Coach Delaney Speaks Out on JJ's Return

[billingsgriz]

I agree with Griz Musician and Born--if you're presumed innocent, the prosecution takes a full run at you with 3 prosecuting attorneys, a professional witness, etc., and a fat trial budget, and you're acquitted, then you're innocence in the overwhelming majority's eye has been confirmed. You went into the trial presumed innocent, you're acquitted, how can you come out of the trial not presumed innocent?

Fat Freddy can say JJ was found not guilty (Some of my lawyer friends refer to The Missoula County Attorney as Fat Freddy.) not innocent, but if JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was acquitted 12-0, after said-acquittal, he is considered innocent by the overwhelming majority of people, not withstanding a few legal scholars and the alleged victim's friends and family.

If anyone's credibility has taken a major hit in this case, it is the alleged victim who's credbility had been thoroughly shredded by this trial !!!

I have a friend in Billings now in private practice who used to be a prosecutor that handled rape cases among other crimes. He said that if JJ were Joe Sixpack, he doesn't get charged. Because the DOJ is breathing down his neck, Fat Freddy--according to my friend--almost had to charge JJ knowing his case sucked.

That probably explains why a week before the trial, Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenberg ordered his prosecutors to offer JJ a plea bargain: misdemeanor sexual assault. Fortunately, JJ turned down the offer--he would have had to register as a sex offender at least for a short period of time had he accepted this plea.

The Missoula County Attorney had his deputies offer this plea apparently because the alleged victim was getting cold feet just a week before the trial--She apparently finally realized she would be on trial as well as JJ, a message my friends that are lawyers say the prosecution would have reviewed with her before the Missoula County Attorney's Office charged JJ to warn her and inform her that she too would be dragged through the coals during a trial, not just JJ.--, and Mr. Van Valkenberg knew his case sucked even with alleged victim's full cooperation.

My source for that tidbit went to law school with some of the lawyers involved and I asked him doesn't that mean Fat Freddy knows his case is a dog a week out before the trial started, and his response to me, "Probably or the alleged victim wants to back out." Turns out it was for both reasons.

 

[UMcheer2000]

i dont' think not guilty on the rape charge is the only thing at play here. i think that they might also look at some of the other things that he admitted to during the trial suchas underage drinking, the way he treated the girl accusing him of rape and his own girlfriend. none of those things are enough to not allow him back, but he will probably have to go through all that AGAIN as part of the appeal process. he actually knew the victim for over a year and based on what went on in the trial they were fairly well acquainted. he was then the pursuer (he initiated most of contact between the two and on the day in question) having sex with her despite having no intentions of dating her. nothing criminal in that, but i'm not sure what all is covered by the student code of conduct.

speaking of his girlfriend (i assume ex-girlfriend; kelly ). it'd be interesting to hear what her take on this is. if the victim was motivated to take him to court just because j.j. liked someone else, i bet kelly isn't feeling too sorry for him after he got all serious with her and went and boned someone else just for the hell of it.

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Someone who is nuetral after this trial, either way, is either deaf and blind or has an agenda. Fence riders are pussies, in my opinion. I would at least acknowledge your opinion if you admitted you bias. I admit mine.

Deaf?? I'm deaf and I followed this trial, why not say auditory challenged?

 

[JBS]

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Someone who is nuetral after this trial, either way, is either deaf and blind or has an agenda. Fence riders are pussies, in my opinion. I would at least acknowledge your opinion if you admitted you bias. I admit mine.

Deaf?? I'm deaf and I followed this trial, why not say auditory challenged?

Sorry. They didn't offer pc courses back when I went to school. No offense intended. I really do have kind of a tough time not offending people when I'm not trying to. It sucks.

 

[WyomingGrizFan]

a not guilty verdict doesn't prove someone is innocent. the defense was not burdened with proving his innocence. it only had to create doubt.

That sure knocks off the "innocent till proven guilty routine" now, doesn't it? The way you adjudicate intanigibles I'm surprised you don't just condemn the entire human race for being merely existent. Your statements remind me of a seething resentment that lies under the surface of appearances striving to pick a bone with Providence. Sorry you got born and all that, connival birth at that; but being that I'm not your father nor your mother would it be too much to ask you, if you wouldn't mind, to hold back on your snobberly of the underling vendetta that, seemingly, strives also to bring everybody else down to your infantile level? If you have recourse to actual principle wherein it is recognized that the aim of the State and statute Law are relative, all well and good, but the chest pounding of just how so-called objective you are doesn't convince. Hence your summary observatives, speaking for and of someone else's reactions, are viewed as lacking actual non-partisan prejudice.

