It's On! Be There!

[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 acknowledged 75s post as well.

 

[getgrizzy]

I sent 75 a PM a few days ago asking him to reveal whatever it is that has him feeling so strongly about this. I didn't get a response.

 

[getgrizzy]

Here's my PM to 75.


What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75

...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

 

[UMGriz75]

Here's my PM to 75.
What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75
...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

That's what I am posting about, in response to your PM. The "public record" is the powerfull "evidence" of a variety of "false claims" and vindictive behavior on the part of the Accuser.

The "evidence" is clear, clear "enough" that the Jury did not believe her allegations -- even though in your confused world you claim her allegations were not on trial. OK, have it your way. The alternative explanation is that the Jury DID believe JJ's testimony that she was making a false allegation. Does that make you happier? Or are you now claiming that nothing was really on trial?

Much of their disbelief was based on the fact that for many of her claims made she finally admitted that those claims were false, and she admitted them under oath, including the one in which she admitted she had texted to a friend "And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it" and that "I may have lied" about the entire case, about being raped! The other howler was her text "I don't think he did anything wrong," -- consistent with her admission "I may have lied" -- but which at trial unleashed some mighty spin.

The fact is, for many of her claims, she admitted under oath that she did lie, and as Paoli powerfully pointed out, she did so because, ultimately, much of her behavior appeared motivated by a vindictive and ruthless resentment towards those who did not give her what she wanted from them.

Is this all THAT difficult?

 

[UMGriz75]

... 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.

Interestingly, two "sexual assaults" were alleged during the encounter. The first one was her acknowledged grabbing of JJs "equipment." Getting "goosed" isn't exactly pleasurable to the male victim, and in fact usually is painful and unpleasant, but as defined by statute, she sexually assaulted him. That's the definition. She surely didn't get his "consent" first. And it surely wasn't done to gratify him.

So, as additional philosophical mayhem to consider in disparate treatment of men and women, an acknowledged sexual assault was not charged, whereas a contested and ultimately unbelievable sexual assault was charged and taken to a trial that should not have happened, and left in its wake two destroyed reputations, because a social justice "Narrative" required the contrasting and contradictory results.

The Missoulian did not note the hypocrisy.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Here's my PM to 75.
What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75
...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

That's what I am posting about, in response to your PM. The "public record" is the powerfull "evidence" of a variety of "false claims" and vindictive behavior on the part of the Accuser.

The "evidence" is clear, clear "enough" that the Jury did not believe her allegations -- even though in your confused world you claim her allegations were not on trial. OK, have it your way. The alternative explanation is that the Jury DID believe JJ's testimony that she was making a false allegation. Does that make you happier? Or are you now claiming that nothing was really on trial?

Much of their disbelief was based on the fact that for many of her claims made she finally admitted that those claims were false, and she admitted them under oath, including the one in which she admitted she had texted to a friend "And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it" and that "I may have lied" about the entire case, about being raped! The other howler was her text "I don't think he did anything wrong," -- consistent with her admission "I may have lied" -- but which at trial unleashed some mighty spin.

The fact is, for many of her claims, she admitted under oath that she did lie, and as Paoli powerfully pointed out, she did so because, ultimately, much of her behavior appeared motivated by a vindictive and ruthless resentment towards those who did not give her what she wanted from them.

Is this all THAT difficult?

Getgrizzy's Lingchi continues.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Here's my PM to 75.
What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75
...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

That's what I am posting about, in response to your PM. The "public record" is the powerfull "evidence" of a variety of "false claims" and vindictive behavior on the part of the Accuser.

The "evidence" is clear, clear "enough" that the Jury did not believe her allegations -- even though in your confused world you claim her allegations were not on trial. OK, have it your way. The alternative explanation is that the Jury DID believe JJ's testimony that she was making a false allegation. Does that make you happier? Or are you now claiming that nothing was really on trial?

Much of their disbelief was based on the fact that for many of her claims made she finally admitted that those claims were false, and she admitted them under oath, including the one in which she admitted she had texted to a friend "And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it" and that "I may have lied" about the entire case, about being raped! The other howler was her text "I don't think he did anything wrong," -- consistent with her admission "I may have lied" -- but which at trial unleashed some mighty spin.

