JJ Charged With Rape

[GrizPony]

Well (no suprise) they didn't dismiss the charges. I assume he is being booked and released

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Griz-quarterback-pleads-not-guilty-to-rape-charge/-/14594602/15999020/-/xekkys/-/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting. Until crackgina's posts and the link you gave I was under the impression there were only two relevant text messages, the one from the victim to her roommate, and the alleged one from the victim to JJ. According to the link, Paoli has requested copies of dozens of text messages between students and UM administrators. Paoli may be on fishing expedition, but I have the feeling he either already has a copy of the messages, or knows what they will say, and wants official or authenticated copies for his case. If there are relevant texts, I won't speculate on whether it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor not mentioning them in the charging affidavit. I am troubled, however, that if there are relevant text messages, that this material was not already turned over by UM to Paoli as part of the honor court proceeding.

Hey someone gets it! Stay tuned.

 

[snap]

I'll take crackgina's word on this matter over any others who have questioned him in this thread. This is gonna play out and we'll see who's right.

 

[argh!]

yes, the word of an (alleged) attorney who is trying to pollute the waters of public opinion is definitely worth buying!

 

[tnt]

I think we will let the texts speak for themselves when they come out. I still stand by my opinion that the affidavit is not balanced, as it should be, ethically. Nothing more, nothing less.

First off, you may want to find out when she was first diagnosed with PTSD. May have been quite a while ago. Secondly, you talk about "dumbass" jurors then go on to spell "likey", "aconcerned", "witrh", "Quarter back", "a above" (sic), and "ther" in the SAME SENTENCE!!! Who is the dumbass, seriously? Then you question my "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct. If you are going to question people's intelligence, you should at least feign intelligence yourself by using spell-check. :thumb:

Why bother with spell check with you around but then when you do depend on it you get "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct and of course prosecutorial misconduct is changed by the auto-spell on android. So the use of spell check will help find a jury that will be impressed with attorney puffery???

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

 

[snap]

yes, the word of an (alleged) attorney who is trying to pollute the waters of public opinion is definitely worth buying!

He/She has good info. :thumb:

 

[br fan]

I think we will let the texts speak for themselves when they come out. I still stand by my opinion that the affidavit is not balanced, as it should be, ethically. Nothing more, nothing less.

First off, you may want to find out when she was first diagnosed with PTSD. May have been quite a while ago. Secondly, you talk about "dumbass" jurors then go on to spell "likey", "aconcerned", "witrh", "Quarter back", "a above" (sic), and "ther" in the SAME SENTENCE!!! Who is the dumbass, seriously? Then you question my "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct. If you are going to question people's intelligence, you should at least feign intelligence yourself by using spell-check. :thumb:

Why bother with spell check with you around but then when you do depend on it you get "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct and of course prosecutorial misconduct is changed by the auto-spell on android. So the use of spell check will help find a jury that will be impressed with attorney puffery???

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

From what crackgina stated I am assuming the e-mails question the victim's veracity, i.e. in some manner she has told other person(s) a different version of events than her official version in the charging document. If my assumption is accurate, as crackgina noted, that is an exception to the heresay rule as an admission against her interest.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

What is clear, and what has always been clear, is that people need to find out the facts before they form strong opinions.

 

[GrizPony]

yes, the word of an (alleged) attorney who is trying to pollute the waters of public opinion is definitely worth buying!

Even if you don't think I'm an attorney, did you see any brief filed today in JJ's case? Is telling both sides of the actual, undisputed evidence "polluting the water" in your twisted little mind?

 

[GrizPony]

I think we will let the texts speak for themselves when they come out. I still stand by my opinion that the affidavit is not balanced, as it should be, ethically. Nothing more, nothing less.

