UMGriz75 said:
Does it matter much to me?
No, no it does not. I have an actual life.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
It's On! Be There!
- Thread starter AllWeatherFan
- Start date
Does it matter much to me?
No, no it does not. I have an actual life.
horribilisfan8184
Well-known member
EverettGriz said:
I hope I can say that with a straight face when I reach 13,226 posts.
I never called him a liar. I said IF you're making that up it would be hard to live with a lie like that.UMGriz75 said:
It sounded like I was taking sides because you're so far to one side that the middle looks like the other side. Are you a tea party member and now regular republicans look like tree huggers to you?
I get that you're embarrassed for not disclosing all the info, but you don't need to be so defensive about it.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
And this is the tragedy of how public officials, stampeded by popular opinion, abidicate their sworn duties by prosecuting cases that should never have been prosecuted and yet, the power of the social justice "Narrative" continues to work overtime to compel rampant injustice, using the justice system.AZGrizFan said:
Rolling Stone, the NY Times, The Missoulian, and Krakauer all see where the money and awards come from, and its not by standing up, Atticus Finch-style, to the zeitgeist of the self-assured lynch mobs seeking social justice entirely at the sacrifice of individual justice.
The JJ case was over when the Accuser completed her testimony. She was on record at that point as vindictive. There was something to be said for being seen as the girlfriend of the star quarterback, but she knew at the end of the evening, she wasn't it. She was on record as being disbelieved by virtually everyone that knew her well. She had communicated in writing that it may well have been that she wanted the encounter with JJ, that she may have made up the allegations out of frustration at the lack of a relationship. She had written that "he didn't do anything wrong" and that the fault lay with her for "sending mixed signals." She had, in fact, committed a blatant sexual assault of her own, but the Missoulian failed to note the admission.
She had only decided to get a rape kit done a day later, and it was so important that she had it done on her way to her Super Bowl party. She had broken a date with her best male friend from grade school in order to have JJ over to her house, and had lied to the friend that she had homework to do. She appeared, in fact, quite anxious to have JJ over to her place, so much so she would leave a best friend hanging with a lie. Coming after the confrontation at the Forester's Ball, there was nothing casual about the encounter.
She admitted lying about several aspects of her original report, a report designed to elicit maximum emotional reaction from those she needed to support her claim. She had refused to cooperate on turning over key evidence, her comforter, because she wanted to keep it (!!). She attempted to create the scenario whereby JJ was a serial offender, a particularly vulgar and obnoxious attempt at character assassination and also potential financial reward, and then blamed an innocent third party for having told her that mendacious and completely false piece of information. She was willing to go that far to destroy someone.
"This will hit JJ like a ton of bricks," she gleefully confided to one friend, naturally raising the obvious question that, if so, it was likely because he was completely unaware that he had committed any such thing. She was quite smug in her communications to others that "UM will not have its starting quarterback next year," as though she was going to punish him for something she knew he did not know he had done, and which surely echoed to the Jury the same attitude of vengeance she expressed toward her own family when they, too, did not yield to what the Accuser demanded of them. Indeed, there was, in place of the depression that usually accompanies someone genuinely assaulted and violated, the spectacle of someone almost giddy over her personal power to ruin another life.
The problem with her testimony is how little of that information made it into the Missoulian's accounts of the trial, but how "perfect quotes" from friends of the Reporter did make it into the Missoulian reporting, attempting by generic "expert" testimony from a non-expert how such "rapes" occur as though it were a foregone conclusion that this one did. Presumably, Krakauer will take the same approach. But, we will see.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
I did, and so did many others. Much greater detail was contained in contemporaneous trial observations, on an hourly and daily basis, on the thread "JJ Trial," at http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61013&hilit=+Paoli" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;getgrizzy said:
And at "No Way JJ Can be Convicted." http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57961&hilit=Paoli&start=150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Interestingly, you had participated in both threads and so would have had to have read, or had the opportunity to read, virtually everything that has appeared on this thread, and much, much more detail than my brief summary on this thread.
Very strange indeed.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
"For not disclosing all the info?"getgrizzy said:
You mean, the "info" that was "disclosed" at the very public trial that was covered by the Missoulian? Or that it was not "disclosed" to you in that coverage, because that coverage did not represent the trial testimony accurately?
Or, do you mean, the same "info" that was discussed in much greater detail on these threads before and during the trial, which you participated in?
statler & waldorf said:
He posted his own message, what the hell do I care?
CV Griz Fan
Well-known member
GrizLA said:
What you said is certainly true. My question is that this thread has to have the most 5 or 6 paragraph posts in egriz history. And it's mostly between two posters.....that's friggen' amazing to me.....
This! Nice work, EG!EverettGriz said:
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
MrTitleist said:
I should have expected the use of supposedly PM material to be used on eGriz. My error. I was raised better than that.
He posted his own message though.statler & waldorf said:
If he had posted 75's response without his permission you'd have something, but you're really just making a big deal over nothing.
What am I saying?
Making a big deal of nothing is what eGriz is for. :lol:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
I think the point was that somebody tried to elicit the "real" reasons pretending to use a "PM," and then when that didn't work, went public trying somehow to imply that not responding to a "PM" and rather, instead, posting the commentary where everyone could see it, was somehow not responsive to his "PM." It was a whiny complaint that his "PM" wasn't responded to, ironically using the public forum to complain about "not getting the real story" via a PM. It is one of those "whatever" moments.uofmman1122 said:
gg, here's a reference to the fist in the V lie, as well as to lies in general, from a post I made during the trial. See first para.
