It's On! Be There!

[getgrizzy]

[ 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.

Well I'm not the one falling back on name calling and being childish.

Again you're taking her statements out of context and applying your, and only your, meaning to them.

You're a large scale donor, so your spin on the case is no surprise. Whether you want to admit it or not the bottom line is you simply don't know what happened. No matter how long-winded and mouthy you get, that's still the bottom line. Not that you need to agree or even live with it.

 

[jcu27]

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.

Speaking from experience?

 

[UMGriz75]

Well I'm not the one falling back on name calling and being childish.

And yet, when challenged by another poster on a factual statement of testimony, here was "getgrizzly's" personal attack -- name calling and being childish -- which is really awkward when in fact "getgrizzly" was attempting to falsify the actual trial testimony.

Getgrizzly: 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.

You see, those telling the truth are called "liars" by "getgrizzly." In his own moral judgment, it would be hard to live with. When he is caught however, in outright fabrications, well, then, it's just being "childish" .... isn't it?

"Getgrizzly." How old are you? Really? Your sophomoric and contradictory self-righteous posturing keeps backfiring on you. The fact is, the Missoulian pursued an agenda to support a "Narrative," which was contradicted by the testimony at the actual trial which -- judging by your willingness to just fabricate whatever is necessary to justify your views -- you did not attend and actually know nothing about.

 

[UMGriz75]

You're a large scale donor, so your spin on the case is no surprise. Whether you want to admit it or not the bottom line is you simply don't know what happened. No matter how long-winded and mouthy you get, that's still the bottom line. Not that you need to agree or even live with it.

You've lied about trial testimony, then tried to discount it when references were made to verifiable sources that demonstrated the truth that the statements were made. When you have been cornered on one of your fabrications, you claim that others have "agendas." When further trial testimony is brought forward to demonstrate your malfeasance with "facts" -- what actually happened at the trial -- you create red herrings out of Mike Tyson or Beau Donaldson, but never seem to get around to Bryan Banks in your extracurricular excursions.

Is that because of your overt bias, or just not enough time in the day to spin?

Seriously? Her family not believing her claims of rape is the same thing as disagreeing about her going on Spring Break or the kind of car she was going to buy? Were you serious? That she would threaten to never have anything ever to do with them again if they "did not get on board" with her decision to by a Corolla?

Do you realize how idiotic that is to honest people not interesting in how silly you can make such spin look?

 

[getgrizzy]

Well I'm not the one falling back on name calling and being childish.

And yet, when challenged by another poster on a factual statement of testimony, here was "getgrizzly's" personal attack -- name calling and being childish -- which is really awkward when in fact "getgrizzly" was attempting to falsify the actual trial testimony.

Getgrizzly: 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.

You see, those telling the truth are called "liars" by "getgrizzly." When he is caught however, in outright fabrications, well, then, it's just being "childish" .... isn't it?

"Getgrizzly." How old are you? Really? Your sophomoric and contradictory self-righteous posturing keeps backfiring on you. The fact is, the Missoulian pursued an agenda to support a "Narrative," which was contradicted by the testimony at the actual trial which -- judging by your willingness to just fabricate whatever is necessary to justify your views -- you did not attend and actually know nothing about.

I wasn't caught in an outright fabrication. THAT is a lie. Nothing I've said has backfired in the least. You're merely saying that as a smokescreen to avoid the fact that you can't prove any of your statements (actually opinions). But keep it up because it's very satisfying for me.

 

[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.

Speaking from experience?

Nope. Just lots of observation. Have you not noticed this? When's the last time you've seen a conviction when these things weren't present.

 

[UMGriz75]

I wasn't caught in an outright fabrication. THAT is a lie. Nothing I've said has backfired in the least. You're merely saying that as a smokescreen to avoid the fact that you can't prove any of your statements (actually opinions). But keep it up because it's very satisfying for me.

Sorry. You lied. It's in your quotes. I've offered nothing but actual "trial testimony" none of which were "my statements." Your desperate flailing has the two confused. It is the "testimony" you continue to have trouble with, and have failed in what amounts to an effort to rewrite what was actually testified to at trial. Now, that's not just an "agenda," it's a tall, dishonest one.

 

[jcu27]

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


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.

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.

Speaking from experience?

Nope. Just lots of observation. Have you not noticed this? When's the last time you've seen a conviction when these things weren't present.

I can't say I've observed many trials besides JJ's. It's kind of creepy that you do "lots of observation" on it... Plotting?

 

[PlayerRep]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred. That is a huge false allegation, and it probably contributed to the accused being charged. At trial, she backed off a number of her earlier statements/allegations. If you took everything that she finally said was what had occurred (during the trial), and accepted them as fact, I'm not so sure that her remaining allegations/facts were enough to rise to the level of sexual assault. I never went back and parsed the transcript and lined up her facts/allegations, but this was the impression I was getting while sitting through (most of) the trial.

 

[UMGriz75]

Getgrizzly: 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.

Are you still trying to claim that was false?

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

Best post in any of the multitude of threads with the same posters posting the same shit over and over and over again.

 

[UMGriz75]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred.

Another was her claim that JJ had been a serial offender. That came after the Nurse had advised her of a Law Firm that specialized in suing Universities for negligence. Something that Nurses just "know all about," you know.

