JJ Charged With Rape

[grizcountry420]

I agree. In no way am I saying that JJ didn't rape her cause I really don't know but this case is going to be a huge he said/she said. There is proof (well word of mouth) that she has willingly slept with multiple football and basketball players. The classic JC. I think JJ is in trouble just for the fact that he had been drinking and she did go to the rape center the next day. Hope the truth gets out and justice is brought one way or another.

But why did it take her 6 weeks to go to the police? You would think she would have gone down to the police station right after she had gotten done at the rape center..

 

[grizhunter]

I was a juror involved in a very crazy ass rape case, amazing how everything comes down to how it fits in the definition of the laws, will be super interesting to see how this turns out. I hope the best for both parties until the verdict.

i guess that is why it's best we just let the legal system run it's course.... the charging document looks very incriminating towards Johnson but that is what charging documents do..... they aren't set out to help the defendant.... one interesting aspect to me is the defense & prosecuting attorney's are going to have a difficult time in Missoula County finding a jury pool who are not biased one way or the other with the amount of local media coverage on this case.

having never sat on a jury, i'm curious Grizhunter - what kinds of questions were you asked during the selection process?

I had filled out about a ten page questionair and I was one of the original members out of 150 called to the chairs and both lawyers asked all of us a million questions related to character, bias, and morals. They both asked me what I thought of the defendent and I said he just looked like a normal good man and I had no pre judgements. There were a ton of potential jurors that just flat out said that they would convict him without even hearing anything, hence they were dismissed. The problem is that is very easy for people with children to form a judgement before the facts are even heard. It was a split between men and women on the jury. I had a ton of trouble convicting the guy in the deliberation. After several days of going back and fourth with the other jurors we came to an agreement that even though the accuser said "no" one time and didn't fight back or scream for the other people in the house to hear, within the definition of the laws he raped this person. One instance was a blowjob where the accuser didn't no want to and really didn't, shoved his penis in the mouth for about a second, but since any part of his body broke any oraface on the accuser, within the law it was rape. Crazy coobag of a trial. After we convicted the man, it came out that he had been convicted before and somehow had a retrial where a ton of evidence could not be admitted, we made the right decision. One more thing, in this second trial it was pretty much the defendents word against the accuser word, I was the only one holding the jurors up in the deliberation.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

I was a juror involved in a very crazy ass rape case, amazing how everything comes down to how it fits in the definition of the laws, will be super interesting to see how this turns out. I hope the best for both parties until the verdict.

i guess that is why it's best we just let the legal system run it's course.... the charging document looks very incriminating towards Johnson but that is what charging documents do..... they aren't set out to help the defendant.... one interesting aspect to me is the defense & prosecuting attorney's are going to have a difficult time in Missoula County finding a jury pool who are not biased one way or the other with the amount of local media coverage on this case.

having never sat on a jury, i'm curious Grizhunter - what kinds of questions were you asked during the selection process?

I had filled out about a ten page questionair and I was one of the original members out of 150 called to the chairs and both lawyers asked all of us a million questions related to character, bias, and morals. They both asked me what I thought of the defendent and I said he just looked like a normal good man and I had no pre judgements. There were a ton of potential jurors that just flat out said that they would convict him without even hearing anything, hence they were dismissed. The problem is that is very easy for people with children to form a judgement before the facts are even heard. It was a split between men and women on the jury. I had a ton of trouble convicting the guy in the deliberation. After several days of going back and fourth with the other jurors we came to an agreement that even though the accuser said "no" one time and didn't fight back or scream for the other people in the house to hear, within the definition of the laws he raped this person. One instance was a blowjob where the accuser didn't no want to and really didn't, shoved his penis in the mouth for about a second, but since any part of his body broke any oraface on the accuser, within the law it was rape. Crazy coobag of a trial. After we convicted the man, it came out that he had been convicted before and somehow had a retrial where a ton of evidence could not be admitted, we made the right decision. One more thing, in this second trial it was pretty much the defendents word against the accuser word, I was the only one holding the jurors up in the deliberation.

Holy crap! :shock: Thanks for the "behind the scenes" glimpse grizhunter.

 

[tnt]

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

It means no.......

Apparently you have never been married or are a virgin.

 

[funny water]

I was a juror involved in a very crazy ass rape case, amazing how everything comes down to how it fits in the definition of the laws, will be super interesting to see how this turns out. I hope the best for both parties until the verdict.

i guess that is why it's best we just let the legal system run it's course.... the charging document looks very incriminating towards Johnson but that is what charging documents do..... they aren't set out to help the defendant.... one interesting aspect to me is the defense & prosecuting attorney's are going to have a difficult time in Missoula County finding a jury pool who are not biased one way or the other with the amount of local media coverage on this case.

having never sat on a jury, i'm curious Grizhunter - what kinds of questions were you asked during the selection process?

