Falsely Accused

[getgrizzy]

this is a not case of false accusation. the police would've had to immediately prove that and have the accuser drop the charge, or they would have to charge the victim and take her to court and prove that she's lying, or she will need to admit to that. you can't say a not guilty verdict proves that the accusation is false.

the biggest piece of evidence against beau donaldson was his own words that were recorded by the police. he admitted to what he did. had he not unknowingly admitted to it, it's very unlikely he would've been found guilty. it's the only difference between it and the j.j. case.

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

 

[JBS]

this is a not case of false accusation. the police would've had to immediately prove that and have the accuser drop the charge, or they would have to charge the victim and take her to court and prove that she's lying, or she will need to admit to that. you can't say a not guilty verdict proves that the accusation is false.

the biggest piece of evidence against beau donaldson was his own words that were recorded by the police. he admitted to what he did. had he not unknowingly admitted to it, it's very unlikely he would've been found guilty. it's the only difference between it and the j.j. case.

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

You realize there was no evidence don't you? None. JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was found not guilty, and came out the other end innocent. Using you theory, anyone who is accused and the case goes to trial will never be innocent, only not guilty. That is fu*ked up my friend.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

Uhhhh, yeah, pretty sure in 'Merica (eff yeah!) you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Grisly Fan]

this is a not case of false accusation. the police would've had to immediately prove that and have the accuser drop the charge, or they would have to charge the victim and take her to court and prove that she's lying, or she will need to admit to that. you can't say a not guilty verdict proves that the accusation is false.

the biggest piece of evidence against beau donaldson was his own words that were recorded by the police. he admitted to what he did. had he not unknowingly admitted to it, it's very unlikely he would've been found guilty. it's the only difference between it and the j.j. case.

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

You realize there was no evidence don't you? None. JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was found not guilty, and came out the other end innocent. Using you theory, anyone who is accused and the case goes to trial will never be innocent, only not guilty. That is fu*ked up my friend.

Some people don't seem to actually totally buy into our justice system and want to ignore or spin the parts of it that make them feel uncomfortable. Also the possibility that a truly innocent person could be tried for a crime seems outside the realm of the possible to them. Or maybe they just don't like JJ...

 

[JBS]

getgrizzly, another piece of nonsense you spewed. Claiming that it can't be a case of false accusation because the police would have to prove that. Did you not hear the testimony about the new police policy? In sexual assault cases, police are now supposed to presume the accused is guilty. Fact. It came up over and over in court. The police didn't even investigate this case. They took her report, interviewed JJ, the detective became chummy with Jane Doe, and the took the words of nurses, councilor, and friends of hers as fact. Yes, he was falsely accused. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

 

[getgrizzy]

this is a not case of false accusation. the police would've had to immediately prove that and have the accuser drop the charge, or they would have to charge the victim and take her to court and prove that she's lying, or she will need to admit to that. you can't say a not guilty verdict proves that the accusation is false.

the biggest piece of evidence against beau donaldson was his own words that were recorded by the police. he admitted to what he did. had he not unknowingly admitted to it, it's very unlikely he would've been found guilty. it's the only difference between it and the j.j. case.

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

You realize there was no evidence don't you? None. JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was found not guilty, and came out the other end innocent. Using you theory, anyone who is accused and the case goes to trial will never be innocent, only not guilty. That is fu*ked up my friend.

yes, presumed innocent. need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. a guilty verdict doesn't mean someone actually committed a crime either, if it makes you feel better.

 

[getgrizzy]

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

You realize there was no evidence don't you? None. JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was found not guilty, and came out the other end innocent. Using you theory, anyone who is accused and the case goes to trial will never be innocent, only not guilty. That is fu*ked up my friend.

Some people don't seem to actually totally buy into our justice system and want to ignore or spin the parts of it that make them feel uncomfortable. Also the possibility that a truly innocent person could be tried for a crime seems outside the realm of the possible to them. Or maybe they just don't like JJ...

i've never said i thought he did or didn't do this. your bias is showing.

 

[getgrizzy]

getgrizzly, another piece of nonsense you spewed. Claiming that it can't be a case of false accusation because the police would have to prove that. Did you not hear the testimony about the new police policy? In sexual assault cases, police are now supposed to presume the accused is guilty. Fact. It came up over and over in court. The police didn't even investigate this case. They took her report, interviewed JJ, the detective became chummy with Jane Doe, and the took the words of nurses, councilor, and friends of hers as fact. Yes, he was falsely accused. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

just because the cops are presuming the accused is guilty doesn't mean they won't stop their investigation if they find information that shows the accusation is false. if they find reason to believe its false, then they can say as much and someone can place it in the false accusation file.

an accusation is either true or false or it remains an accusation. a verdict doesn't change an accusation.

 

[JBS]

Uh, I can think of another difference. Donaldson was guilty and JJ wasn't? If many people think like you, this is a pretty scary world.

you realize that evidence and a verdict aren't the same thing and that not guilty doesn't mean innocent, don't you?

You realize there was no evidence don't you? None. JJ went into the trial presumed innocent, was found not guilty, and came out the other end innocent. Using you theory, anyone who is accused and the case goes to trial will never be innocent, only not guilty. That is fu*ked up my friend.

yes, presumed innocent. need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. a guilty verdict doesn't mean someone actually committed a crime either, if it makes you feel better.

