It's On! Be There!

[horribilisfan8184]

The prosecution's evidence, which included this accuser's story, is ALL that was on trial. Doesn't Gwengrizzly know anything about our constitutions' criminal rights and who has the burden of proof in a criminal trial? The jury rejected the prosecutor's evidence, ergo rejected the accuser's accusations as not true (false). Spin away til your heart's content, if having people feel sorry for you is your goal.....

 

[horribilisfan8184]

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

i bet you have scientific proof that god exists, too. or was that bigfoot?

I do, at least for God, every time the wife and I do the wild thing. She has yet to shout anything about the size of my foot, though.

 

[argh!]

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

i bet you have scientific proof that god exists, too. or was that bigfoot?

I do, at least for God, every time the wife and I do the wild thing. She has yet to shout anything about the size of my foot, though.

you may be confusing "gawd" for "god".

 

[fanofzoo]

Is there anything to take for the amount of estrogen that will be there, you know a preventive measure, besides fire ball ?

 

[bgbigdog]

Watch UMGriz75 and PlayerRep ask Krakauer questions live in a local forum! You don't want to miss this!

http://missoulian.com/news/local/krakauer-to-participate-in-missoula-forum-on-may/article_384c39ee-792d-5486-a79c-975d8ef2d628.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brian Williams isn't otherwise engaged, how come he couldn't moderate?

 

[getgrizzy]

getgrizzly: The accuser wasn't on trial ...

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

I take it you're one of those that believes if you say something enough times and with authority people will believe you.
First, no the accuser (the accusation) wasn't on trial no matter how authoritatively you say it. JJ was on trial based on her evidence. Her accusation wasn't on trial. If it was, then who filed the charges? Was she found guilty or not guilty? What was the penalty for her crime of making a false accusation?

Just because her mother didn't want her to go forward with a trial, doesn't mean she's lying. Just because an alternate juror, who wouldn't identify himself, thought the trial shouldn't have taken place, doesn't mean she's lying. It's a very un-American world when we start using flawed evidence to accuse someone of lying.

Which one of these makes the most sense to you?
A) Proof is made when evidence shows it beyond a reasonable doubt. Such as you find a bunch of bones and put them together and they make a man or bear or tiger.
B) Proof is made when someone has an opinion even when there's not enough evidence in place to substantiate it. Such as I think you're lying because your mom doesn't want you bring it up.

You should read up on the Mike Tyson rape trial. Not that I thought Tyson should've been found guilty, but his case is nearly identical to this one, except Tyson acted like a jerk on the stand and JJ didn't. I don't claim to know what happened in that case either. She could've been making a false accusation, but there's not enough evidence to prove that either.

 

[Hammer]

Hopefully if you guys decide to attend you introduce yourselves appropriately. "Hi, I'm AzGrizFan, longtime poster on eGriz. Getgrizz..err, Gwen Florio called the cops on me. Anyways, your book sucks. So does Royce."

you had to go there, now theres gonna be like 50 guys signing in as MrTitleist :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No one wants that burden.. Colin Dow almost kicked my ass once because PlayerRep introduced me to him then goes, "He's MrTitleist on eGriz."

Mention eGriz to anybody in the athletic dept or a lot of players, present or past, you may just get punched in the face, LOL.

 

[Raider]

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

Don't like the banter, DON'T READ IT!

Thanks for the advice shitstick

 

[fanofzoo]

LOL. Yes, in some worlds "evidence" is not "proof" of anything, ergo, no accusation is ever false, but then again, in that same world, no conviction can ever be just.

It is a nice red herring to assert that someone claimed that the jury verdict alone is proof of a false accusation. Hyperbole is the only tool that makes that claim work for you.

There was far more to this case than actually got to the jury, but simply deciding that the accuser's own statements are not "proof" of anything is simply delusional. It is the same argument that would claim that the Rolling Stone article "may have been true" because the takedown by the Washington Post did not "actually prove" that the claimed rape "did not happen." Indeed, "getgrizzly" for some reason insists that criticism of agenda-based coverage of these allegations "must mean" that critics mean to prove something else.

On the other hand, "fabulists" seem to show up more frequently in the coverage than the odds would suggest.

Nice try, but we both know that you're taking things out of context (again).

As I've stated numerous times I'm willing to concede it did or didn't happen when presented with solid evidence either way. And, I agree with the not guilty verdict based on the evidence in this criminal case.

I realize that these very reasonable, simple to understand and accept statements aren't fitting your win at all cost agenda.