The fact is, for many of her claims, she admitted under oath that she did lie, and as Paoli powerfully pointed out, she did so because, ultimately, much of her behavior appeared motivated by a vindictive and ruthless resentment towards those who did not give her what she wanted from them.

Is this all THAT difficult?

Getgrizzy's Lingchi continues.

He/she has it coming. The admission that PR's and 75's discussions of accuser's admitted lies were first time news at this date makes me wonder why someone would jump in with such zeal when they don't know and didn't investigate the facts before jumping to a conclusion, unless their last name is Florio or Krakauer.

 

[getgrizzy]

Here's my PM to 75.
What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75
...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

That's what I am posting about, in response to your PM. The "public record" is the powerfull "evidence" of a variety of "false claims" and vindictive behavior on the part of the Accuser.

The "evidence" is clear, clear "enough" that the Jury did not believe her allegations -- even though in your confused world you claim her allegations were not on trial. OK, have it your way. The alternative explanation is that the Jury DID believe JJ's testimony that she was making a false allegation. Does that make you happier? Or are you now claiming that nothing was really on trial?

Much of their disbelief was based on the fact that for many of her claims made she finally admitted that those claims were false, and she admitted them under oath, including the one in which she admitted she had texted to a friend "And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it" and that "I may have lied" about the entire case, about being raped! The other howler was her text "I don't think he did anything wrong," -- consistent with her admission "I may have lied" -- but which at trial unleashed some mighty spin.

The fact is, for many of her claims, she admitted under oath that she did lie, and as Paoli powerfully pointed out, she did so because, ultimately, much of her behavior appeared motivated by a vindictive and ruthless resentment towards those who did not give her what she wanted from them.

Is this all THAT difficult?

Easy big fella. No need to pile on. It isn't like you and many others haven't had ample opportunities to express these things in multiple venues.
As I've stated in numerous occasions I wasn't taking a side and I'm willing change my mind or take a side should evidence come forth to cause that. I've just been seeking info into how anyone would know the accuser was making false accusations.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

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.

Honest question, PR:

Do you really think Krakauer in his book is going to criticize Engstrom and the University for the same reasons you've criticized him?

I think Krakauer's book will assert that JJ got special treatment from the University, that he should have been expelled under UM policy, and that the "secret" procedure used to reinstate him was just one example of special treatment.

Yet you've criticized him for what seem to me to be the exact opposite reasons, that Engstrom kowtowed to the USDOJ and local political pressure, and should have stood up to defend JJ more vigorously.

Am I misinterpreting something? That seems a little specious to me.

 

[statler & waldorf]

When one sends a PRIVATE message, it should remain private. You have shown your true character(actually the lack thereof)with this action. Mods, Chris, why have a PM function if it can be used in this fashion?

 

[UMGriz75]

Easy big fella. No need to pile on. It isn't like you and many others haven't had ample opportunities to express these things in multiple venues.
As I've stated in numerous occasions I wasn't taking a side and I'm willing change my mind or take a side should evidence come forth to cause that. I've just been seeking info into how anyone would know the accuser was making false accusations.

To claim you are not "taking a side" disregards the direct "evidence" to the contrary.

I know, I know. In your world, "evidence" is not "proof."

The original point was that the Missoulian did not objectively report the case. For some reason, you have insisted on turning the point to how someone would "know" the Accuser made a false accusation. That wasn't the point in the first place, but it does seem to be your point and one that you are obsessed with.

At the same time, you seem to want to argue about that point endlessly, while appearing remarkably ignorant about the "facts" of the case that do amount to "evidence" regarding that point. Almost like you have an agenda ....

The "evidence" was already offered to the jury, and they made their decision. You seem to believe you are entitled to gainsay what the jury actually heard and, as pointed out, will call anyone a liar who actually refers to sworn testimony offered at trial, even by the Accuser herself, if it does not fit with your obviously fictional narrative.

YOU were the one who initially denied that the family didn't believe the accuser, and called the poster a liar, and wondered how he could live with himself.

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.

Then, when a published reference to the actual trial testimony was posted, and you were shown to have been wrong on the facts, and your own effort to perpetuate your lie that the claim was false was exposed as false, you stretched it.

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

Note how you suddenly fabricated the notion that it wasn't that they didn't believe her, it was just that, tactically, purely as the kind of ordinary litigation advice that mothers, cousins and aunts routinely offer to their female relatives claiming to have been raped, they just didn't want the Accuser to go forward with a trial.

You know, routine litigation advice. You know, just trying to help her avoid all the stress and frustration of being forced to admit in public that she had lied about many aspects of her original claims. You know, that they were just trying to help her. You know, just the kind of thing that a daughter would threaten that if they tried to help her anymore, she would have nothing to do with them for the rest of their lives. Perfectly ordinary, normal behavior, as you tried to create the absurd moral equivalency that anyone would have the same reaction to their family if they didn't like the car they bought, or went on Spring Break. You know, to threaten to not ever have anything to do with them again if they ever dare to criticize her choice of a Toyota Corolla. In your world, perfectly normal. Explains everything. Like making a sandwich and driving your rapist home and being pissed because all he said was "thanks."

It isn't just that you don't make a plausible case for her. You don''t even make a plausible case for your own claims when they fail you.

You have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of the testimony and evidence offered at the trial under oath. Yet, you have a strong opinion about what you "think" was proven and not proven, formed without regard for the actual trial testimony. That's called an agenda.

 

[bgbigdog]

Adding this to the original book club thread, is it up to 17 pages yet?

PM is private. Period.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

When one sends a PRIVATE message, it should remain private. You have shown your true character(actually the lack thereof)with this action. Mods, Chris, why have a PM function if it can be used in this fashion?

I know what you're saying, but disclosing your own PM seems a little different than disclosing somebody else's PM.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Good point, AWF, but it's still chickenshit.

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

To my knowledge I haven't suggested anything different.

I'm just not certain why we need multiple threads with the same 3 posters repeatedly making the same arguments when it was clear after the first seven pages of the initial thread that minds were not going to change.

 

[getgrizzy]

Easy big fella. No need to pile on. It isn't like you and many others haven't had ample opportunities to express these things in multiple venues.
As I've stated in numerous occasions I wasn't taking a side and I'm willing change my mind or take a side should evidence come forth to cause that. I've just been seeking info into how anyone would know the accuser was making false accusations.

To claim you are not "taking a side" disregards the direct "evidence" to the contrary.

I know, I know. In your world, "evidence" is not "proof."

The original point was that the Missoulian did not objectively report the case. For some reason, you have insisted on turning the point to how someone would "know" the Accuser made a false accusation. That wasn't the point in the first place, but it does seem to be your point and one that you are obsessed with.

At the same time, you seem to want to argue about that point endlessly, while appearing remarkably ignorant about the "facts" of the case that do amount to "evidence" regarding that point. Almost like you have an agenda ....

The "evidence" was already offered to the jury, and they made their decision. You seem to believe you are entitled to gainsay what the jury actually heard and, as pointed out, will call anyone a liar who actually refers to sworn testimony offered at trial, even by the Accuser herself, if it does not fit with your obviously fictional narrative.

YOU were the one who initially denied that the family didn't believe the accuser, and called the poster a liar, and wondered how he could live with himself.

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.

Then, when a published reference to the actual trial testimony was posted, and you were shown to have been wrong on the facts, and your own effort to perpetuate your lie that the claim was false was exposed as false, you stretched it.

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

Note how you suddenly fabricated the notion that it wasn't that they didn't believe her, it was just that, tactically, purely as the kind of ordinary litigation advice that mothers, cousins and aunts routinely offer to their female relatives claiming to have been raped, they just didn't want the Accuser to go forward with a trial.

You know, routine litigation advice. You know, just trying to help her avoid all the stress and frustration of being forced to admit in public that she had lied about many aspects of her original claims. You know, that they were just trying to help her. You know, just the kind of thing that a daughter would threaten that if they tried to help her anymore, she would have nothing to do with them for the rest of their lives. Perfectly ordinary, normal behavior, as you tried to create the absurd moral equivalency that anyone would have the same reaction to their family if they didn't like the car they bought, or went on Spring Break. You know, to threaten to not ever have anything to do with them again if they ever dare to criticize her choice of a Toyota Corolla. In your world, perfectly normal. Explains everything. Like making a sandwich and driving your rapist home and being pissed because all he said was "thanks."

It isn't just that you don't make a plausible case for her. You don''t even make a plausible case for your own claims when they fail you.

You have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of the testimony and evidence offered at the trial under oath. Yet, you have a strong opinion about what you "think" was proven and not proven, formed without regard for the actual trial testimony. That's called an agenda.

I said I WAS not taking sides, not I AM not taking sides. Pay attention to details and relax Perry Mason. It isn't like you just won the trial of the century.

 

[Grisly Fan]

When one sends a PRIVATE message, it should remain private. You have shown your true character(actually the lack thereof)with this action. Mods, Chris, why have a PM function if it can be used in this fashion?

The act of sending a PM in no way creates any kind of contract. You may want it to remain private but the other party may not. Happens every single day. I learned long ago, don't write stuff down that you don't want to persist. If you do then you have to accept the risk. That's a fact. Anything you send can and will be used against you in the court of the Internet.

 

[UMGriz75]

I'm just not certain why we need multiple threads with the same 3 posters repeatedly making the same arguments when it was clear after the first seven pages of the initial thread that minds were not going to change.

Does it matter that much to you? Are you stating that you just don't have better threads to read? What's your problem? How many days is it to football season, anyway? There are multiple postings on that thread. I find it aggravating, so I don't read it. Problem solved.

 

[UMGriz75]

I said I WAS not taking sides, not I AM not taking sides. Pay attention to details and relax Perry Mason. It isn't like you just won the trial of the century.

Let's see, calling another poster a liar because he accurately stated that the family did not believe the Accuser's accusations was not taking sides? If you weren't so "invested" in taking sides, why the aggressive denunciation of that poster as a "liar," when, in fact, the "liar" was you?

Your repeated postings arguing that "her allegations were not on trial" was not trying to downplay her testimony?

Your overall complaining that you "are not taking sides" is contradicted by your every post that continues to try and argue that sworn trial testimony was not relevant to the outcome of the trial, which you continue to assert was meaningless in terms of making any conclusions about what happened.

That is far from "not taking sides." It is however, delusional and/or dishonest.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Here's my PM to 75.
What is it...
Sent: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 pm
From: getgrizzy
To: UMGriz75
...that makes you so sure this is a false accusation? Is there something to this that you don't want to share on the board? I'm always open to changing my mind.

That's what I am posting about, in response to your PM. The "public record" is the powerfull "evidence" of a variety of "false claims" and vindictive behavior on the part of the Accuser.

The "evidence" is clear, clear "enough" that the Jury did not believe her allegations -- even though in your confused world you claim her allegations were not on trial. OK, have it your way. The alternative explanation is that the Jury DID believe JJ's testimony that she was making a false allegation. Does that make you happier? Or are you now claiming that nothing was really on trial?

Much of their disbelief was based on the fact that for many of her claims made she finally admitted that those claims were false, and she admitted them under oath, including the one in which she admitted she had texted to a friend "And now I keep thinking that maybe I did want it" and that "I may have lied" about the entire case, about being raped! The other howler was her text "I don't think he did anything wrong," -- consistent with her admission "I may have lied" -- but which at trial unleashed some mighty spin.

The fact is, for many of her claims, she admitted under oath that she did lie, and as Paoli powerfully pointed out, she did so because, ultimately, much of her behavior appeared motivated by a vindictive and ruthless resentment towards those who did not give her what she wanted from them.

Is this all THAT difficult?

Easy big fella. No need to pile on. It isn't like you and many others haven't had ample opportunities to express these things in multiple venues.
As I've stated in numerous occasions I wasn't taking a side and I'm willing change my mind or take a side should evidence come forth to cause that. I've just been seeking info into how anyone would know the accuser was making false accusations.

How about because she admitted as much? :lol: :lol: