FVV uncut...

[tnt]

I dunno, but it sounds like Fred is about to get wacked - HARD....

 

[getgrizzy]

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.

just because a jury only needs two hours to deliberate doesn't mean they KNOW what happened. there are a couple good reasons why they didnt need long. they all could've known there was good evidence, but that it simply wasn't strong enough. they could've had pre-vote the day before summation and decided unless something real strong out during summation they would stick to that vote. the one juror interviewed didn't sound overwhelmingly sure.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

The problem is that it appears that the Missoulian must have gone with stories in late 2011, in which it had gotten its information from someone other than an accuser or legal authorities--and no such accusation had been made by any accuser. This is what it I have concluded and/or been told.

In addition, I think it's irresponsible to print headline sexual assault stories based only on what an accuser has said to the newspaper. I think the a responsible newspaper ought to look for some third party collaboration, i.e. something legal authorities or someone who has done some investigation.

 

[PlayerRep]

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?

That's called sour grapes from a very competition person who was very disappointed that his team had lost, and lost badly.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

just because a jury only needs two hours to deliberate doesn't mean they KNOW what happened. there are a couple good reasons why they didnt need long. they all could've known there was good evidence, but that it simply wasn't strong enough. they could've had pre-vote the day before summation and decided unless something real strong out during summation they would stick to that vote. the one juror interviewed didn't sound overwhelmingly sure.

I've been told by several people that jurors have told them that the case was over after the accuser testified. That indicates to me that those jurors didn't believe there was a case to be had even at that point and/or didn't believe the accuser.

 

[GrizPony]

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.

just because a jury only needs two hours to deliberate doesn't mean they KNOW what happened. there are a couple good reasons why they didnt need long. they all could've known there was good evidence, but that it simply wasn't strong enough. they could've had pre-vote the day before summation and decided unless something real strong out during summation they would stick to that vote. the one juror interviewed didn't sound overwhelmingly sure.

I've been told by several people that jurors have told them that the case was over after the accuser testified. That indicates to me that those jurors didn't believe there was a case to be had even at that point and/or didn't believe the accuser.

This! The jury was polled and I stand by my statement.

 

[kemajic]

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.

BS; he knew there was no evidence or he would have charged in less than 6 months. They responded to outside pressure and were hoping (and expecting) a plea. They grossly undersestimated the fortitude of JJ and his family.

 

[kemajic]

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.

The problem is that it appears that the Missoulian must have gone with stories in late 2011, in which it had gotten its information from someone other than an accuser or legal authorities--and no such accusation had been made by any accuser. This is what it I have concluded and/or been told.
In addition, I think it's irresponsible to print headline sexual assault stories based only on what an accuser has said to the newspaper. I think the a responsible newspaper ought to look for some third party collaboration, i.e. something legal authorities or someone who has done some investigation.

The Missoulian is no longer a newspaper, let alone a responsible newspaper; it's a tabloid.

 

[WyomingGrizFan]

Fred Van Valkenburg...

Isn't he the one a couple years back that wanted to outlaw oregano because it looked too much like marijuana?

 

[TxGriz]

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?

No case is too weak in the age of the "war on women", at least as long as candidates for office need a campaign issue. Ho-hum, oh well it was just the Missoula County taxpayer's money.

 

[Blgs Griz Fan]

GrislyFan, thanks for pointing out my neglecting to include the Johnson family and their financial loss as a result of the charges. My apologies to them for the omission.
Freddy Van, as he was referred to by his Blgs Central HS classmates, sure seems to have succumbed to outside pressure and now is showing signs of bitterness over his actions.
I had hoped we could avoid the debate over not guilty vs innocent but some people just refuse to accept the fact that a jury of his peers found in favor of the defendant, Jordan Johnson.
Question, can a jury hand down a verdict of innocent in the State of Montana?

 

[griz4life]

I think the third party corroboration the Missoulian used was the "gang rape" comment made by UM staff in the FOIA emails acquired by the newspaper. Never mind that the UM staff disagreed whether the term was appropriate. Meanwhile, the months and years keep ticking by without a charge filed or any source identified related to the Missoulian's, uh, "Pulitzer nominated" work.

 

[getgrizzy]

I had hoped we could avoid the debate over not guilty vs innocent but some people just refuse to accept the fact that a jury of his peers found in favor of the defendant, Jordan Johnson.
Question, can a jury hand down a verdict of innocent in the State of Montana?

i'm perfectly satisfied with the verdict. not guilty was correct based on the evidence. that doesn't mean i think i know what actually happened. no one does aside from the two involved. it could very well be that he held her down despite her protests. there was physical evidence to support that, but not enough to get a guilty verdict. just living with the facts here.

 

[Raider]

I had hoped we could avoid the debate over not guilty vs innocent but some people just refuse to accept the fact that a jury of his peers found in favor of the defendant, Jordan Johnson.
Question, can a jury hand down a verdict of innocent in the State of Montana?

i'm perfectly satisfied with the verdict. not guilty was correct based on the evidence. that doesn't mean i think i know what actually happened. no one does aside from the two involved. it could very well be that he held her down despite her protests. there was physical evidence to support that, but not enough to get a guilty verdict. just living with the facts here.

wow, you really need a productive hobby.

Get over it.............

 

[GrizPony]

No you aren't "living with the facts". Even if you believed her testimony 100% it didn't rise to the level of the legal definition of rape. That's why the not guilty verdict was so quick. The law has precise standards and her testimony, even if believed, did not meet the standard for conviction. Those are the "facts". :thumb:

 

[Blgs Griz Fan]

"Just the facts ma am, just the facts." Good grief, charges were filed, the case was investigated, the defendant was given his day in court, and a verdict was rendered. Not guilty. Enough about all this. It is time to move on. Or should we start going over "if the glove doesn't fit..." next.
Freddie Van caved in when he brought this case to court, just saying.

 

[grizpack]

Fred is about to retire. I really don't think he is about to get Whacked. I think these are his parting shots.

 

[tnt]

Fred is about to retire. I really don't think he is about to get Whacked. I think these are his parting shots.

Better those than the warning a former sheriff's deputy who admitted he used his "job" and position to queer a 17 year old, that if he did it again he would serve every day of those six months suspended sentence he and Odlin worked out.

Something is not right in that department......

 

[GrizPony]

Fred is about to retire. I really don't think he is about to get Whacked. I think these are his parting shots.

Better those than the warning a former sheriff's deputy who admitted he used his "job" and position to queer a 17 year old, that if he did it again he would serve every day of those six months suspended sentence he and Odlin worked out.

Something is not right in that department......

And Odlin's son is next in line to take over when he retires as Justice Court judge. Weeeeeee!

 

[getgrizzy]

No you aren't "living with the facts". Even if you believed her testimony 100% it didn't rise to the level of the legal definition of rape. That's why the not guilty verdict was so quick. The law has precise standards and her testimony, even if believed, did not meet the standard for conviction. Those are the "facts". :thumb:

never said her testimony warranted a conviction. in fact i just got done saying i'm satisfied with the verdict. regardless, it doesn't mean i or anyone besides j.j. and his accuser knows what happened. so it's no more o.k. for someone to say the accuser was full of isht and that this was a false accusation, than it is for someone to say that j.j. is a rapist. fans simply want to believe he didn't do it and when someone tells them as a matter of fact that there's no way to know for sure, they can't handle it. it's just the way it is. you may as well accept that and move on. its not brain surgery.