An apology from Rolling Stone

[getgrizzy]

OFFS! That doesn't mean they didn't believe her. If that's the only possible meaning behind that then you're either very narrow minded or you have an agenda. Lots of parents and friends don't want their children to do certain things. Join the service, go to spring break in Mexico, buy certain types of cars. I'm sure Jane Doe's family and friends aren't the first to be against their daughter making a rape claim.

Your credibility: Stre-e-e-e-t--c--h, SNAP!

Nice punt.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

OFFS! That doesn't mean they didn't believe her. If that's the only possible meaning behind that then you're either very narrow minded or you have an agenda. Lots of parents and friends don't want their children to do certain things. Join the service, go to spring break in Mexico, buy certain types of cars. I'm sure Jane Doe's family and friends aren't the first to be against their daughter making a rape claim.

Your credibility: Stre-e-e-e-t--c--h, SNAP!

Nice punt.

Gwen, give it up, you're had forward and backwards.

Your last statement wanting proof only shows that either you didn't listen to the trial or trial reports, or as more likely has been shown here, you refuse to hear or acknowledge any evidence which defeats your narrative.

You're the type that when the accuser does finally publicly recant in the future, you won't believe that either.

 

[UMGriz75]

MISSOULA - After a jury acquitted suspended University of Montana football player Jordan Johnson of rape on Friday, we talked with one of the alternate jurors in the case. ...

"The lack of evidence was troubling. The alleged victim's mixed messages and comments to friends cast doubt on allegations. The alleged victim even questioned events of the evening and there was no evidence that Jordan Johnson knew that he had sex without consent," he said.

The juror also said that there just wasn't enough evidence in the prosecution's case to show Johnson had raped the woman, and that's why a not guilty verdict came down so quickly.

"I mean it was a pretty straight forward case. You can judge by the quick and unanimous verdict that the state failed Jordan Johnson by bringing this case to trial," he said.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UmjgmkG2K1cJ:www1.ktvq.com/news/alternate-juror-discusses-jordan-johnson-rape-trial/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Raider]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

 

[getgrizzy]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

Of course. They believe anything that supports their agenda.

 

[UMGriz75]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

I think its called "sarcasm."

 

[UMGriz75]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

Of course. They believe anything that supports their agenda.

And that's called "irony."

 

[Grisly Fan]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

Of course. They believe anything that supports their agenda.

And you don't believe anything which doesn't support yours. Pot -> kettle

 

[UMGriz75]

She said: "The reason I feel this whole situation is my fault is because I feel like I gave Jordan mixed signals which caused him to act the way he did."

In a later text message, she told someone, "I don't think he did anything wrong." But, in a most cruel and bitter text to a friend, she expressed happiness that he was going to be charged with rape -- according to the motion the text message said: "It will hit him like a ton of bricks, which I'm OK with so, wanna' get lunch Thursday?"

http://www.cotwa.info/2013/03/rape-trial-of-college-quarterback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dr. David Lisak, one of the nation's most famous rape victim's advocates, testified that while trauma could explain the changing stories of an alleged rape victim, lying could explain the same behavior.

 

[getgrizzy]

MISSOULA - After a jury acquitted suspended University of Montana football player Jordan Johnson of rape on Friday, we talked with one of the alternate jurors in the case. ...

"The lack of evidence was troubling. The alleged victim's mixed messages and comments to friends cast doubt on allegations. The alleged victim even questioned events of the evening and there was no evidence that Jordan Johnson knew that he had sex without consent," he said.

The juror also said that there just wasn't enough evidence in the prosecution's case to show Johnson had raped the woman, and that's why a not guilty verdict came down so quickly.

"I mean it was a pretty straight forward case. You can judge by the quick and unanimous verdict that the state failed Jordan Johnson by bringing this case to trial," he said.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UmjgmkG2K1cJ:www1.ktvq.com/news/alternate-juror-discusses-jordan-johnson-rape-trial/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes opinions do vary. Even among jurors.
"You just can't convict somebody if you're not 100 percent, or reasonably sure," said Donna M. Aucutt, who described the 2 1/2 hours of deliberations as cordial. "It's a sad case all the way around, with so many people affected. But you've just got to go with what the law says...and there was that little bit of doubt whether Mr. Johnson knew."