"I find it interesting that almost none, and perhaps none, of these support people and witnesses, actually know what occurred that night (even as told by the accuser at trial). Some know virtually nothing about what happened. I believe Dean Morin knew only of some kissing, but nothing about taking off clothes, fondling the crotch, grinding, what was said, etc. They weren't aware of the various texts (until long after they had been supporting the accuser as a victim). They weren't aware until more recently of various lies and omissions of the accuser, some of which are quite significant (the fist in the vagina told to the examining nurse). These people have taken at face value what the accuser told them, i.e. that she was raped, and now they are testifying at trial.
Most of their testimony is about how upset the accuser was and has been and how her behavior has changed. Other than confirming that the accuser says she was raped and has been very emotional at times, none of this is really relevant to what occurred in the bedroom, what was said when, and what message the accused was given. I don't think anyone is disputing that the accuser has said she was raped, and was and is upset. Perhaps this testimony will have a big influence on the jury, and win the day for the prosecution. I have some concerns in that regard. However, the most important issues, in my view, are what occurred in the bedroom (as well as the forensic evidence) and what message was communicated to the accused (did the accuser encourage the accused, go along with and even cooperate with the sex, fail to effectively communicate anything to the contrary, and allow her actions to trump any verbal communication that she really didn't want to have sex; I wonder if this is a "no, slight no, yes (by action), yes (by action)" situation, followed by regret. Most of the other testimony is background and context, although perhaps powerful at times. However, again, maybe the parade of counselors, nurses, deans and friends--often describing volumes of tears--will be what the jury focuses on. I suppose the jury may look at the simple case, i.e. she says she was raped, she told alot of people, she has cried alot and her behavior has changed, why would she lie about all this, guilty. To do this, the jury would have to overlook or ignore scores of holes in the case and multiple lies, omissions and odd behavior by the accuser, as well as what I assume will be the accused's exculpatory testimony. God help "man"kind, if every odd behavior, lie and omission of an accuser is to be excused by an expert saying victims do odd things. If the accused or the defense provides a reason for the accuser to have turned on the accused right away, in addition to what is already known (e.g., what happened at the ball), I would think this would have an influence on the jury.
I agree with most of the views regarding the many holes and problems in the case. The prosecution's case has a huge number of holes and problems. Paoli/Pabst are doing a very good job on cross examination to undercut the witnesses and their testimony on direct. However, I wonder if the jury is seeing or focusing on those things. By the way, my concerns about the jury are general, and are not the result of looking at them or trying to read any of their reactions. It will be interesting to learn what the defense has to say.
Last edited by PlayerRep on Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
PlayerRep"
"I find it interesting that almost none, and perhaps none, of these support people and witnesses, actually know what occurred that night (even as told by the accuser at trial). Some know virtually nothing about what happened. I believe Dean Morin knew only of some kissing, but nothing about taking off clothes, fondling the crotch, grinding, what was said, etc. They weren't aware of the various texts (until long after they had been supporting the accuser as a victim). They weren't aware until more recently of various lies and omissions of the accuser, some of which are quite significant (the fist in the vagina told to the examining nurse). These people have taken at face value what the accuser told them, i.e. that she was raped, and now they are testifying at trial.
Most of their testimony is about how upset the accuser was and has been and how her behavior has changed. Other than confirming that the accuser says she was raped and has been very emotional at times, none of this is really relevant to what occurred in the bedroom, what was said when, and what message the accused was given. I don't think anyone is disputing that the accuser has said she was raped, and was and is upset. Perhaps this testimony will have a big influence on the jury, and win the day for the prosecution. I have some concerns in that regard. However, the most important issues, in my view, are what occurred in the bedroom (as well as the forensic evidence) and what message was communicated to the accused (did the accuser encourage the accused, go along with and even cooperate with the sex, fail to effectively communicate anything to the contrary, and allow her actions to trump any verbal communication that she really didn't want to have sex; I wonder if this is a "no, slight no, yes (by action), yes (by action)" situation, followed by regret. Most of the other testimony is background and context, although perhaps powerful at times. However, again, maybe the parade of counselors, nurses, deans and friends--often describing volumes of tears--will be what the jury focuses on. I suppose the jury may look at the simple case, i.e. she says she was raped, she told alot of people, she has cried alot and her behavior has changed, why would she lie about all this, guilty. To do this, the jury would have to overlook or ignore scores of holes in the case and multiple lies, omissions and odd behavior by the accuser, as well as what I assume will be the accused's exculpatory testimony. God help "man"kind, if every odd behavior, lie and omission of an accuser is to be excused by an expert saying victims do odd things. If the accused or the defense provides a reason for the accuser to have turned on the accused right away, in addition to what is already known (e.g., what happened at the ball), I would think this would have an influence on the jury.
I agree with most of the views regarding the many holes and problems in the case. The prosecution's case has a huge number of holes and problems. Paoli/Pabst are doing a very good job on cross examination to undercut the witnesses and their testimony on direct. However, I wonder if the jury is seeing or focusing on those things. By the way, my concerns about the jury are general, and are not the result of looking at them or trying to read any of their reactions. It will be interesting to learn what the defense has to say.
Last edited by PlayerRep on Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
PlayerRep"
You also said:
My reaction was that the accuser's testimony, including some of her apparent reactions and communications after the incident, made her case look better and bigger than I had thought. She looks nice and is fairly articulate. Comes across fine or even good. Don't know why she was dressed with so much skin showing up high; no cleavage, though.
My reaction was that the accuser's testimony, including some of her apparent reactions and communications after the incident, made her case look better and bigger than I had thought. She looks nice and is fairly articulate. Comes across fine or even good. Don't know why she was dressed with so much skin showing up high; no cleavage, though.
