I’m not analyzing criminal law. Nor am I determining criminal legal practices. I am merely making a single statement that I don’t think the league word pursue an investigation that had already been adjudicated by the legal system in an attempt overturn the the findings. In addition I believe they can initiate their own investigation if a matter was not completed by the judicial system and was dropped from further investigation without a conclusion.
whether they should or what motives they may have isn’t of concern for what I am saying. I only saying I believe they can open an investigation on discontinued matters if they so choose.
What you're saying makes no sense based on the way the criminal law process works. Adjudication doesn't actually mean someone is found innocent.
Conversely if someone isn't charged at all it means there isn't even probable cause. Which is a much lower burden of proof. So essentially if a criminal investigation determines there is no probable cause then there is no reason to even get to adjudication.
It's the same concept as to why someone can be found not guilty at trial but be sued civily and still be held liable. You're not understanding the different burden of proofs and how they work.