JJ Charged With Rape

[PTGrizzly]

Also screw you guys for making me laugh in a thread where I shouldn't be laughing. You know who you are...

 

[GoGrizOpponents]

I do not care who the accused, or the accuser is, or what the charges are, in America it is supposed to be, "Innocent until proven guilty." If you do not like that, please go to another country. Myself, and I am sure other veterans, thought for this, and other lost their lives fighting for this country. We did not sacrifice for that kind of outlook. Sorry, but I am so against your mentality with our legal system.

...so you're saying JJ is innocent and the Missoula PD just hung themselves and arent confident in a conviction? Also, I'm curious what are you're thoughts on the Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson case? since my guilty until proven innocent mindset in slamdunk cases is so Un-American?


I'll spell it out for you. After reading the affidavit, and considering how lengthy of a time it took to charge him, I have to say that JJ will probably have a challenging time proving he is innocent. Hence.... Guilty until proven innocent. However, I have not heard his side of the story but It will be very tough in my opinion to persuade a jury. I was being devils advocate and looking at the judicial system from a different perspective.. Obviously I trust the the one we have and strongly believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is the best and only way to keep innocent people from going to jail.

 

[argh!]

Based on the wide range of opinions and interpretations of what "not tonight" means, that have been expressed on this board, I can only conclude that it will be a hung jury.

Obviously some argue that is means "no" or "stop" and other see it as a conditional "yes" or "maybe later". The jury will be made up of individuals with that same range of opinions and interpretations.


“Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”
–Mark Twain

uh, this is egriz. the posters on here certainly aren't a representative example of the general public, aka johnson's 'peers'. remember all the assurances that the case had zero merit and would not be charged, etc etc? you aren't talking about a rational group of upstanding citizens, more like a bunch of middle aged men who sadly cling to the belief that their football heroes are.... well.... heroes. especially the white ones.

 

[GrizLA]

I resent your implication! I left Middle AGE years ago, unless, of course, I live a lot longer, in which case, never mind...

 

[mtgrizrule]

I don't care who is on trial, for what charges, I do believe it is the responsibility of our legal system to prove someone guilty. Granted their are obvious cases, when someone was caught doing the crime, and there is no question of being guilty.

However, when a case of, side A, against B, without obvious guilt,yes I believe, innocent until proven guilty. Does that mean, every time someone is not guilty, I agree with the decision, no. Once the case is over, it is over, and I respect the outcome, regardless, if I agree with it, or not.

I 100% believe in the USA, and the way the legal system was originally set up. Granted, I do believe certain class of people do have an inherited advantage in the system. However, I have never, and never will doubt "innocent until proven guilty".

I have heard other things from people around Missoula, which I am keeping off the message boards. JJ's defense will have a lot of Aces, and wildcards up their sleeves, to use. If, they have to use those cards, that girl, and her family better be preparing for some very harsh things to come out, in this case.

As for JJ, I agree, the court documents do make him look like a monster, and if true, it is sickening. I have uncles, and cousins, that have been lawyers, and/or judges. One thing I learned from my uncle, in his career, from being a county judge to retiring as a federal judge, it is best to have an open mind, weigh the facts, and testimonies as they come out, and often the ending is much different than what one originally thinks.

I cannot speak for other veterans, or current soldiers. I know I did not fight for my country, to be a country of "Guilty until proven innocent".

 

[polsongrizz]

. Obviously I trust the the one we have and strongly believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is the best and only way to keep innocent people from going to jail.

That's a good one... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[argh!]

this woman's past sexual history is irrelevant in the case. it is what it is, a set of prior events, not the histrionic 'guilt card' too many of you want to assign to it because of hero worship, rumor, and an inflated sense of 'being right'.

heroically and right,

argh!

 

[PTGrizzly]

this woman's past sexual history is irrelevant in the case. it is what it is, a set of prior events, not the histrionic 'guilt card' too many of you want to assign to it because of hero worship, rumor, and an inflated sense of 'being right'.

heroically and right,

argh!

Agreed.

 

[EverettGriz]

I have to say that JJ will probably have a challenging time proving he is innocent. Hence.... Guilty until proven innocent

Ummmm....what?

 

[tnt]

this woman's past sexual history is irrelevant in the case. it is what it is, a set of prior events, not the histrionic 'guilt card' too many of you want to assign to it because of hero worship, rumor, and an inflated sense of 'being right'.

heroically and right,

argh!

Agreed.

Agreed. His assuminng he would get what others claimed to have gotten, is a pretty good reason why he may not have gotten it. If any thing it will hurt him

 

[Kramerica]

I don't care who is on trial, for what charges, I do believe it is the responsibility of our legal system to prove someone guilty. Granted their are obvious cases, when someone was caught doing the crime, and there is no question of being guilty.

However, when a case of, side A, against B, without obvious guilt,yes I believe, innocent until proven guilty. Does that mean, every time someone is not guilty, I agree with the decision, no. Once the case is over, it is over, and I respect the outcome, regardless, if I agree with it, or not.

I 100% believe in the USA, and the way the legal system was originally set up. Granted, I do believe certain class of people do have an inherited advantage in the system. However, I have never, and never will doubt "innocent until proven guilty".

I have heard other things from people around Missoula, which I am keeping off the message boards. JJ's defense will have a lot of Aces, and wildcards up their sleeves, to use. If, they have to use those cards, that girl, and her family better be preparing for some very harsh things to come out, in this case.

As for JJ, I agree, the court documents do make him look like a monster, and if true, it is sickening. I have uncles, and cousins, that have been lawyers, and/or judges. One thing I learned from my uncle, in his career, from being a county judge to retiring as a federal judge, it is best to have an open mind, weigh the facts, and testimonies as they come out, and often the ending is much different than what one originally thinks.

I cannot speak for other veterans, or current soldiers. I know I did not fight for my country, to be a country of "Guilty until proven innocent".

I think you just broke the record for most unnecessary commas used in a single post. My,God, that, was, tough, to, read,.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I don't care who is on trial, for what charges, I do believe it is the responsibility of our legal system to prove someone guilty. Granted their are obvious cases, when someone was caught doing the crime, and there is no question of being guilty.

However, when a case of, side A, against B, without obvious guilt,yes I believe, innocent until proven guilty. Does that mean, every time someone is not guilty, I agree with the decision, no. Once the case is over, it is over, and I respect the outcome, regardless, if I agree with it, or not.

I 100% believe in the USA, and the way the legal system was originally set up. Granted, I do believe certain class of people do have an inherited advantage in the system. However, I have never, and never will doubt "innocent until proven guilty".

I have heard other things from people around Missoula, which I am keeping off the message boards. JJ's defense will have a lot of Aces, and wildcards up their sleeves, to use. If, they have to use those cards, that girl, and her family better be preparing for some very harsh things to come out, in this case.

As for JJ, I agree, the court documents do make him look like a monster, and if true, it is sickening. I have uncles, and cousins, that have been lawyers, and/or judges. One thing I learned from my uncle, in his career, from being a county judge to retiring as a federal judge, it is best to have an open mind, weigh the facts, and testimonies as they come out, and often the ending is much different than what one originally thinks.

I cannot speak for other veterans, or current soldiers. I know I did not fight for my country, to be a country of "Guilty until proven innocent".

I think you just broke the record for most unnecessary commas used in a single post. My,God, that, was, tough, to, read,.

I d,o,n,',t c,a,r,e,

 

[GrizPony]

I do not care who the accused, or the accuser is, or what the charges are, in America it is supposed to be, "Innocent until proven guilty." If you do not like that, please go to another country. Myself, and I am sure other veterans, thought for this, and other lost their lives fighting for this country. We did not sacrifice for that kind of outlook. Sorry, but I am so against your mentality with our legal system.

...so you're saying JJ is innocent and the Missoula PD just hung themselves and arent confident in a conviction? Also, I'm curious what are you're thoughts on the Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson case? since my guilty until proven innocent mindset in slamdunk cases is so Un-American?


I'll spell it out for you. After reading the affidavit, and considering how lengthy of a time it took to charge him, I have to say that JJ will probably have a challenging time proving he is innocent. Hence.... Guilty until proven innocent. However, I have not heard his side of the story but It will be very tough in my opinion to persuade a jury. I was being devils advocate and looking at the judicial system from a different perspective.. Obviously I trust the the one we have and strongly believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is the best and only way to keep innocent people from going to jail.

That "affidavit" violates ethical standards in the way it was presented. All exculpatory evidence was redacted, which is basically prosecutorial misconduct. Regardless of innocence or guilt, it seems odd that the prosecutor felt the need to stoop to those levels to justify the charging.

 

[tnt]

What exculpatory evidence? Are you sure it hasn't been given to Paoli in discovery? Has there even been discovery? What was redacted in the charging documents? I didn't see anything (not that I couldn't have missed it) Wasn't aware there was an preliminary hearing yet, when was it?? The Supreme Court has held that due process does not require the disclosure of material exculpatory impeachment information before a defendant enters into a plea bargain. Should the case actually go to trial it would have to be disclosed.....

 

[GrizPony]

What exculpatory evidence? Are you sure it hasn't been given to Paoli in discovery? Has there even been discovery? What was redacted in the charging documents? I didn't see anything (not that I couldn't have missed it) Wasn't aware there was an preliminary hearing yet, when was it?? The Supreme Court has held that due process does not require the disclosure of material exculpatory impeachment information before a defendant enters into a plea bargain. Should the case actually go to trial it would have to be disclosed.....

I think this legal stuff is beyond you, but suffice it to say, the affidavit is supposed to have a more balanced picture of the event leading to the charge. Nothing that the complainant stated that was exculpatory was included in the affidavit before it was fed to the media. Seems strange if they are so confident that they wouldn't put it all out there.

 

[tnt]

What exculpatory evidence? Are you sure it hasn't been given to Paoli in discovery? Has there even been discovery? What was redacted in the charging documents? I didn't see anything (not that I couldn't have missed it) Wasn't aware there was an preliminary hearing yet, when was it?? The Supreme Court has held that due process does not require the disclosure of material exculpatory impeachment information before a defendant enters into a plea bargain. Should the case actually go to trial it would have to be disclosed.....

I think this legal stuff is beyond you, but suffice it to say, the affidavit is supposed to have a more balanced picture of the event leading to the charge. Nothing that the complainant stated that was exculpatory was included in the affidavit before it was fed to the media. Seems strange if they are so confident that they wouldn't put it all out there.

So what you are saying is you don't know what was redacted and what exculpatory evidence (if any) exists. I'm okay with that.

 

[GrizPony]

No, I am saying I know but can't say because I am a lawyer with direct knowledge. So you will soon be educated. Don't doubt little one. :thumb:

 

[tnt]

No, I am saying I know but can't say because I am a lawyer with direct knowledge. So you will soon be educated. Don't doubt little one. :thumb:

Thats great news... So this will all be over on the 14 th and JJ back to camp on then 15th?? Will he ride a unicorn to practice??

6 months to charge and the screw it up before the preliminary hearing. I hope Fred fires somebody.

 

[GrizPony]

No, I am saying I know but can't say because I am a lawyer with direct knowledge. So you will soon be educated. Don't doubt little one. :thumb:

Thats great news... So this will all be over on the 14 th and JJ back to camp on then 15th?? Will he ride a unicorn to practice??

I never said he would be back in school. I didn't say he would win an acquittal. I said the affidavit constituted prosecutorial misconduct. You are so stupid sometimes I think your "straw man" attacks must be effective where you work. Are you with the government or academia?

 

[getgrizzy]

crackgina: there is exculpatory evidence in the affidavit. it states she was kissing him back and that she removed his jacket and shirt.

you're probably thinking the text messages should be included, but i don't think they need to be included, because those texts only led him to continue to want to meet her and have sex at some point in time, not to having sex at that moment. even if they did state she wanted to have sex at that point in time, she is entitled to changing her mind for any number of reasons. his breath stunk, he was drunk, he smelled, she began feeling ill...