 

[UMGriz75]

Of course. They believe anything that supports their agenda.

Such as a rapid, unanimous jury verdict.

 

[getgrizzy]

She said: "The reason I feel this whole situation is my fault is because I feel like I gave Jordan mixed signals which caused him to act the way he did."

In a later text message, she told someone, "I don't think he did anything wrong." But, in a most cruel and bitter text to a friend, she expressed happiness that he was going to be charged with rape -- according to the motion the text message said: "It will hit him like a ton of bricks, which I'm OK with so, wanna' get lunch Thursday?"

http://www.cotwa.info/2013/03/rape-trial-of-college-quarterback.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dr. David Lisak, one of the nation's most famous rape victim's advocates, testified that while trauma could explain the changing stories of an alleged rape victim, lying could explain the same behavior.

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

 

[getgrizzy]

Do you guys really think that Gwen Florio has been posting on e-griz since 2005?

...has she even been here that long?

Of course. They believe anything that supports their agenda.

And that's called "irony."

Yeah that's quite the agenda I have. Admitting that I don't know what happened and that the trial didn't prove this was a false allegation. My agenda is the honest "I don't know, but I agree with the verdict" agenda. You know the one.

 

[UMGriz75]

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

I forgot. By fabricating non-existent questions about evidence, and failing to recollect key trial testimony, and by claiming that her family's unwillingness to believe her was "like, Spring Break or something," you continue to profess "independent, objective judgment," as though closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and continuing to make false accusations makes it all "honest."

 

[UMGriz75]

Yes opinions do vary. Even among jurors.
"You just can't convict somebody if you're not 100 percent, or reasonably sure," said Donna M. Aucutt, who described the 2 1/2 hours of deliberations as cordial. "It's a sad case all the way around, with so many people affected. But you've just got to go with what the law says...and there was that little bit of doubt whether Mr. Johnson knew."

Kind of missed your own point there. Obviously, Florio did NOT provide the coverage that opinion differed "even among jurors." Kind of a bit of an oversight, huh? She quoted the one that she could almost make it sound like a "close call." And that was Florio's obvious intention.

Usually, after a major trial like this, media will survey the jurors. The local TV station managed to interview a juror who felt that the County had done a diservice to JJ by even taking the case to trial.

Gwen Florio, on the other hand, representing the primary media coverage, refused to report that, and instead claimed that she could only find one juror to interview, for the opinion that “we were kind of hung up on the fact that we just couldn’t do a conviction because we weren’t sure whether Mr. Johnson was aware of whether the sex was non-consensual.” Yeah, "getgrizzly" left that part out because it didn't neatly fit his "objective" narrative. Right.

And the juror suggests they were "hung up," when in fact the jury returned the unanimous verdict in practically record time. "Hung up" included the Jury vote to get their free lunch first and that was the only delay in announcing the verdict much faster. For any ace news reporter, isn't there something a teeny bit incongruous there? I've waited for juries that are genuinely "hung up," and that means a day, two, or more, not the 45 minutes that included foreman selection and the vote for lunch.

Is there any doubt that her single juror interview was as close as Florio could get to supporting "her" narrative? And that was the reason for the single juror interview, even though the TV station managed to find one with the diametrically opposed opinion? But Florio couldn't find a juror with that inconvenient opinion? Indeed, couldn't seem to locate any of the other jurors for their opinions? Or, did she just refuse to report what they said to her?

Isn't that precisely the Rolling Stone sin? Interview and report only those that support the "Narrative." Don't even try to find any other viewpoint. There's more proof of it at the Missoulian. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[getgrizzy]

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

I forgot. By fabricating non-existent questions about evidence, and failing to recollect key trial testimony, and by claiming that her family's unwillingness to believe her was "like, Spring Break or something," you continue to profess "independent, objective judgment," as though closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and continuing to make false accusations makes it all "honest."

It's called putting things from both sides into context. You don't appear to get that.

If someone was in here arguing that JJ was guilty and that everything coming from the accuser was gospel I'd argue that as well.

 

[UMGriz75]

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

I forgot. By fabricating non-existent questions about evidence, and failing to recollect key trial testimony, and by claiming that her family's unwillingness to believe her was "like, Spring Break or something," you continue to profess "independent, objective judgment," as though closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and continuing to make false accusations makes it all "honest."

It's called putting things from both sides into context. You don't appear to get that.

Besides lacking any sense of self-embarrassment, "context" for you appears to consist of continuing to misrepresent the testimony of the "alleged victim" and making bizarre claims about her family refusing to believe her claims, and her threatening her closest family, because its ... somehow, that's "just what normal families do" when they disagree over Spring Break in Mexico or some other such blithering ridiculousness.

Did you already disavow your previous claim?

getgrizzly: I've seen or heard nothing that her friends and family didn't believe her. I hope for your own sake you aren't making that up. It would be hard to live with a lie like that. I'm sure if that were true this message board would be saturated with threads about it. Please provide some proof of what you're stating or check yourself.

For somebody just seeking "context" you were pretty quick to imply that horribilisfan8184 was a liar.

It's not "context" you are looking for, it is validation of your own views by falsifying the testimony and evidence obtained under oath at trial, and then trying to pretend that falsification is being "objective."

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

I forgot. By fabricating non-existent questions about evidence, and failing to recollect key trial testimony, and by claiming that her family's unwillingness to believe her was "like, Spring Break or something," you continue to profess "independent, objective judgment," as though closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and continuing to make false accusations makes it all "honest."

It's called putting things from both sides into context. You don't appear to get that.

If someone was in here arguing that JJ was guilty and that everything coming from the accuser was gospel I'd argue that as well.

Biggest road apple to come down your chute yet!

 

[getgrizzy]

Yep, either could. Did I ever question that?

I forgot. By fabricating non-existent questions about evidence, and failing to recollect key trial testimony, and by claiming that her family's unwillingness to believe her was "like, Spring Break or something," you continue to profess "independent, objective judgment," as though closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and continuing to make false accusations makes it all "honest."

It's called putting things from both sides into context. You don't appear to get that.

Besides lacking any sense of self-embarrassment, "context" for you appears to consist of continuing to misrepresent the testimony of the "alleged victim" and making bizarre claims about her family refusing to believe her claims, and her threatening her closest family, because its ... somehow, that's "just what normal families do" when they disagree over Spring Break in Mexico or some other such blithering ridiculousness.

Did you already disavow your previous claim?

getgrizzly: I've seen or heard nothing that her friends and family didn't believe her. I hope for your own sake you aren't making that up. It would be hard to live with a lie like that. I'm sure if that were true this message board would be saturated with threads about it. Please provide some proof of what you're stating or check yourself.

For somebody just seeking "context" you were pretty quick to imply that horribilisfan8184 was a liar.

8184 said her mother didn't believe her. Your "proof" for that was not concrete as per the examples I provided.

I don't have a view. I'm just being honest with myself by acknowledging that I don't know whether she's making a false accusation or not. I've asked for proof that she did and you're unable to provide in here. Is there something you know that you can't share for some reason?

 

[UMGriz75]

\8184 said her mother didn't believe her. Your "proof" for that was not concrete as per the examples I provided.

I don't have a view. I'm just being honest with myself by acknowledging that I don't know whether she's making a false accusation or not. I've asked for proof that she did and you're unable to provide in here. Is there something you know that you can't share for some reason?

You're not being honest with anybody.

In a later text message, she told someone, "I don't think he did anything wrong."

Paoli also asked her about a note she sent to a high school friend in Great Falls that detailed the trouble she was having with getting her mom, aunt and cousin to be on her side, and also included thoughts she was having about feeling responsible for what happened and even guilty.

And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it.

The whole situation makes me think I just lied.

Night before, at Forester's Ball, in front of JJ's girlfriend, visiting from Oregon:

Jordy, I'd do you any time.

Get the "context" yet?