I had filled out about a ten page questionair and I was one of the original members out of 150 called to the chairs and both lawyers asked all of us a million questions related to character, bias, and morals. They both asked me what I thought of the defendent and I said he just looked like a normal good man and I had no pre judgements. There were a ton of potential jurors that just flat out said that they would convict him without even hearing anything, hence they were dismissed. The problem is that is very easy for people with children to form a judgement before the facts are even heard. It was a split between men and women on the jury. I had a ton of trouble convicting the guy in the deliberation. After several days of going back and fourth with the other jurors we came to an agreement that even though the accuser said "no" one time and didn't fight back or scream for the other people in the house to hear, within the definition of the laws he raped this person. One instance was a blowjob where the accuser didn't no want to and really didn't, shoved his penis in the mouth for about a second, but since any part of his body broke any oraface on the accuser, within the law it was rape. Crazy coobag of a trial. After we convicted the man, it came out that he had been convicted before and somehow had a retrial where a ton of evidence could not be admitted, we made the right decision. One more thing, in this second trial it was pretty much the defendents word against the accuser word, I was the only one holding the jurors up in the deliberation.

thank you for the insight...... this case will get ugly (even more than it already is)..... definitely a bad situation from any angle.

 

[BDizzle]

I agree. In no way am I saying that JJ didn't rape her cause I really don't know but this case is going to be a huge he said/she said. There is proof (well word of mouth) that she has willingly slept with multiple football and basketball players. The classic JC. I think JJ is in trouble just for the fact that he had been drinking and she did go to the rape center the next day. Hope the truth gets out and justice is brought one way or another.

But why did it take her 6 weeks to go to the police? You would think she would have gone down to the police station right after she had gotten done at the rape center..

That is a good question. I agree that you would think she would go right away. But you also never know how she was reacting. Maybe she was in shock and was scared to hurt JJ for fear of retaliation. I've never met JJ personally but from what I've heard he is a very good guy and is very liked. Being the starting QB for the Griz doesn't hurt either. Not easy to just accuse him of something because a lot of people are going to rip you apart.

I'm more confused about the County Attorney taking so long to charge JJ. With the evidence listed it seems pretty clear to charge him with rape. I wonder if JJ leaving town thinking he wouldn't be charged made the County Attorney mad. Maybe they thought that "showed" that he was guilty.

This case is going to be dominating Montana headlines for quite a while. No matter what happens it is another dark cloud for the school and state.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Gee, do you think Paoli might argue that the local prosecutor, under intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, is only now bringing a case before the jury that he was reluctant to bring up to this point?

This trial will be a three-ring circus. Yes, we all hope justice is ultimately served. But how in the world can anybody pretend that there are no outside influences at work here?

 

[Flathead Griz]

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

It means no.......

Apparently you have never been married or are a virgin.

AND juror #13 votes guilty

 

[tnt]

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

It means no.......

Apparently you have never been married or are a virgin.

AND juror #13 votes guilty

Nope, just answering your question as to what it means. It might come in handy for you some day, you just never know. I'm on my period, "I have headache" are "also popular" I just want to be together and cuddle is another one.

As far as why she waited, the attitude of an ever declining number of egrizers towards her, the Missoulian the TV stations and state papers links to the charging documents, etc. could all be reasons. Its all covered in the handout BTW used to discourage victims from proceeding. The hand out is great intentions gone arwy.

 

[bisonboone11]

Gee, do you think Paoli might argue that the local prosecutor, under intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, is only now bringing a case before the jury that he was reluctant to bring up to this point?

This trial will be a three-ring circus. Yes, we all hope justice is ultimately served. But how in the world can anybody pretend that there are no outside influences at work here?

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? If the city has truly been handling rape accusations inappropriately, maybe it's a good thing that outside influences are at work.

 

[ilovethecats]

foxnews......so it's probably all inaccurate....

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/07/31/university-montana-quarterback-charged-with-rape/?test=latestnews" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[tnt]

Gee, do you think Paoli might argue that the local prosecutor, under intense pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, is only now bringing a case before the jury that he was reluctant to bring up to this point?

This trial will be a three-ring circus. Yes, we all hope justice is ultimately served. But how in the world can anybody pretend that there are no outside influences at work here?

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? If the city has truly been handling rape accusations inappropriately, maybe it's a good thing that outside influences are at work.

Before everybody gets their shorts wound up, remember there is a preliminary hearing not yet scheduled. Paoli may waive it, he may not. But if this is politics and sufficient evidence doesn't exist it won't go forward. I wouldn't be picking the jury just yet. And it would have to be virtuallu nonexistent before an attorney would risk 40 years in the pen for a 20 year old without trying to work something out. I'd bet money there will be no trial and at worst a deferred imposition with either 5 or 10 year wait.

 

[br fan]

I agree. In no way am I saying that JJ didn't rape her cause I really don't know but this case is going to be a huge he said/she said. There is proof (well word of mouth) that she has willingly slept with multiple football and basketball players. The classic JC. I think JJ is in trouble just for the fact that he had been drinking and she did go to the rape center the next day. Hope the truth gets out and justice is brought one way or another.

But why did it take her 6 weeks to go to the police? You would think she would have gone down to the police station right after she had gotten done at the rape center..

That is a good question. I agree that you would think she would go right away. But you also never know how she was reacting. Maybe she was in shock and was scared to hurt JJ for fear of retaliation. I've never met JJ personally but from what I've heard he is a very good guy and is very liked. Being the starting QB for the Griz doesn't hurt either. Not easy to just accuse him of something because a lot of people are going to rip you apart.

I'm more confused about the County Attorney taking so long to charge JJ. With the evidence listed it seems pretty clear to charge him with rape. I wonder if JJ leaving town thinking he wouldn't be charged made the County Attorney mad. Maybe they thought that "showed" that he was guilty.

This case is going to be dominating Montana headlines for quite a while. No matter what happens it is another dark cloud for the school and state.

I'm not sure that it took that long to charge him once they had all the evidence. The county attorney's office did not receive the information from UM's investigation and honor court hearing until after the federal court ruled in June. With Coulter, Aronsky (sp?) etc. listed as witnesses, I believe some of the evidence the county attorney is relying on came from UM's investigation and hearing. Defendant's have a right to a "speedy trial" under the constitution once they have been charged, so it is not unique for a prosecutor to insure she (Boylan) has all of her ducks in a row before charging.

 

[Cats247]

I just hope all you Friz fans who called this poor woman a "liar" or "slut" wake up and realize you were wrong to put the need of a QB on your football team, in front of the well being of a innocent woman!!

 

[BWahlberg]

I just hope all you griz fans who called this poor woman a "liar" or "slut" wake up and realize you were wrong to put the need of a QB on your football team, in front of the well being of a innocent woman!!

Ah yes thank you from your high horse for reminding us that - although I've not read a lot of posters on here actually refer to the victim that way... so yeah...

 

[PTGrizzly]

Based solely on the charging documents that have been made public, I don't see anyway that there would be a conviction. The County will spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and cost JJ's family the same and only serve as a storyline for the media.

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

 

[tnt]

I just hope all you griz fans who called this poor woman a "liar" or "slut" wake up and realize you were wrong to put the need of a QB on your football team, in front of the well being of a innocent woman!!

Ah yes thank you from your high horse for reminding us that - although I've not read a lot of posters on here actually refer to the victim that way... so yeah...

There's a few who have and more than a few who have certainly implied it, including one who knows the whole football team and basketball teams. No wonder JJ was frustrated, apparently he was the only one she said no too. It would be very hard to hear that. You would think she would have tried to frame at least one other........

Some people don't understand a discussion is just that.

 

[bisonboone11]

Baloney, I wouldn't want to be sitting in front of a Missoula County jury with that evidence. People have been convicted with less than that on rape charges. It will depend on how credible the witnesses are.

This girl is going to get destroyed in court.

In all probability the girl will be destroyed in court. In the documents she claims she said, "not tonight", which does imply an ongoing sexual relationship. So what really does "not tonight" mean and think about where a defense attorney can go with that.

"Not tonight" means no. It doesn't matter if she had said earlier that she wanted to, or if they had been involved sexually before. The minute a girl says "no" or "stop", you stop.

This kind of worries me that there are guys out there that don't understand what "not tonight" means. Also, if a defense attorney attempted to use that as his strategy, it would be an extremely short case, and that attorney wouldn't have a job for very long.

"Yes, the plaintiff told my client 'not tonight', but you jurors must ask yourself, what does that really mean?"

 

[AllWeatherFan]

These cases are fact-specific. Please don't make authoritative pronouncements unless you know the facts, or at least have heard both sides of the story.

 

[ilovethecats]

These cases are fact-specific. Please don't make authoritative pronouncements unless you know the facts, or at least have heard both sides of the story.

well what fun would that be?!