JJ Charged With Rape

[Growler1]

I thought the same thing about the witness's. Not very smart IMO.

I agree, this is not good for the alleged victim. I was able to figure out who she is in a matter of a few hours using the witness list. I will keep her identity to myself. Google is very powerful, and the legal system needs to re-think what they put out as "public" information.

A little scarey that you spent a couple of hours trying to figure out who she is. Personally I could careless who she is. Why would anyone take that much time to determine whom someone is? Egriz leads to a stalking mentality at times.

To prove that it could easily be done. JJ's defense team is going to have a tough time discrediting the accuser's allegations. She appears to be very intelligent, an over achiever, and model citizen. I feel sorry for whomever will be on the jury. This is going to be a very tough decision for a juror to make.

Please. This should be throw out of court. Have you read the affidavit? If you hyave, you could not possibly think that this girl has got a case. By the way, saying she is a "model citizen" is a comedy hour for all of us to enjoy!

 

[tnt]

I agree, this is not good for the alleged victim. I was able to figure out who she is in a matter of a few hours using the witness list. I will keep her identity to myself. Google is very powerful, and the legal system needs to re-think what they put out as "public" information.

A little scarey that you spent a couple of hours trying to figure out who she is. Personally I could careless who she is. Why would anyone take that much time to determine whom someone is? Egriz leads to a stalking mentality at times.

To prove that it could easily be done. JJ's defense team is going to have a tough time discrediting the accuser's allegations. She appears to be very intelligent, an over achiever, and model citizen. I feel sorry for whomever will be on the jury. This is going to be a very tough decision for a juror to make.

Huh, hard to discredit her? She will be discredited with her own words and all the inconsistencies in what she's already said. Even if her basic story is "I told him to stop and didn't", and his response is "She cooperated fully and never said no", how does the prosecution show rape "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the facts known so far?

Respectfully PR (and I am dead serious here, no games now straw man, no devils advocate, no contrarian, none of that) you have been looking at spread sheets and contracts way too long and not near enough time with "people."

This case has every potential of going very bad very quickly. It should not go to trial for the good of both parties. One of whom has a lot to lose. A diversion agreement will serve justice and give JJ if there is a problem a chance to fix it, and if there is not will give him back his reputation by exploring the possibility and taking action. This girl is a far better salesman with far more support than many (here) would like to believe. Right or wrong he comes from a very tarnished program. Everything that has been said done can be explained and backed up with expert testimony. JJ has none of those advantages.

 

[go4two]

Huh, hard to discredit her? She will be discredited with her own words and all the inconsistencies in what she's already said. Even if her basic story is "I told him to stop and didn't", and his response is "She cooperated fully and never said no", how does the prosecution show rape "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the facts known so far?

Very well could be, but given her track record as a human being, if I was a juror, I would have a tough time believing she would ruin a young man's life/career just because she was "humiliated." Well, if she is lying, then she has to be sociopathic to do this.

LIke I said, she appears to be a very solid individual with high morals. The Jury is going to like her.

 

[PlayerRep]

A little scarey that you spent a couple of hours trying to figure out who she is. Personally I could careless who she is. Why would anyone take that much time to determine whom someone is? Egriz leads to a stalking mentality at times.

To prove that it could easily be done. JJ's defense team is going to have a tough time discrediting the accuser's allegations. She appears to be very intelligent, an over achiever, and model citizen. I feel sorry for whomever will be on the jury. This is going to be a very tough decision for a juror to make.

Huh, hard to discredit her? She will be discredited with her own words and all the inconsistencies in what she's already said. Even if her basic story is "I told him to stop and didn't", and his response is "She cooperated fully and never said no", how does the prosecution show rape "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the facts known so far?

Respectfully PR (and I am dead serious here, no games now straw man, no devils advocate, no contrarian, none of that) you have been looking at spread sheets and contracts way too long and not near enough time with "people."

This case has every potential of going very bad very quickly. It should not go to trial for the good of both parties. One of whom has a lot to lose. A diversion agreement will serve justice and give JJ if there is a problem a chance to fix it, and if there is not will give him back his reputation by exploring the possibility and taking action. This girl is a far better salesman with far more support than many (here) would like to believe. Right or wrong he comes from a very tarnished program. Everything that has been said done can be explained and backed up with expert testimony. JJ has none of those advantages.

Nope, you are not analyzing the situation correctly. I have consulted multiple good trial attorneys, including several very good criminal attorneys, and each of them has said this appears to be a very weak case for the prosecution. There is some chance that the motion to dismiss will be granted, but I suppose not likely. No trial is risk-free, but I can't imagine the prosecution winning this case based on what is known so far. The rumor mill says the facts are likely to get worse for the prosecution when more is known. I don't know your basis, if any, for saying the accuser is a better salesman, but I think she will get discredited significantly on the witness stand (based on the multiple inconsistencies in her story). There appears to be nothing the one expert may say that another expert will be able to counter and neutralize. As I've said before, I think the prosecution will eventually drop the case.

 

[PlayerRep]

Huh, hard to discredit her? She will be discredited with her own words and all the inconsistencies in what she's already said. Even if her basic story is "I told him to stop and didn't", and his response is "She cooperated fully and never said no", how does the prosecution show rape "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the facts known so far?

Very well could be, but given her track record as a human being, if I was a juror, I would have a tough time believing she would ruin a young man's life/career just because she was "humiliated." Well, if she is lying, then she has to be sociopathic to do this.

LIke I said, she appears to be a very solid individual with high morals. The Jury is going to like her.

You obviously know much more about her than I do, as I know only what's in the court papers and a bit from the rumor mill. I don't know how you would know she has high morals, but you obviously aren't close to the rumor mill. I think the jury will like JJ too, based on what I've heard about him.

 

[tnt]

All you are saying may be true PR. You can talk to and get all the opinions from all the trial attorneys in the state but two simple facts remain. Trial lawyers can not predict what a jury will do, anything can happen (and does) Its little consolation to an client off for 30 years in the pen to hear again, she had no case. The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.


If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

Don't agree. You're making the assumption here that JJ did something illegal. If the defense has a good case, which it very well might, then settling for a lesser charge is not for the best. If JJ truly feels that he did nothing wrong, then his attorneys should accept nothing less than a full aquittal.

[Note: This comment is not intended to open up more discussion on the "did he do it" horse that has been beaten to death on here already. No need to beat that horse any longer... thanks]

 

[argh!]

If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

Don't agree. You're making the assumption here that JJ did something illegal. If the defense has a good case, which it very well might, then settling for a lesser charge is not for the best. If JJ truly feels that he did nothing wrong, then his attorneys should accept nothing less than a full aquittal.

[Note: This comment is not intended to open up more discussion on the "did he do it" horse that has been beaten to death on here already. No need to beat that horse any longer... thanks]

on one level, i agree with you. even if he is innocent he has a pretty tough decision to make, though. as for your note, i think the discussion is really between the 'johnson is the victim' crowd and the 'we don't have enough information to make a decision yet' threesome. it doesn't seem to me like anyone is screaming from the rooftops that he is guilty, although that is how objections are received by the 'he's a victim' crowd.

sorry, just felt the need to make that distinction. it seems important.

 

[Growler1]

All of the dufuses on this thread should read the affidavit, and then tell me how this girl has a chance in hell of winning this case. Are you kidding me? Get a clue.

If you have been following my posts over the years, you know that I have been tougher on Griz athletes committing criminal acts than any other poster. I have advocated getting rid of all of these kids who commit criminal acts. However, there is NO WAY that Jordy Johnson should be charged with rape for this incident. It is a sham. The case should be dismissed before trial, if the judge has any gonads at all!

 

[Spanky]

+1

 

[argh!]

All of the dufuses on this thread should read the affidavit, and then tell me how this girl has a chance in hell of winning this case.

that is what they've been doing. apparently she doesn't.

 

[tgreseth]

All of the dufuses on this thread should read the affidavit, and then tell me how this girl has a chance in hell of winning this case. Are you kidding me? Get a clue.

If you have been following my posts over the years, you know that I have been tougher on Griz athletes committing criminal acts than any other poster. I have advocated getting rid of all of these kids who commit criminal acts. However, there is NO WAY that Jordy Johnson should be charged with rape for this incident. It is a sham. The case should be dismissed before trial, if the judge has any gonads at all!

:lol: jerkin chains! :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

All you are saying may be true PR. You can talk to and get all the opinions from all the trial attorneys in the state but two simple facts remain. Trial lawyers can not predict what a jury will do, anything can happen (and does) Its little consolation to an client off for 30 years in the pen to hear again, she had no case. The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.


If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

Actually, good trial lawyers and good criminal lawyers are pretty good at predicting how a case will turn out, and thus how judge will rule and juries will decide. That's why they are considered to be good. That's why good trial lawyers make so much money. That's why good criminal lawyers get so many clients. They are good at evaluating cases, providing good advice, and be successful at trial.

 

[nzone]

I'm sure some type of civil suit is lurking out there as well. If JJ in fact has been unfairly accused I'm sure The Johnson's are gonna file against the University. I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors but I believe the insurance amount is approx $750,000.00. No way will they plea down if they know they have a good case. On a side note this is why you should buy All State Insurance..........to avoid mayhem like Jane Doe :lol:

 

[UMGriz75]

The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.

Gosh, those dumb "trial attorneys!"

I wonder if we could make them go through a "tnt" course on "being a trial attorney?"

 

[Spanky]

Is Jane Doe a student?

 

[mlbowl]

The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.

Gosh, those dumb "trial attorneys!"

I wonder if we could make them go through a "tnt" course on "being a trial attorney?"

This should be a prerequisite for taking the bar exam! :lol:

 

[tnt]

All you are saying may be true PR. You can talk to and get all the opinions from all the trial attorneys in the state but two simple facts remain. Trial lawyers can not predict what a jury will do, anything can happen (and does) Its little consolation to an client off for 30 years in the pen to hear again, she had no case. The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.


If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

Actually, good trial lawyers and good criminal lawyers are pretty good at predicting how a case will turn out, and thus how judge will rule and juries will decide. That's why they are considered to be good. That's why good trial lawyers make so much money. That's why good criminal lawyers get so many clients. They are good at evaluating cases, providing good advice, and be successful at trial.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, the one thing you are leaving out is that the "good" criminal lawyers prefer representing a guilty client. The most dangerous is an innocent (and unpredictable) client. I think it was a UM professor talked about it (Larivee maybe?) Who talked about his criminal experience that ended up with a preacher being sent to Leavenworth for simple trespass.

 

[PlayerRep]

All you are saying may be true PR. You can talk to and get all the opinions from all the trial attorneys in the state but two simple facts remain. Trial lawyers can not predict what a jury will do, anything can happen (and does) Its little consolation to an client off for 30 years in the pen to hear again, she had no case. The second mistake trial attorneys make is beliving a not guilty verdict establishes innocence and restores an individual.


If a trial can be avoided even with a diversion plea to a lesser charge, then that is best. Americans love to forgive those who take responsibility. With diversion it all goes away.

Actually, good trial lawyers and good criminal lawyers are pretty good at predicting how a case will turn out, and thus how judge will rule and juries will decide. That's why they are considered to be good. That's why good trial lawyers make so much money. That's why good criminal lawyers get so many clients. They are good at evaluating cases, providing good advice, and be successful at trial.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, the one thing you are leaving out is that the "good" criminal lawyers prefer representing a guilty client. The most dangerous is an innocent (and unpredictable) client. I think it was a UM professor talked about it (Larivee maybe?) Who talked about his criminal experience that ended up with a preacher being sent to Leavenworth for simple trespass.

My criminal lawyer friends like representing clients that can pay them well, regardless of being innocent or guilty. They may like the challenge of tougher cases, but they don't prefer representing "guilty" clients.

 

[tnt]

I know a few myself PR. Depends on how much conscience they have..... belief everyone deserves the best defense possible is one thing, but the thought of failing an innocent client consumes many of them. You are right about "paid well" Its a lot easier to get big buck$ out of a guilty man than one who is naive enough to believe innocence will serve them well.