps you would like to have DSU teachers pulling the hair of all your daughters. If you are naive enough to think that this was the first thing that Varlo did and Williams just jumped on him for nothing then I have swamp land to sell you. Typically, there are employees that should have been fired long ago and are just waiting for the next president that will not take any of their guff. And Dallas, while you are checking things out, see how many times Adams was fired by SUU. SUU can’t tell you, but I know that Adams can if he will.
One wonders if there ever has been a university so disappointed that one of its students was NOT assaulted.
Perhaps in fact the truth will out.
Dallas – I applaud your constant efforts to not let this matter fade into the background and permit the malicious persons in the state AGs office, the city and at Dixie State to have their way out of public view.
The state office of higher education should take notice of Dixie State’s shameful behavior and conduct an investigation into this matter.
You state that a person or persons above Thug (nee Biff) were behind the persecution of Davenport. Please elaborate. Don’t let this mess become more of a soap opera than it already is.
Sadly it is clear that despite its legal status Dixie State is not yet a university. It is being run like a small town community college and the personal fiefdom of certain willful persons running amok.
Among others, the St. George City attorney should resign in extreme embarrassment over this debacle. Obviously, the city had no case against Mr. Davenport, but they pressed on anyway in order to punish him for their masters. No doubt this disgusting foolishness was the result of orders coming down from on-high. Mr. Davenport has apparently made some seriously influential enemies among the elites of Utah’s religio-political class. Assuming that appropriate lawsuits against DSU and St. George City follow, I sincerely hope that Mr. Davenport continues to kick their arrogant posteriors in court.
After DSU’s official statement it is now public knowledge that before he was fired, Varlo Davenport was on probation for past aggressive behavior towards others at DSU. In other words, he was warned that another incident of aggression could put his job in jeopardy. Then the incident with the student happened and it set off the chain of events that cost him his job.
Now, I do not know any details of his past transgressions. However, these details certainly must have played a role in the decision to fire him. If there was indeed an earlier pattern of aggressive behavior towards others, then the president’s decision to fire Varlo may very well have been in the interest of everyone else at the school (and school policy certainly gave Biff Williams this power).
I am no legal expert and so I do not know to what extent Varlo is protected from DSU making such details public, but I certainly would be very interested to know what the details are about these prior charges before I make up my mind regarding Williams’s decision. At the very least the details are worth inquiring into.
Marius, I was pretty much privy to the probation allegation, which was actually an informal probation. Don’t worry that will soon be revealed to be something very different and petty, especially of those that said he was aggressive, which was far from the case. The underlying issues involves another faculty with an ego trip that was looking for any opportunity to get rid of Varlo.
“Fly on the Wall” does not know what they are talking about and is just putting out BS.
All I can say is hogwash to those accusations, as a former employee, I reported aggressive behavior tword me, harassment, intimidation and silencing from another employee…. NOT DAVENPORT, someone else still there…..and nothing and I mean NOTHING was ever done. In fact, I was told point blank, aggressive, harassment behavior is not criminal and no charges could be filed. it is all dont ask dont tell….Huh, now they say Davenport was on probation for something like it. HOGWASH!
Up until the verdict was read, Dallas Hyland was accusing the City of St. George, the court system, DSU, and the State of Utah of nefarious actions. I’m sure if Varlo had been found guilty, Dallas would have said that it was all fixed. Dallas has been totally wrong in the past and continues to be so. Read and court case to your local attorney and they will say that the jury got it wrong. Can Varlo file a wrongful termination suite and get any substantial money out of it. Stay tuned.
Remember, even OJ Simpson beat the murder charge until he got to the civil suit trial, and then he was found guilty and had to pay $33,000,000.
This type of behavior is common place in St. George and includes all levels of representation including your state representative’s. In particular Rep. Stanard. This guy needs to be voted out if for nothing else his lack of knowledge of what he is elected for. He only sees things in one way. His way. On Tuesday July 21st 2015 I had a meeting with Rep. Jon E. Stanard to discuss what I am trying to change about contracts. If you have read my petition you will know what I am trying to do, and if you haven’t read it please do. Here is the link http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thievenwadeauto please read, sign, and share.
Here are the highlights of the meeting. When we first sat down to discuss what I was attempting to do one of his first comments was “you know dealers are always going to hide things in contracts.” When he said that I knew I was going to have to be on my best game to get something done. Because you don’t want to upset him by pointing out that just because he and others accept this practice doesn’t make it right. He also told me that he reads all of his car contracts which I know is not true because as our discussion continued we talked about the truth in lending portion of the contract and he commented that the information in the five boxes wasn’t anywhere else in the contract. When I showed him all of it was in the contract below the five boxes he didn’t have anything to say. So I know he is just like the rest of us we may skim over the contract but we don’t “read’ the whole thing and if we did we still wouldn’t understand everything in it.
The one point he kept going back to is that everything is on the contract and it’s the consumer’s responsibility to read and understand what they are signing. So he felt that should be enough for the consumer. He also said that it would be very expensive to change how a contract is written. My answer was that I didn’t want to change anything on the contract it could remain exactly the way it is all I wanted to do was add one page or section and call it a summary of what was on the contract that had been discussed when negotiating the deal (Price, trade-in, warranties, and options). He felt that this would make it more confusing for the consumer. I don’t know how summarizing the contract would make it more confusing. But I asked him where the harm was in doing what is done with the truth in lending and make it simpler for the consumer. I told him it could be considered just a double check to make sure everyone was on the same page.
By the end of our meeting he finally agreed to take my paperwork and ideas to the committee that he is on and at least discuss it. So hopefully he will follow through and do what he said. Even if he doesn’t I will continue to contact him for updates so that he knows I have not given up. I promise I will do everything I can to get this problem fixed not matter how long it takes.
I later contacted him and here are the e-mails.
David
I would be happy to help you contact someone.
I have tried to communicate and contact you back when you have contacted me, but I do not agree to the proposals you have suggested, and I would hope you would not want me to run legislation I do not agree with.
If you would like to tell me where you know live I can find out who your representative is now.
Thanks,
Rep. Jon Stanard
Just so you know I had to contact him several times to get a response. This is my response to this e-mail.
Jon,
Wow!! Why is this all about what you agree with? Have you talked to any of your fellow representatives to see any of them agree with it? I thought you were supposed to be “our” representative? Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean others won’t. You may not think this has any merit because you haven’t been scammed but you should still do what you were elected for and represent your constituents. Am I wrong to think this? What exactly do you think you were elected to do? I don’t agree with your view either but if the shoes were reversed I would do everything in my power to help you since I would consider that my responsibility.
Politicians wonder why the country is in the shape it is. This is why. You don’t realize that you have been given a huge responsibility and if you are only willing to back things you agree with then who do your constituents go to for help. Just so you know I plan on sharing these e-mails with as many people and sites as I can so that people will know just how you “represent” your constituents. You may want to think about getting out of politics. I don’t think you understand what you are elected to do. I’m sure this won’t upset you since most politicians think the same as you. I hope this election will get rid of all the incumbents so that maybe you politicians will realize that if you don’t do what you were elected for you will be gone.
I never expected everyone to agree with my proposal but I figured the only ones that would definitely disagree would be the ones that profit from the scam. After all it wouldn’t cost much or take much effort to add one page or section to the contracts so the consumer can feel better about signing.
David Johnson
As I said this is common place in St. George. And until you get rid of the good old boys nothing will change. Dallas can expose proof of a crime but it won’t matter.