Dumb. If any of us ever get accused of something we didn't do and it goes to trial, we will never be considered innocent by the people in your world. Really, I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. This case had no evidence. Don't compare it to jury nullification trials ala O.J. Apples and oranges, no pun intended. You are just spouting justifications for your silly look on what we all just witnessed.

 

[JBS]

getgrizzly, another piece of nonsense you spewed. Claiming that it can't be a case of false accusation because the police would have to prove that. Did you not hear the testimony about the new police policy? In sexual assault cases, police are now supposed to presume the accused is guilty. Fact. It came up over and over in court. The police didn't even investigate this case. They took her report, interviewed JJ, the detective became chummy with Jane Doe, and the took the words of nurses, councilor, and friends of hers as fact. Yes, he was falsely accused. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

just because the cops are presuming the accused is guilty doesn't mean they won't stop their investigation if they find information that shows the accusation is false. if they find reason to believe its false, then they can say as much and someone can place it in the false accusation file.

an accusation is either true or false or it remains an accusation. a verdict doesn't change an accusation.

They didn't even START their investigation. Did you not even read the twitters? Paoli showed over and over where the police did nothing. I sat in that courtroom several days, includIing the day the detective was on the stand. She did not investigate, she went by the womans statement and considered it true. I can't add anymore, so I won't bother responding to you again.

 

[getgrizzy]

getgrizzly, another piece of nonsense you spewed. Claiming that it can't be a case of false accusation because the police would have to prove that. Did you not hear the testimony about the new police policy? In sexual assault cases, police are now supposed to presume the accused is guilty. Fact. It came up over and over in court. The police didn't even investigate this case. They took her report, interviewed JJ, the detective became chummy with Jane Doe, and the took the words of nurses, councilor, and friends of hers as fact. Yes, he was falsely accused. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

just because the cops are presuming the accused is guilty doesn't mean they won't stop their investigation if they find information that shows the accusation is false. if they find reason to believe its false, then they can say as much and someone can place it in the false accusation file.

an accusation is either true or false or it remains an accusation. a verdict doesn't change an accusation.

They didn't even START their investigation. Did you not even read the twitters? Paoli showed over and over where the police did nothing. I sat in that courtroom several days, includIing the day the detective was on the stand. She did not investigate, she went by the womans statement and considered it true. I can't add anymore, so I won't bother responding to you again.

regardless of whether they're investigating or not, they police/legal system would halt once it got information (whether they were looking for it or not) that the accusation was in fact false. if the woman had told them she was making this us, do you think they would've still taken this to trial. quit playing dumb on this.

 

[PlayerRep]

It was absolutely astounding that the investigators did not ask the accuser about her multiple "curious" texts, until Paoli/Pabst interviewed the accuser in the late fall (December, or November) with the investigators/prosecutors present. The texts were downloaded from her phone in June. The detective said they made a decision not to ask the accuser about the texts earlier. What kind of investigation is that? The texts were key to the case. Everyone who followed the case, including the jury, thought the texts were key. How can a charge be brought before the texts are even discussed with the accuser? It is unbelievable how few times the detective and prosecutors talked substantively with the accuser.

The case is going to cause alot of people to lose confidence in how detectives and prosecutors investigate and pursue charges. It is also going to cause alot of people to lose confidence in the support system for sexual assault victims and the Curry Center. While the support system needs to provide support, the lack of common sense, any semblance of objectivity, and apparent unethical behavior appeared to be very significant.

 

[IHateRobPhenicie]

One thing I've learned from this case is that Beau Donaldson was a fool for pleading guilty to rape, because in Missoula, if you're a football player, saying no doesn't matter if you are a woman. It's whether or not the football player understands what no means.

Wow. Just. wow.

 

[fencer24]

getgrizzly, another piece of nonsense you spewed. Claiming that it can't be a case of false accusation because the police would have to prove that. Did you not hear the testimony about the new police policy? In sexual assault cases, police are now supposed to presume the accused is guilty. Fact. It came up over and over in court. The police didn't even investigate this case. They took her report, interviewed JJ, the detective became chummy with Jane Doe, and the took the words of nurses, councilor, and friends of hers as fact. Yes, he was falsely accused. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

just because the cops are presuming the accused is guilty doesn't mean they won't stop their investigation if they find information that shows the accusation is false. if they find reason to believe its false, then they can say as much and someone can place it in the false accusation file.

an accusation is either true or false or it remains an accusation. a verdict doesn't change an accusation.

They didn't even START their investigation. Did you not even read the twitters? Paoli showed over and over where the police did nothing. I sat in that courtroom several days, includIing the day the detective was on the stand. She did not investigate, she went by the womans statement and considered it true. I can't add anymore, so I won't bother responding to you again.

regardless of whether they're investigating or not, they police/legal system would halt once it got information (whether they were looking for it or not) that the accusation was in fact false. if the woman had told them she was making this us, do you think they would've still taken this to trial. quit playing dumb on this.

The police were not looking to prove the accusations false. That is not their job. Their job is to present the evidence they find to the county attorney and let them make the call. But the police are not so much interested in the truth as they are in closing a case. And once they charge a case, they have an investment in the case that there is a conviction in order to validate their assessment.

Our justice system is imperfect, but it is the only one we have. The thing to do is to be good citizens and jurors and hold the state to the high demands or the Constitution. Anything less than that is unAmerican.