 

[PlayerRep]

a not guilty verdict doesn't prove someone is innocent. the defense was not burdened with proving his innocence. it only had to create doubt.

That sure knocks off the "innocent till proven guilty routine" now, doesn't it? The way you adjudicate intanigibles I'm surprised you don't just condemn the entire human race for being merely existent. Your statements remind me of a seething resentment that lies under the surface of appearances striving to pick a bone with Providence. Sorry you got born and all that, connival birth at that; but being that I'm not your father nor your mother would it be too much to ask you, if you wouldn't mind, to hold back on your snobberly of the underling vendeta that, seeminlgy, strives also to bring everybody else down to your infantile level? If you have recourse to actual principle wherein it is recognized that the aim of the State and statute Law are relative, all well and good, but the chest pounding of just how so-called objective you are doesn't convince. Hence your summary observatives, speaking for and of someone else's reactions, are viewed as lacking actual non-partisan prejudice.

While what getgrizzy said is true generally, it was not the case in Johnson case. The jury, as well as almost everyone in the court room and following on twitter, believed Johnson and didn't believe the accuser. What the case showed, at least to the jury (from what I can tell by their statements and getting information from what some have told friends in private) and many observers, is that Johnson was innocent. The defense showed the jury and the observers that there was a heck of alot more than just doubt, that led to the acquittal.

 

[GrizMusician]

Ok... so I'm just trying to wrap my head around this... if JJ is guilty... then he is guilty... & if he is not guilty... then he basically is guilty but it couldn't be proven... so therefore he wasn't innocent of the crime from the moment was accused...

Stay classy trolls. :roll:

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CV Griz Fan]

He could add enough classes Ito get to full time if he wanted to. You can add classes all the way until April I believe.

I think you can drop classes until April, but can only add until the 10th or 15th class day. Last day to add classes was probably sometime end of January or beginning of February.

I just checked the catalog, he can add until the 45th day of instruction with professor approval. That's about early to mid April.

Correct

http://www.umt.edu/uac/adddrop.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beginning the sixteenth (16) instructional day of the semester through the forty-fifth (45) instructional day, students use paper forms to drop, add and make changes of section, grading option, or credit. The drop/add form must be signed by the instructor of the course and the student's advisor. The signed drop/add form must be returned to the Registration Counter (or the Registrar's Office at Missoula College) no later than the forty-fifth instructional day. A $10.00 processing fee is charged for each drop/add form. Added courses and credits may result in additional fees. There are no refunds or reductions of fees for courses dropped and grades of W (withdrew) are recorded.

Classes started Jan 28th. 45 instruction days is April 8th

Wow! UM will never move up the US News & World Report rankings with a policy like that. How can a student miss all classes in February and March and still add the class in April. That has to be wrong, no?
RE should spend his time fixing those "loopholes" rather than firing Head Coaches and Athletic Directors.

 

[montanaguy]

Ok... so the only thing I learned in this thread is that if I am ever CHARGED for a crime I will never be INNOCENT even if I am ACQUITTED.

This legal mumbo jumbo is all a bunch of BS.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

:thumb: This succinctly drills down to the truth and lays bare the BS floated out there by some idiots.

 

[Harm]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

Harm:

Cool down boy! I guess it's been a long year. You know, you can put Xanax right under your tongue for immediate relief, right? I feel your passion but you need a release! Maybe you can carry the Montana flag
at the first home game this season. That might help you get that angst out of your system.Whew!

 

[CV Griz Fan]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

Harm:

Cool down boy! I guess it's been a long year. You know, you can put Xanax right under your tongue for immediate relief, right? I feel your passion but you need a release! Maybe you can carry the Montana flag
at the first home game this season. That might help you get that angst out of your system.Whew!

 

[grizcountry420]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

Harm:

Cool down boy! I guess it's been a long year. You know, you can put Xanax right under your tongue for immediate relief, right? I feel your passion but you need a release! Maybe you can carry the Montana flag
at the first home game this season. That might help you get that angst out of your system.Whew!

For real.... Seriously though..