First off, you may want to find out when she was first diagnosed with PTSD. May have been quite a while ago. Secondly, you talk about "dumbass" jurors then go on to spell "likey", "aconcerned", "witrh", "Quarter back", "a above" (sic), and "ther" in the SAME SENTENCE!!! Who is the dumbass, seriously? Then you question my "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct. If you are going to question people's intelligence, you should at least feign intelligence yourself by using spell-check. :thumb:

Why bother with spell check with you around but then when you do depend on it you get "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct and of course prosecutorial misconduct is changed by the auto-spell on android. So the use of spell check will help find a jury that will be impressed with attorney puffery???

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

Your questions prove my point. You know nothing, but you sure get all fired up.

 

[GrizPony]

First off, you may want to find out when she was first diagnosed with PTSD. May have been quite a while ago. Secondly, you talk about "dumbass" jurors then go on to spell "likey", "aconcerned", "witrh", "Quarter back", "a above" (sic), and "ther" in the SAME SENTENCE!!! Who is the dumbass, seriously? Then you question my "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct. If you are going to question people's intelligence, you should at least feign intelligence yourself by using spell-check. :thumb:

Why bother with spell check with you around but then when you do depend on it you get "proprietorial misconduct" claim when it is actually prosecutorial misconduct and of course prosecutorial misconduct is changed by the auto-spell on android. So the use of spell check will help find a jury that will be impressed with attorney puffery???

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

From what crackgina stated I am assuming the e-mails question the victim's veracity, i.e. in some manner she has told other person(s) a different version of events than her official version in the charging document. If my assumption is accurate, as crackgina noted, that is an exception to the heresay rule as an admission against her interest.

Yepper. Did you read this TNT? Can you understand this TNT? :roll:

 

[tnt]

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

From what crackgina stated I am assuming the e-mails question the victim's veracity, i.e. in some manner she has told other person(s) a different version of events than her official version in the charging document. If my assumption is accurate, as crackgina noted, that is an exception to the heresay rule as an admission against her interest.

Yepper. Did you read this TNT? Can you understand this TNT? :roll:[/quote]

I understand that. The rumored emails were supposedly between the alleged victim and her "friends" and typical of post rape victims she wonders if really happen, if it was he fault etc etc. and defense attorneys have attempted to in the past to use this as a defense. It is less effective than it once was, and Judges tend to limit it. But all THAT aside those aren't the emails Pabst has asked for, She is asking for the emails between the University and the alleged victims friend (and I would imagine some of JJ's friends)that supposedly contain similar information. Someone telling someone else that they were told something sounds like hearsay to me, or in the old days gossip.

More likely it appears the defense wants everyone to know there is a silver bullet out there that proves their client innocent, but that he is being denied this important information and shouldn't have even been charged as a result. They are very careful in how they say it of course, they don't want the judge to issue a gag order, so they simply say Pabst is "going through a thousand pages" and it will take some time.

So again I ask how does someone tell someone about an email get admitted?

Pabst and Paoli are a great team and may find something to help them I have no doubt.

 

[br fan]

When does the prosecutorial misconduct come into play??? (seriously)And how do you convert a discussion (the emails) between people not directly involved with the events to evidence from hearsay? (seriously)

From what crackgina stated I am assuming the e-mails question the victim's veracity, i.e. in some manner she has told other person(s) a different version of events than her official version in the charging document. If my assumption is accurate, as crackgina noted, that is an exception to the heresay rule as an admission against her interest.

Yepper. Did you read this TNT? Can you understand this TNT? :roll:

I understand that. The rumored emails were supposedly between the alleged victim and her "friends" and typical of post rape victims she wonders if really happen, if it was he fault etc etc. and defense attorneys have attempted to in the past to use this as a defense. It is less effective than it once was, and Judges tend to limit it. But all THAT aside those aren't the emails Pabst has asked for, She is asking for the emails between the University and the alleged victims friend (and I would imagine some of JJ's friends)that supposedly contain similar information. Someone telling someone else that they were told something sounds like hearsay to me, or in the old days gossip.

More likely it appears the defense wants everyone to know there is a silver bullet out there that proves their client innocent, but that he is being denied this important information and shouldn't have even been charged as a result. They are very careful in how they say it of course, they don't want the judge to issue a gag order, so they simply say Pabst is "going through a thousand pages" and it will take some time.