I don't even know why getgrizzy tries to respond to any of UMGriz75 posts. You've been taken to the shed sooo many times to get beat, i think you are starting to like it....

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

From reading UMGriz75's posts I agree with him more often than not, he makes very valid points.

 

[UMGriz75]

I take it you're one of those that believes if you say something enough times and with authority people will believe you.

Another classical logical fallacy, that of "projection." Your need to rely on such fallacies appears infinite.

First, no the accuser (the accusation) wasn't on trial no matter how authoritatively you say it. JJ was on trial based on her evidence. Her accusation wasn't on trial.

Nope. Her "accusation was not on trial." Everybody just sat there for three weeks wondering why they were there, which actually is not far from the truth. This is likely the bottom of the ridiculous pile of claims you have made, but I guess we will just have to see.

Just because her mother didn't want her to go forward with a trial, doesn't mean she's lying.

Nice little fabrication there. Yet another attempt to rewrite the "evidence" -- oh wait, to you any contrary "evidence" is not "proof" -- by making a completely false representation. There was not one word uttered, anywhere, that her mother "didn't want her to go forward with a trial."

Not one word. You are simply lying outright now because you have dug yourself a hole.

At the time the Accuser threatened permanent life-time vengeance against three of her own closest family members for not believing her claims, charges had not even been filed. Indeed, the Accuser's own testimony was that the very first people who believed she was likely "lying" were her own family members. No one else needed to accuse her; it was in the direct testimony at trial.

That was the point of Paoli's closing. This was not some young, vulnerable, sweet thing. This was a young woman of extraordinary vindictiveness when she felt "rejected" by anyone from who she believed she "deserved" instant gratification. Her family didn't believe her. JJ did not express his undying and permanent love for her, and he had already brought his girlfriend to visit which had set up the "confrontation" at the Forester's Ball and the "Jordy, I'd do you anytime" comment. The "Accused" demonstrated, through her own testimony, a vindictiveness and ruthless desire to "get" and "punish" anyone that did not fulfill her expectations of what she desired from them. It was not a pretty picture.

Suzy Boylan, in yet another inexplicable faux paux in closing, lectured the Jury that the aggressors in these situations have a psychological need to control the time, the place, the circumstances, that's how they exercise the kind of control leading to rape.

The Jury sat there, understanding from the trial testimony that it was the "Accused" that brought JJ from his house (where no one else was at home), to her house where two roommates were present, took JJ to her bedroom, closed the door, and lay down on the bed, taking his shirt off, helping him take hers off, and grabbing his "equipment."

Boylan, without understanding what she was saying had inadvertently just acknowledged that JJ did nothing in the scenario that "fit" with what "typical" rapists do, and by drawing attention to it, had instead identified the Accuser as the "typical" rapist or sexual aggressor based on her near total control of the circumstances.

And then the Accuser made a sandwich and took him home. She seemed offended that all he said was "thanks." http://suzannevenker.com/the-truth-about-the-so-called-rape-culture/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously, the trial outcome was not satisfactory to you. It "proved nothing" to you because it did not support the biased agenda displayed by Missoulian coverage, which you desperately hoped would vindicate your disgusting preconceived beliefs, which you are now trying to resurrect by misrepresenting key "facts" presented at trial and by finally reaching the ridiculous point of claiming that trials mean nothing unless they vindicate you personally, regardless of how many shattered lives are left behind in your ideological wake.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

I take it you're one of those that believes if you say something enough times and with authority people will believe you.

Another classical logical fallacy, that of "projection." Your need to rely on such fallacies appears infinite.

First, no the accuser (the accusation) wasn't on trial no matter how authoritatively you say it. JJ was on trial based on her evidence. Her accusation wasn't on trial.

Nope. Her "accusation was not on trial." Everybody just sat there for three weeks wondering why they were there, which actually is not far from the truth. This is likely the bottom of the ridiculous pile of claims you have made, but I guess we will just have to see.

Just because her mother didn't want her to go forward with a trial, doesn't mean she's lying.

Nice little fabrication there. Yet another attempt to rewrite the "evidence" -- oh wait, to you any contrary "evidence" is not "proof" -- by making a completely false representation. There was not one word uttered, anywhere, that her mother "didn't want her to go forward with a trial."

Not one word. You are simply lying outright now because you have dug yourself a hole.

At the time the Accuser threatened permanent life-time vengeance against her own family for not believing her claims, charges had not even been filed.