She admitted she had contacted the Law Firm. There might be some big bucks here! I am nearly certain (because it is the prevailing legal standard) she was told that, to prevail, she needed to prove that a University had "reasonable cause" to believe that a student posed an ongoing threat by its knowledge of other occurrences or allegations. The Accuser set out on her own campaign to discover such a "pattern" on the part of JJ. When asked at trial if she had made the allegation that JJ was a serial offender, she admitted she had. It was a nice piece of defamation, protected by litigation privilege. And when asked where she had gotten the information that JJ was a serial offender, she identified a specific Counselor.

Under oath, the Counselor denied she had ever said such a thing, and she was in fact unaware of any such information. The Accuser had made up the allegation and had made up the source of the allegation. It was a "twofer."

The Accuser appeared, in that instance, to the Jury as someone willing to fabricate claims in order to obtain a prospective financial advantage but then also to avoid culpability for just "making stuff up" to try and obtain advantage, as someone willing to try and shift the blame to someone else, that the Accuser was, yet again, merely a victim when in fact she was the instigator. When asked by Paoli if she had found sufficient "proof" to pursue a claim against the University -- "do you intend to sue the University of Montana?" -- she said "No."

Just as the Rolling Stone refused to pursue any evidence that contradicted the "Narrative," reading the Missoulian, that didn't quite "come across."

 

[UMGriz75]

Best post in any of the multitude of threads with the same posters posting the same shit over and over and over again.

The thread title is pretty clear. Are you getting it mixed up with "how many days until Football Season?" Oh, that's right. Every day is different there!

 

[EverettGriz]

And yet the band drones on....

 

[UMGriz75]

And yet the band drones on....

Welcome to the band then. There are other threads. What's so difficult here? I find many threads boring. I found a remarkable solution. Instead of bitching, I don't read them. Everybody wins!

 

[getgrizzy]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred. That is a huge false allegation, and it probably contributed to the accused being charged. At trial, she backed off a number of her earlier statements/allegations. If you took everything that she finally said was what had occurred (during the trial), and accepted them as fact, I'm not so sure that her remaining allegations/facts were enough to rise to the level of sexual assault. I never went back and parsed the transcript and lined up her facts/allegations, but this was the impression I was getting while sitting through (most of) the trial.

Now THIS bone has some meat on it. I'm glad you finally came out with it.

 

[getgrizzy]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred.

Another was her claim that JJ had been a serial offender. That came after the Nurse had advised her of a Law Firm that specialized in suing Universities for negligence. Something that Nurses just "know all about," you know.

She admitted she had contacted the Law Firm. I am nearly certain (because it is the prevailing legal standard) she was told that, to prevail, she needed to prove that a University had "reasonable cause" to believe that a student posed an ongoing threat by its knowledge of other occurrences or allegations. The Accuser set out on her own campaign to discover such a "pattern" on the part of JJ. When asked at trial if she had made the allegation that JJ was a serial offender, she admitted she had. It was a nice piece of defamation, protected by litigation privilege. And when asked where she had gotten the information that JJ was a serial offender, she identified a specific Counselor.

Under oath, the Counselor denied she had ever said such a thing, and she was in fact unaware of any such information. The Accuser had made up the allegation and had made up the source of the allegation. It was a "twofer."

The Accuser appeared, in that instance, to the Jury as someone willing to fabricate claims in order to obtain a prospective financial advantage but then also as someone will to try and shift the blame to someone else, that the Accuser was, yet again, merely a victim when in fact she was the instigator. When asked by Paoli if she had found sufficient "proof" to pursue a claim against the University -- "do you intend to sue the University of Montana?" -- she said "No."

Just as the Rolling Stone refused to pursue any evidence that contradicted the "Narrative," reading the Missoulian, that didn't quite "come across."

And THIS. thanks for disclosing it.

 

[PlayerRep]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred. That is a huge false allegation, and it probably contributed to the accused being charged. At trial, she backed off a number of her earlier statements/allegations. If you took everything that she finally said was what had occurred (during the trial), and accepted them as fact, I'm not so sure that her remaining allegations/facts were enough to rise to the level of sexual assault. I never went back and parsed the transcript and lined up her facts/allegations, but this was the impression I was getting while sitting through (most of) the trial.

Now THIS bone has some meat on it. I'm glad you finally came out with it.

There are a number of things like this. See 75's recent post, which is a another good one. The one I mentioned has been mentioned on the board scores of times previously, by the way.

 

[PlayerRep]

And yet the band drones on....

Welcome to the band then. There are other threads. What's so difficult here? I find many threads boring. I found a remarkable solution. Instead of bitching, I don't read them. Everybody wins!

Everett, if you think football, the University and probably your beloved President aren't going to be implicated and accused of things in and around Kraukauer's book, you are either not paying attention or are totally oblivious to reality. These issues remain out there, and they will be front and center again in less than a week.

 

[getgrizzy]

gg, the accuser made a number of false allegations against JJ, and even admitted at trial that some of them were false. A big one was her statement to the First Step (?) nurse doing the original exam that the accused's fist had been shoved up her V. She admitted at trial that no such thing had occurred. That is a huge false allegation, and it probably contributed to the accused being charged. At trial, she backed off a number of her earlier statements/allegations. If you took everything that she finally said was what had occurred (during the trial), and accepted them as fact, I'm not so sure that her remaining allegations/facts were enough to rise to the level of sexual assault. I never went back and parsed the transcript and lined up her facts/allegations, but this was the impression I was getting while sitting through (most of) the trial.

Now THIS bone has some meat on it. I'm glad you finally came out with it.

There are a number of things like this. See 75's recent post, which is a another good one. The one I mentioned has been mentioned on the board scores of times previously, by the way.

I've never seen it. You hadn't posted it during one of our previous discussions.