• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

FVV uncut...

GrizBacker04

Well-known member
Fred Van Valkenburg did not mince too many words today during a speech in Missoula. The twitter feed of Caitlin Copple (@caitlincopple) gave a play-by-play. Some highlights included:

@caitlincopple Fred VV calls out reporting, editing of @GwenFlorio @SherryDevlin but says the reporter in the room, @KeilaSzpaller, is perfect. #MTPol

@caitlincopple VV says DOJ being PC and that it happened because it was an election year. Says he's a hardcore Dem but embarrassed by DOJs conduct #MTPol

@caitlincopple VV:No one has ever said the Missoula's numbers are out of proportion to what other communities experience #MTPol

@caitlincopple Says @missoulian 2011 stories using anonymous sources on gang rape led to DOJ investigation #MTPol
 
I'd say it's pretty interesting that our county attorney (according to Copple's tweets) has at least partially blamed the paper for causing the investigation. Citing Missoula's numbers are not out of the ordinary and that Florio's articles and Devlin's editing are to blame.

Fred VV calls out reporting, editing of @GwenFlorio @SherryDevlin but says the reporter in the room, @KeilaSzpaller, is perfect. #MTPol

VV:No one has ever said the Missoula's numbers are out of proportion to what other communities experience #MTPol

@missoulian stories plus Barz investigation created the national story, VV says.

You can read the rest of Copple's tweets on her profile page: https://twitter.com/caitlincopple" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
The most crucial tweet was the one that said the deputy thought the evidence was too weak on the JJ accusation and that she never said no. If that was the case, you really have to question why the charges were brought don't you?
 
Fred's wife, Carol, was an outstanding professor in the the J school at UM. She retired about a year
and a half ago. I have not had occasion to speak with her since she left, but often could imagine her fuming about some of the "reporting" that was taking place in the Missoulian. The paper had an agenda--they wanted to break the next Penn State and their editorial judgement (and ethics, in my opinion) went out the window as a result. The fact that they nominated Florio for a Pulitzer makes me sick to my stomach every time I think of it.

After watching JJ's trial I came to believe very strongly that no rape took place and that were it not for the Missoulian's irresponsible reporting he never would have been brought up on charges. What is sad--and frightening--to think about is that had he not been charged, he likely would have been thrown out of school and the true facts would never have become public. I have tremendous respect for how he handled the whole situation. That, combined with his talent on the football field, will always keep him on my list of all-time favorite Grizzlies.
 
I think the comment about "she never said no" was in reference to the groups sex aka "gang rape." Correct me if I am wrong on that.
However if questions existed about sufficient evidence in the JJ charge, why would FVV bring it to court? did he cave to external pressure?
 
GrizPony said:
The most crucial tweet was the one that said the deputy thought the evidence was too weak on the JJ accusation and that she never said no. If that was the case, you really have to question why the charges were brought don't you?
where's that? i see that comment about the gang rape case, not the j.j. case.
 
Blgs Griz Fan said:
I think the comment about "she never said no" was in reference to the groups sex aka "gang rape." Correct me if I am wrong on that.
However if questions existed about sufficient evidence in the JJ charge, why would FVV bring it to court? did he cave to external pressure?
v.v. said "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" regarding j.j. trial. i would say he thought evidence was sufficient based on that.
 
getgrizzy said:
GrizPony said:
The most crucial tweet was the one that said the deputy thought the evidence was too weak on the JJ accusation and that she never said no. If that was the case, you really have to question why the charges were brought don't you?
where's that? i see that comment about the gang rape case, not the j.j. case.

I must have read it wrong. I thought it was about the JJ trial. I talked with VV before the JJ charges and I felt originally that he was not going to charge him. I think the pressure did make him change his position but I don't know for sure.
 
GG, I don't think there needs to be another prolonged blog about the difference between not guilty and innocent in the JJ trial. In this case it sure seems like FVV surrendered to outside pressure costing a lot of people great pain, the county significant expense, and the University experienced significant damage as well.
Maybe FVV is culpable on the above for not having a big enough pair?
 
Blgs Griz Fan said:
GG, I don't think there needs to be another prolonged blog about the difference between not guilty and innocent in the JJ trial. In this case it sure seems like FVV surrendered to outside pressure costing a lot of people great pain, the county significant expense, and the University experienced significant damage as well.
Maybe FVV is culpable on the above for not having a big enough pair?
And you forgot perhaps the biggest "victim" of this miss-prosecution which was JJ's parents' bank account which is why I think juries should have the ability to judge, based on the lack of evidence, that the accused was "innocent" (i.e. create a new legal distinction) upon which the exonerated would be awarded legal fees to be paid by the prosecuting party. Having to at least prove just cause for taking a person to trial could do a whole to remedy malicious or abusive prosecution. Also, an "innocent" verdict would put an end to all of the mind-numbing port trial debate over not guilty vs. innocent.
 
yeah he's just slamming on the d.o.j. cuz he needs to grow a pair. no one KNOWS if j.j. raped her or not. v.v. put him on trial because he thought the evidence was good enough. do you really think he would stand up to the fed and cower to the hometown media and minority of the missoula populace?
 
As a Democrat, I don't think FVV could withstand the pressure in this town. He would never have a friend in retirement. To see the craziness, one only needs look at the rally on the bridge AFTER the not guilty verdict to see how clueless most people are in this town. They don't think that jurors, picked out of a huge jury pool and by both sides and hearing all the evidence, made the right decision. I also point out that this jury only took a COUPLE HOURS to return that unanimous verdict! This would never have been prosecuted but for the rabid and biased actions of the Missoulian and women's "advocates" in this town. Fred has to live here so it was a more acute pressure.
 
getgrizzy said:
v.v. put him on trial because he thought the evidence was good enough.
Is this just your assumption or is there a quote that I haven't read? Can't say I have seen it said this directly.
 
In reading an article on the Naval Academy's recent sexual assault problems, I was struck by the comparison between sexual assault allegations at the Naval Academy and UM. Barz looked at 9 allegations at UM over a several year period. The Naval Academy had 51 sexual assault allegations from 2011-2013. There are less than 4600 students at the Naval Academy. The DOJ report said there are 14,964 students at UM.

The Missoulian's sensational reporting made Missoula out to be, as the Jezebel.com article said, the Rape Capital of the US.

The Missoulian has refused to investigate and report that there were no UM gang rapes, or even rapes, that occurred in December 2011--after the Missoulian's bogus reporting/insinuating that there were gang rapes and date rape drugs.
 
getgrizzy said:
yeah he's just slamming on the d.o.j. cuz he needs to grow a pair. no one KNOWS if j.j. raped her or not. v.v. put him on trial because he thought the evidence was good enough. do you really think he would stand up to the fed and cower to the hometown media and minority of the missoula populace?

Anyone who went to the trial would know that JJ didn't rape her--just like the jury concluded. It wasn't even rape if you believed the accuser's testimony.
 
PlayerRep said:
The Missoulian has refused to investigate and report that there were no UM gang rapes, or even rapes, that occurred in December 2011--after the Missoulian's bogus reporting/insinuating that there were gang rapes and date rape drugs.
if someone in any city claims to have been gang raped by football players that city's news will pick it up, especially when there are other rape claims against the same football team. just because a claim doesn't go to trial doesn't mean it isn't true. the missoulian is under no obligation to say something that may have happened didn't happen.
 
PlayerRep said:
getgrizzy said:
yeah he's just slamming on the d.o.j. cuz he needs to grow a pair. no one KNOWS if j.j. raped her or not. v.v. put him on trial because he thought the evidence was good enough. do you really think he would stand up to the fed and cower to the hometown media and minority of the missoula populace?

Anyone who went to the trial would know that JJ didn't rape her--just like the jury concluded. It wasn't even rape if you believed the accuser's testimony.
well based on what the one juror quoted said we know that isn't true.
 
Grisly Fan said:
getgrizzy said:
v.v. put him on trial because he thought the evidence was good enough.
Is this just your assumption or is there a quote that I haven't read? Can't say I have seen it said this directly.
he put him on trial, right? after the verdict was read he said "not guilty doesn't mean innocent,"right? is that still an assumption?
 
Back
Top