Obviously, the trial outcome was not satisfactory to you. It "proved nothing" to you because it did not support the biased agenda displayed by Missoulian coverage, which you desperately hoped would vindicate your disgusting preconceived beliefs, which you are now trying to resurrect by misrepresenting key "facts" presented at trial and by finally reaching the ridiculous point of claiming that trials mean nothing unless they vindicate you personally, regardless of how many shattered lives are left behind in your ideological wake.

I think you two should just go to the bookstore and confront each other "face to face"..... There should be someone there to turn the garden hose on you guys if things get out of hand.

 

[statler & waldorf]

This whole discussion is nothing more than personal agendas and innuendo, resulting in a banter that will never end.

Don't like the banter, DON'T READ IT!

Thanks for the advice shitstick

Statler. It's Statler. Didn't mean to confuse you.
As Groucho Marx once said: "A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." :roll:

 

[Ursa Major]

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

i bet you have scientific proof that god exists, too. or was that bigfoot?

I do, at least for God, every time the wife and I do the wild thing. She has yet to shout anything about the size of my foot, though.

I love it when she does that too!

 

[IroneagleXP]

Missoula sucks, and this discussion is incontrovertible evidence of this. smfh.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

It is hard to tell if you are just a raving loon who got in over his head and is now trying to bluff his way out, or just nuts.

The whole point of a trial is to "test" the accusations. The credibility of the accuser is a key element in testing the accusations. God, you are one misguided puppy. You don't even understand where the burden of proof is. It is the accuser's claim that is on trial.

By the time you are done, the credibility of the accuser and the accusations will be entirely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, that is in fact what Engstrom agreed to in the DOJ Settlement.

In this case, the extremely rapid Jury Verdict is, itself, "evidence" of the credibility of the accuser and of her claim. That is what a trial ultimately measures.

In this case, she wrote, "I may have lied." The Prosecution, armed to the teeth with lawyers and litigation budgets from three levels of government, took that claim to trial. Unfortunately for the Prosecution, the Defense naturally agreed with the accuser, "yup, she sure did." Case over.

That's how stupid this case was and why the alternate juror -- who was selected by both sides as being objective -- believed this accusation brought by this accuser should not have been brought to trial. The Accuser had already failed the reasonable test of her own credibility months before the trial commenced, and both sides knew it.

The Missoulian tried to portray it differently. And that was the agenda-driven journalistic malpractice that, for some odd reason, seems to accompany these "stories" in media all too often in recent times.

i bet you have scientific proof that god exists, too. or was that bigfoot?

I do, at least for God, every time the wife and I do the wild thing. She has yet to shout anything about the size of my foot, though.

I love it when she does that too!

So your gal spilled the beans, Dang!

 

[AZGrizFan]

The prosecution's evidence, which included this accuser's story, is ALL that was on trial. Doesn't Gwengrizzly know anything about our constitutions' criminal rights and who has the burden of proof in a criminal trial? The jury rejected the prosecutor's evidence, ergo rejected the accuser's accusations as not true (false). Spin away til your heart's content, if having people feel sorry for you is your goal.....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[getgrizzy]

Says another person predisposed to wanting to believe what people like 75 say. I've given him nothing to take me to the shed on.

Well, there it is, if anyone disagrees with "getgriz," then of course, they must be predisposed to a belief, even after a trial was held and evidence presented.

And of course, "getgriz" has been caught arguing that the "evidence" is not proof of anything, a wonderous statement that explains his entire worldview of this case.

It is on par with his claim that the refusal of the accuser's closest family members to believe a word she said about her rape claims -- "evidence" -- being just the same as a family disagreeing about where to spend Spring Break or what kind of car to buy.

Just the same.

And naturally, when the accuser threatens her closest family members that she will not have anything to do with them if they don't "get on board" and march to her tune, well, the fact that she actually did that is "taking it out of context," the context that Paoli described succinctly and correctly at closing "This is not about Grizzlies football," Paoli said. "It's about what people do when they're vengeful and they want to take it out on somebody."

And the "evidence" was consistent on that point, whether the target was a popular quarterback who had the audacity to bring his girlfriend to town, or her own family who had their suspicions about her claims .... presumably because they knew her "context" somewhat better than "getgrizzly." The "evidence" presented was of a "vengeful" accuser who drew few limits to what she would threaten people with ... even the people closest to her on Earth and even as she admitted, in writing, that she "may have lied" about the whole thing.

As the Jury clearly understood and which "getgrizzly" attempts to obscure, that IS the context.

However, the point that "getgrizzly" has managed to avoid in his spinning and deflecting is that this conversation was initially about the media coverage, which getgrizzly initially attempted to defend, but failing miserably to distinguish between the New York Times (Duke), the Missoulian, Rolling Stone, or presumably, Jon Krakauer, each of whom had ulterior, financial and politically-driven motives to advance a narrative unsupported by "evidence," pushing forward prosecutions that served "Narratives" at the expense of "true victims."

No. Everyone that disagrees(?) with me isn't necessarily predisposed due to being Griz fans. There are probably lots of people that know nothing about Montana that disagree(?). Of course you'd first have to make the incorrect assumption that I'm taking a side.
I'm not saying your story is wrong. Just that no one (other than JJ and his accuser) knows if it's correct. I'm allowing your to have your opinion, but when you state it as fact it's offensive.

You're just being stubborn.

 

[getgrizzy]

I take it you're one of those that believes if you say something enough times and with authority people will believe you.

Another classical logical fallacy, that of "projection." Your need to rely on such fallacies appears infinite.

First, no the accuser (the accusation) wasn't on trial no matter how authoritatively you say it. JJ was on trial based on her evidence. Her accusation wasn't on trial.

Nope. Her "accusation was not on trial." Everybody just sat there for three weeks wondering why they were there, which actually is not far from the truth. This is likely the bottom of the ridiculous pile of claims you have made, but I guess we will just have to see.

Just because her mother didn't want her to go forward with a trial, doesn't mean she's lying.

Nice little fabrication there. Yet another attempt to rewrite the "evidence" -- oh wait, to you any contrary "evidence" is not "proof" -- by making a completely false representation. There was not one word uttered, anywhere, that her mother "didn't want her to go forward with a trial."

Not one word. You are simply lying outright now because you have dug yourself a hole.

At the time the Accuser threatened permanent life-time vengeance against three of her own closest family members for not believing her claims, charges had not even been filed. Indeed, the Accuser's own testimony was that the very first people who believed she was likely "lying" were her own family members. No one else needed to accuse her; it was in the direct testimony at trial.

That was the point of Paoli's closing. This was not some young, vulnerable, sweet thing. This was a young woman of extraordinary vindictiveness when she felt "rejected" by anyone from who she believed she "deserved" instant gratification. Her family didn't believe her. JJ did not express his undying and permanent love for her, and he had already brought his girlfriend to visit which had set up the "confrontation" at the Forester's Ball and the "Jordy, I'd do you anytime" comment. The "Accused" demonstrated, through her own testimony, a vindictiveness and ruthless desire to "get" and "punish" anyone that did not fulfill her expectations of what she desired from them. It was not a pretty picture.

Obviously, the trial outcome was not satisfactory to you. It "proved nothing" to you because it did not support the biased agenda displayed by Missoulian coverage, which you desperately hoped would vindicate your disgusting preconceived beliefs, which you are now trying to resurrect by misrepresenting key "facts" presented at trial and by finally reaching the ridiculous point of claiming that trials mean nothing unless they vindicate you personally, regardless of how many shattered lives are left behind in your ideological wake.

The trial outcome for JJ is absolutely satisfactory to me. Had Beau Donaldson not been suckered into confessing and gone to trial and been found not guilty, I'd be absolutely fine with that, too, but I'd maintain that there's no proof to his accuser making a false allegation. I highly doubt Donaldson would've been found guilty. That's how these cases work. If you don't confess, there isn't significant bodily harm, no witnesses and you behave like a gentleman, you typically get off.

 

[UMGriz75]

[ Of course you'd first have to make the incorrect assumption that I'm taking a side. I'm not saying your story is wrong. Just that no one (other than JJ and his accuser) knows if it's correct. I'm allowing your to have your opinion, but when you state it as fact it's offensive.

You're just being stubborn.

HaHaHaHa! Now, aside from three pages of continually mistating actual evidence, and pretending it's just "opinion," -- the Accused's own written admission that she "might have lied" was just her "opinion," you know -- "getgrizzly" pretends that his outright fabrications are objective "facts."

Now, that's not just irony, it's outright delusion.

 

[UMGriz75]

How serious "getgrizzly" is about being "objective" when he impugned another poster's statements about testimony, by suggesting that the poster was a "liar" when in fact the statement was accurate.

In other words, proof that if you are accurate, that doesn't matter. If you disagree with "getgrizzly" you are a liar because he presents himself as the "standard" to judge the "evidence" which as he has claimed, is not "proof."

Getfgrizzly: 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.

Then, after he had to concede that the testimony was accurate, naturally, it wasn't his fault that he tried to pretend it hadn't been said by the Accuser herself. It was the "interpretation!" The spin never ends.

Getgrizzly: 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.

How was that for spin?