 

[Harm]

....one can only watch stupidity for so long and not say anything before a blow-up....I admit it.. :thumb:

 

[CV Griz Fan]

I may be wrong but I seem to believe that you have had a decidedly anti-JJ slant for much if not all of this process. You are entitled to your opinion but you have been on the losing side of the issue thus far. Don't give up though, I'm sure something will eventually go wrong for him again (turned ankle or stubbed toe or something like that) and you can then rejoice.

nope. i've been saying all along that he'd be found not guilty and i haven't taken a side. it probably seems like i've taken a side to you because you are so pro-j.j. and compared to my neutral position i seem slanted to you. using the term "losing side" on someone that is neutral gives away your very pro-j.j. slant.

Yep, I am pro JJ. Don't see a problem with supporting an innocent person. It seems to hold some kind of stigma with you. If you are ever accused of a crime I swear you'd just show up at the jail to start serving your sentence...

a not guilty verdict doesn't prove someone is innocent. the defense was not burdened with proving his innocence. it only had to create doubt.

Guys- Since everyone is putting in their two cents on the "not guilty" verdict, I'll put mine in. All this discussion about "not guilty doesn't mean innocent"," nobody knows what really happen that night but the two parties involved" and JJ, "although found not guilty, is still a bad person" is meaningless. JJ was found "not guilty" of rape in a court of law. That is all this verdict states. There is nothing else that can be implied from that verdict. Which is fine for me at this point. In a world that is all about "relativism" now, a not guilty verdict is about as close to a "black and white" situation as you're going to get. It's time to move on and put this horrible chapter behind us.

 

[GrizBear]

i'm of the opinion that he should've been found not guilty. i find it irresponsible to have an opinion on his innocence when there's no way for me to know. the only people that know what happened are j.j. and the woman. saying he's innocent without knowing that he is just enables rapists. they see that opinion to a rape case and it just tells them they can begin or continue to rape. why would anyone want to do that?

Remove > Head > From > Ass
Presumed > Innocent > Until > Proven > Guilty > Beyond > Reasonable > Doubt
Rapists > Don't > Seek > Permission

 

[RobGriz]

Well, not guilty may not, according to some, be the same as 'innocent', but oddly enough, the sentence is the same....wierd.

 

[BigPawzSharpClawz]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

Harm:

Cool down boy! I guess it's been a long year. You know, you can put Xanax right under your tongue for immediate relief, right? I feel your passion but you need a release! Maybe you can carry the Montana flag
at the first home game this season. That might help you get that angst out of your system.Whew!

HARM ignor the CV villiage idiot asking you to calm down. They wouldnt be calm if the truly understood the suffering to achieve the rights you speak off. Rant upon desire, educate the ignorant & thank you for your experienced opinion that is without political bias.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Get Grizzy, your an idiot of the highest order, if you were otherwise you wouldn't still be calling person formerly referred to as the "Victim" a victim. She isn't a victim, enough said there. I've been in both MT state and Federal L.E., the bullshit that JJ has gone through is depolorable. I'm usually on the prosecution side, however, due to obvious reasons previously stated, this was "F@cked" from the word go. From the student review board who came into the chambers only asking questions as to what will happen to JJ when we find him guilty, who in fact had no intentions of even listening to the evidence or any testimony at all, and who even violated his constitutionally protected rights!!!!!!!!.........to the political pressure applied by the "Back channel" approach by those formerly in political power. The inside workings of this are way beyond the most ridiculous rantings by the usual suspect posters on Egriz...... I rarely post on here anymore, again for obvious reasons, but this guy was accused, by someone scormed....and who's attorneys got whatever they wanted from the "Judge" if you can even call that joke a Judge.......Her story changed everytime she was asked to recite it....., don't ask, I'm not allowed to say. The Jury got it right, and from someone who thinks Defense attorney's are POS's...., I'm certainly happy they're around. JJ has been found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers people, he is INNOCENT of the charges. Full stop, end of discussion. That is our constitutionally protected rights, provided to us by those that suffered through more than any common civilian would be willing to do today.

Harm:

Cool down boy! I guess it's been a long year. You know, you can put Xanax right under your tongue for immediate relief, right? I feel your passion but you need a release! Maybe you can carry the Montana flag
at the first home game this season. That might help you get that angst out of your system.Whew!

HARM ignor the CV villiage idiot asking you to calm down. They wouldnt be calm if the truly understood the suffering to achieve the rights you speak off. Rant upon desire, educate the ignorant & thank you for your experienced opinion that is without political bias.

I saw nothing in Harm's post that suggested he was ranting. I agree with his conclusion completely.