So again I ask how does someone tell someone about an email get admitted?

Pabst and Paoli are a great team and may find something to help them I have no doubt.[/quote]

I'm assuming the texts or e-mails, whatever they are, are from students to UM stating something to the effect of "the victim told me..........."

From this morning's Missoulian article, Pabst did not state she needs to go through thousands of pages and was not sure she could do so in time; Suzy Boylan said that. In an earlier thread I stated that it was not unique in the amount of time it took the county attorney's office to charge JJ; the prosecutor needs to have her ducks in a row prior to filing the charge because under the constitution JJ can demand a speedy trial, i.e. not give her the time to try and make her case after filing it. If there is something in those e-mails, it leads me to conclude either Suzy Boylan did not have her ducks in a row, or UM failed to provide that information to her prior to filing the charge.

 

[tnt]

My mistake it was Boylan. Your analysis is reasonable and helpful. No slam Dunks either way seems to be the way this will go. I still hope a trial can be avoided.......

 

[goatcreekgriz]

The most troubling comment in the Missoulian is that Boylan is still "working her way through 1,000 pages of text messages . . . [and that] she was concerned about her ability to finish that task before the next court hearing in the case, scheduled for Aug. 21." My question: given the amount of time this has been pending in the Missoula County Attorney's Office, shouldn't that review have been done before filing the Affidavit And Motion To File Information?

 

[GrizPony]

The most troubling comment in the Missoulian is that Boylan is still "working her way through 1,000 pages of text messages . . . [and that] she was concerned about her ability to finish that task before the next court hearing in the case, scheduled for Aug. 21." My question: given the amount of time this has been pending in the Missoula County Attorney's Office, shouldn't that review have been done before filing the Affidavit And Motion To File Information?

This! Your job as a prosecutor is to make sure justice is done. Not just get convictions. If you haven't even looked at tons of evidence, its pretty hard to say you filed the charges based on justice. Pressure maybe, but not on the basis of justice.

 

[indian-outlaw]

The most troubling comment in the Missoulian is that Boylan is still "working her way through 1,000 pages of text messages . . . [and that] she was concerned about her ability to finish that task before the next court hearing in the case, scheduled for Aug. 21." My question: given the amount of time this has been pending in the Missoula County Attorney's Office, shouldn't that review have been done before filing the Affidavit And Motion To File Information?

This! Your job as a prosecutor is to make sure justice is done. Not just get convictions. If you haven't even looked at tons of evidence, its pretty hard to say you filed the charges based on justice. Pressure maybe, but not on the basis of justice.

There was plenty of evidence to charge him without looking through the 1000 e-mails. As soon as they have enough evidence to charge him the prosecutor has a duty to do so. It doesn't mean extra evidence cannot be gathered at a later time.

 

[GrizPony]

Yeah, but there may be plenty of evidence that exonerates him in the emails. If so, he should never be charged because you can't get your reputation and life back, even after an acquittal. That's why a prosecutor's job is to pursue justice, not convictions. Are you dense?

 

[getgrizzy]

Yeah, but there may be plenty of evidence that exonerates him in the emails. If so, he should never be charged because you can't get your reputation and life back, even after an acquittal. That's why a prosecutor's job is to pursue justice, not convictions. Are you dense?

in the motion to dismiss the defense isn't denying that jane doe said "no." the defense isn't denying that j.j. said, "roll over or i'll make you." that stuff kind trumps the texts, which if the motion to dismiss is the biggest they've got aren't all that much.

 

[indian-outlaw]

Yeah, but there may be plenty of evidence that exonerates him in the emails. If so, he should never be charged because you can't get your reputation and life back, even after an acquittal. That's why a prosecutor's job is to pursue justice, not convictions. Are you dense?

I think you're dense. It isn't that hard to understand if you take the blinders off dickhead.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

A monkey can see holes all over this false accusation of rape (charging document) :!:

The prosecution has vomited, can't wait for the defense to clear this travesty up :!: :!: :!: