JJ Charged With Rape

[br fan]

No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.

As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

 

[getgrizzy]

No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.

As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

 

[tnt]

Never had a desire to be an attorney, not once, nor have I ever shilled. There are a few reasons why most attorneys avoid sex cases, I help mitigate them. I have no clue who wheel and that group is. I'm not sure how what I do has a thing to do with football.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

As usual it's hard to make any sense out of your ramblings Mr. TnT. But since you don't seem to have any real experience in the criminal justice system, and I do, let me address your statement that in a "he said/she said" situation the tie would go to her because some physical evidence (minor in my opinion) corroborates her account. To which I say, "Stuff and nonsense."

The fundamental fact of a criminal prosecution, employing basic constitutional rights, is that to be lawfully convicted of a felony, the prosecution, and by implication the victim/witness, must convince 12 jurors that her account is accurate and truthful, in order to secure a conviction. In fact the standard of proof is not one of greater belief in one side than the other, but the vastly more difficult one of truth "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is usually a jury instruction in a felony prosecution where the judge advises each juror that if he or she entertains any degree of doubt that could be considered "reasonable", it is their duty and obligation to acquit the defendant of the charges.

On the other hand, the defense only need convince one juror that the defendant's account represents a more truthful telling of events, to secure his release from the charges. Just one.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that the deprivation of personal liberties which attends the conviction of a criminal offense, should occur only after the most careful, fair, and thorough consideration of the facts in the case ---- that pretty consistently and in some ways overwhelmingly line up to support conviction. Otherwise, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges.

I'm not saying that I know what would happen at a trial in this case. There are a lot of variables, and once in court anything can happen. All that I know, from my personal experience, is that the prosecution carries a large burden of convincing all twelve jurors of their charges and their factual rendition "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I want to also add that it is my sincere hope that this charge gets resolved short of a trial. I think a trial and further public testimony would not be in the best interest of either of the prinicipals in this case.

Well done!

 

[br fan]

No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.

As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

The issue in the motion to dismiss is a single element of the crime. JJ's mental state. Did he "knowingly" rape her. Evidence he knew consists of her statement she told him no but he had sex with her anyway. Evidence he did not know consists in part by her text "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong." If there is no evidence to support your speculation, you cannot speculate as to what she meant by her text. You can only look at the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Without the text the prosecution had probable cause. With the text (and assuming there is no explanatory evidence provided by the prosecution), the defense is arguing the prosecution did not have probable cause that he "knowingly" raped her.

If this was he said/she said this would be decided by the jury. This is she said/she said evidence that the defense argues as a matter of law is not sufficient to charge him.

 

[tnt]

As usual it's hard to make any sense out of your ramblings Mr. TnT. But since you don't seem to have any real experience in the criminal justice system, and I do, let me address your statement that in a "he said/she said" situation the tie would go to her because some physical evidence (minor in my opinion) corroborates her account. To which I say, "Stuff and nonsense."

The fundamental fact of a criminal prosecution, employing basic constitutional rights, is that to be lawfully convicted of a felony, the prosecution, and by implication the victim/witness, must convince 12 jurors that her account is accurate and truthful, in order to secure a conviction. In fact the standard of proof is not one of greater belief in one side than the other, but the vastly more difficult one of truth "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is usually a jury instruction in a felony prosecution where the judge advises each juror that if he or she entertains any degree of doubt that could be considered "reasonable", it is their duty and obligation to acquit the defendant of the charges.

On the other hand, the defense only need convince one juror that the defendant's account represents a more truthful telling of events, to secure his release from the charges. Just one.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that the deprivation of personal liberties which attends the conviction of a criminal offense, should occur only after the most careful, fair, and thorough consideration of the facts in the case ---- that pretty consistently and in some ways overwhelmingly line up to support conviction. Otherwise, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges.

I'm not saying that I know what would happen at a trial in this case. There are a lot of variables, and once in court anything can happen. All that I know, from my personal experience, is that the prosecution carries a large burden of convincing all twelve jurors of their charges and their factual rendition "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I want to also add that it is my sincere hope that this charge gets resolved short of a trial. I think a trial and further public testimony would not be in the best interest of either of the prinicipals in this case.

Well done!

That certainly is what a defense attorney would say and while it is not incorrect, It be more accurate to say that your statement "I want to also add that it is my sincere hope that this charge gets resolved short of a trial. I think a trial and further public testimony would not be in the best interest of either of the prinicipals in this case." is the most important. Once the motion to dismiss is decided (which most likley will be denied) every effort to avoid a trial needs made. The "only One" jurror line has been used for years by defense attorneys particularly good ones to get their retainer (and trust me they deserve it) But you fail to mention one juror will stop a conviction but it takes 12 to acquit.

I wouldn't be so sure that but what an acquittal will be just as hard to come by as a conviction.

So the defense fails to get an acquittal then what happens? Do they try again? Do they dismiss? In any event its all out there, The press will most assuredly as they have so far report with no bias or agenda and the national news will pick up those stories. Its a sex case not like say a player shooting someone, admitting it and being ACQUITTED for self defense) The talk won't go away nor will the fact he will (except in the minds of a few booster perhaps) be guilty, but off because of the high standard. More like a Casey Anthony, or OJ.

By the time it all gets settled the first trial, the mistrial maybe a second trial, the clock is ticking at best his football career is over, but he will never teach math.

As you said this can be avoided and should. At this point the trial is for the community not justice.....

 

[wbtfg]

For those who haven't read Mr. Covey's book, here's the cliff's notes. Habit #5 seems to be of particular relevance for some on this board.

Habit 1: Be Proactive
Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
Habit 3: Put First Things First
Habit 4: Think Win-Win
Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
Habit 6: Synergize
Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.

As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

The issue in the motion to dismiss is a single element of the crime. JJ's mental state. Did he "knowingly" rape her. Evidence he knew consists of her statement she told him no but he had sex with her anyway. Evidence he did not know consists in part by her text "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong." If there is no evidence to support your speculation, you cannot speculate as to what she meant by her text. You can only look at the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Without the text the prosecution had probable cause. With the text (and assuming there is no explanatory evidence provided by the prosecution), the defense is arguing the prosecution did not have probable cause that he "knowingly" raped her.

If this was he said/she said this would be decided by the jury. This is she said/she said evidence that the defense argues as a matter of law is not sufficient to charge him.

I don't think those texts are concrete enough evidence to dismiss the case. I do think they will be questioned heavily in trial and will be used by the defense to create reasonable doubt, but I got to think the defense will use other angles to try and create that doubt as 75 and others have pointed out (yes 75, you do bring up good points, even though I disagree with your delivery). Text messages are difficult though. They are brief and the nature of their content can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

 

[br fan]

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

The issue in the motion to dismiss is a single element of the crime. JJ's mental state. Did he "knowingly" rape her. Evidence he knew consists of her statement she told him no but he had sex with her anyway. Evidence he did not know consists in part by her text "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong." If there is no evidence to support your speculation, you cannot speculate as to what she meant by her text. You can only look at the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Without the text the prosecution had probable cause. With the text (and assuming there is no explanatory evidence provided by the prosecution), the defense is arguing the prosecution did not have probable cause that he "knowingly" raped her.

If this was he said/she said this would be decided by the jury. This is she said/she said evidence that the defense argues as a matter of law is not sufficient to charge him.

I don't think those texts are concrete enough evidence to dismiss the case. I do think they will be questioned heavily in trial and will be used by the defense to create reasonable doubt, but I got to think the defense will use other angles to try and create that doubt as 75 and others have pointed out (yes 75, you do bring up good points, even though I disagree with your delivery). Text messages are difficult though. They are brief and the nature of their content can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

I agree; I don't think it is enough to dismiss with the discretion the judge has but I wanted to point out what I thought was a very good argument by Pabst. Who knows though, we may both be wrong.

 

[ranco]

Were I JJ's attorney I would have done everything I could have to avoid where we are at and maybe he did. Although all I have seen is a charging document which is far less detailed than the prosecution case, If I were JJ's attorney, I would have noted a few things that would have concerned me. Listening to JJ's VERY detailed recounting of the evening, I would have stayed concerned. For his good, I would have gotten him immediatly out of state for diversion program evaluation (and maybe he did)Depending on the outcome of that evaluation I would have taken the next steps and maybe these are. Were I concerned about a he said she said where the tie goes to the she especially with some physical evidence, I would have made as much of my case as public as I could to impune the accuser as much as I could, because much of the He said evidence may never see the inside of the court room. There is always the possibility there is a bunch MORE she said out there. But I would do everything to avoid a trial. I also know that out side of missoula in afew years NO one would care who my client was. If I could complete sanitize my clients records through diversion even if he had to sit in a circle for a year singing Kum bayah, and learning anger management, I would do it. I would make it perfectly clear I care less about making g a political statement and standing up to whoever, including those persecuting" the football program" if it involved kissing fklorios ass on the court house steps, I'd do it (I'd bill for lip transplant however) I would do everything to sanitize my clients record as much as possible knowing a trial would NOT do it. Then I would get him the hell out of town. He has 2 years of football 60 more years of living.

I'm not sure what you just said, but I do know you didn't answer the question. As I said before, please stop pretending you know something about the legal system and express your opinions accordingly.

 

[getgrizzy]

No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.

As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

The issue in the motion to dismiss is a single element of the crime. JJ's mental state. Did he "knowingly" rape her. Evidence he knew consists of her statement she told him no but he had sex with her anyway. Evidence he did not know consists in part by her text "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong." If there is no evidence to support your speculation, you cannot speculate as to what she meant by her text. You can only look at the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Without the text the prosecution had probable cause. With the text (and assuming there is no explanatory evidence provided by the prosecution), the defense is arguing the prosecution did not have probable cause that he "knowingly" raped her.

If this was he said/she said this would be decided by the jury. This is she said/she said evidence that the defense argues as a matter of law is not sufficient to charge him.

yes, "knowingly" is the issue. had she said, "i know he thinks he did nothing wrong" then it would be more conclusive in support of a dismissal. her comment can be taken many ways and since it was sent in a text message and not face to face its more difficult if not impossible to attach a context. if the texts are used to dismiss the case, they also need to be authenticated and i don't recall seeing anything in the motion that states they have.

 

[tnt]

Were I JJ's attorney I would have done everything I could have to avoid where we are at and maybe he did. Although all I have seen is a charging document which is far less detailed than the prosecution case, If I were JJ's attorney, I would have noted a few things that would have concerned me. Listening to JJ's VERY detailed recounting of the evening, I would have stayed concerned. For his good, I would have gotten him immediatly out of state for diversion program evaluation (and maybe he did)Depending on the outcome of that evaluation I would have taken the next steps and maybe these are. Were I concerned about a he said she said where the tie goes to the she especially with some physical evidence, I would have made as much of my case as public as I could to impune the accuser as much as I could, because much of the He said evidence may never see the inside of the court room. There is always the possibility there is a bunch MORE she said out there. But I would do everything to avoid a trial. I also know that out side of missoula in afew years NO one would care who my client was. If I could complete sanitize my clients records through diversion even if he had to sit in a circle for a year singing Kum bayah, and learning anger management, I would do it. I would make it perfectly clear I care less about making g a political statement and standing up to whoever, including those persecuting" the football program" if it involved kissing fklorios ass on the court house steps, I'd do it (I'd bill for lip transplant however) I would do everything to sanitize my clients record as much as possible knowing a trial would NOT do it. Then I would get him the hell out of town. He has 2 years of football 60 more years of living.

I'm not sure what you just said, but I do know you didn't answer the question. As I said before, please stop pretending you know something about the legal system and express your opinions accordingly.

Its shame you don't, because if as much effort was put into solving this without a trial as the County attorney has put into making himself look good to the public (or the DOJ that he has managed to piss off) and as JJ's attorneys have countering that, this would have been over months ago. If it wasn't the Grizzly star quarter back it would have.

JJ should have been packed up taken to Spokane for "evaluation" so the records would not be easily accessible. Once the defense had all the information they needed counsel for JJ and the girl could have met and a solution presented to the county attorney. A diversion program (carried on out of state) would be completed and in 12 mos time this whole thing over and essentially no legal record it ever happened. The diversion program would have been directed out of state and essentially because of privilege confidential. It could have been anything from offender training (unlikley), anger management to "Use your damn brain, what did you think was going happen, don't do it again"

But of course the real needs of the kids are not at the top of the list.

I answered your question Ranco, just not what you wanted. This will likley never be solved in the legal system. thats why we have diversion..

 

[br fan]

In the answer to the motion the prosecutor should be providing evidence showing what the victim "meant" when she sent texts saying "this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks," "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong," "all's good," etc., obtained before the prosecutor charged him. Otherwise, the defense will continue to argue the prosecution lacked probable cause to charge. For purposes of the motion what the victim and others might say now is pretty much irrelevant. A prosecutor cannot charge someone with a crime and then go look for the evidence to support the charge.

A lot of people have blown off Pabst's motion to dismiss as being "filed all the time," with the thoughts that it will be summarily denied. Pabst has made an excellent argument as to whether the prosecution had probable cause as to JJ's mental state that theoretically is hard to overcome. I have the feeling the motion will be denied, but I will not be surprised if the party that loses the motion appeals the decision.

even if those two texts are authenticed as being from the victim they aren't stated in a way that would cause the case to be dismissed. unless she texted something to the effect that he didn't rape her and she's making it all up, then there's really no reason to dismiss. there's also physical evidence that has to be evaluated, presented, testified about, etc. highly unlikely it will get dismissed when there could be strong physical evidence. there were also other texts before and after that may put the ones presented in a completely different context.

she's perfectly fine saying this is going to hit him like a ton of bricks, because she knows him and therefore has an opinion about how he will take being charged. same thing for the i think, he thinks text. she knows him and has an opinion about how he thinks. we've all heard or used that preface to a comment many times. "i think he thinks he's cool." "i think, she thinks i like her."

The issue in the motion to dismiss is a single element of the crime. JJ's mental state. Did he "knowingly" rape her. Evidence he knew consists of her statement she told him no but he had sex with her anyway. Evidence he did not know consists in part by her text "I think he thinks he did nothing wrong." If there is no evidence to support your speculation, you cannot speculate as to what she meant by her text. You can only look at the evidence to determine if there is probable cause. Without the text the prosecution had probable cause. With the text (and assuming there is no explanatory evidence provided by the prosecution), the defense is arguing the prosecution did not have probable cause that he "knowingly" raped her.

If this was he said/she said this would be decided by the jury. This is she said/she said evidence that the defense argues as a matter of law is not sufficient to charge him.

yes, "knowingly" is the issue. had she said, "i know he thinks he did nothing wrong" then it would be more conclusive in support of a dismissal. her comment can be taken many ways and since it was sent in a text message and not face to face its more difficult if not impossible to attach a context. if the texts are used to dismiss the case, they also need to be authenticated and i don't recall seeing anything in the motion that states they have.

At this point the texts are what they are, evidence, not facts. If this goes to trial they will need to be authenticated to be admissible, but the prosecution cannot ignore evidence in determining probable cause by claiming it has not been proven to be a fact.

 

[UMGriz75]

The text messages came from the police investigation and were in the county attorney's file.

This one of the reasons the Motion to Dismiss raises ethical concerns on the part of the County Attorney's office. They had these text messages before the Defense did, and did not disclose what is in fact a highly inflammatory fact situation that talks about "embarrassment," not rape, JJ's state of mind, that he didn't think he had done anything wrong [likely discussing the Forester's Ball], that she is over the embarrassment -- "I'm not sensitive about it anymore," and now that she's going to be "hitting JJ like a ton of bricks," she's happy as a clam: "it's all good."

Embarrassment, of course, is an "emotional state of intense discomfort with oneself, experienced upon having a socially unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others."

Jane Doe refers elsewhere to "humiliation." It is the dominating theme of what is, depending on the perspective, her reaction to a violent rape, or a public humiliation at a social event.

That's real interesting. Studies note that "feelings of humiliation can produce 'humiliated fury' which, when turned inward can result in apathy and depression, and when turned outward can give rise to paranoia, sadistic behavior and fantasies of revenge. "When it is outwardly directed, humiliated fury unfortunately creates additional victims, often including innocent bystanders ... . When it is inwardly directed, the resulting self-hate renders victims incapable of meeting their own needs, let alone having energy available to love and care for others." "In either case, those who are consumed by humiliated fury are absorbed in themselves or their cause, wrapped in wounded pride..." Klein, Donald C. (Ed.), The Humiliation Dynamic: Viewing the Task of Prevention From a New Perspective, Special Issue, Journal of Primary Prevention, Part I, 12, No. 2, 1991. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

"Wanna go to lunch?" does not likely support the first alternative reaction described by authorities on the matter.

Victims are not "embarrassed" by rape or "sensitive" about it, nor are they simply seeking an acknowledgment of "remorse." They might be devastated. They might enter a significant depression. They could be mad as hell. But they aren't chattering on and on about the fact that basically JJ "doesn't get it," which sounds a lot less like a violent rape occurred, and more like he left her in the Marriage Booth line at the Forester's Ball and that he doesn't think, under the circumstances, that he did anything wrong by that.

Now, if she was referring to a violent rape, would any of that text message make any sense whatsoever?

If she is referring to the Forester's Ball, does any of that text message make any sense whatsoever?

The Defense is pointing out that the text messages are not just exculpatory; they clearly explain one set of facts reasonably, and do not explain the alternative set of facts in any way that a reasonable person could accept as reasonable.

 

[Ursa Major]

The text messages came from the police investigation and were in the county attorney's file.

This one of the reasons the Motion to Dismiss raises ethical concerns on the part of the County Attorney's office. They had these text messages before the Defense did, and did not disclose what is in fact a highly inflammatory fact situation that talks about "embarrassment," not rape, JJ's state of mind, which didn't think he had done anything wrong [likely discussing the Forester's Ball] that she is over the embarrassment -- "I'm not sensitive about it anymore" -- and now that she's going to be "hitting JJ like a ton of bricks," she's happy as a clam: "it's all good."

Embarrassment, of course, is an "emotional state of intense discomfort with oneself, experienced upon having a socially unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others."

Jane Doe refers elsewhere to "humiliation." It is the dominating theme of what is, depending on the perspective, her reaction to a violent rape, or a public humiliation at a social event.

That's real interesting. Studies note that "feelings of humiliation can produce 'humiliated fury' which, when turned inward can result in apathy and depression, and when turned outward can give rise to paranoia, sadistic behavior and fantasies of revenge. "When it is outwardly directed, humiliated fury unfortunately creates additional victims, often including innocent bystanders ... . When it is inwardly directed, the resulting self-hate renders victims incapable of meeting their own needs, let alone having energy available to love and care for others." "In either case, those who are consumed by humiliated fury are absorbed in themselves or their cause, wrapped in wounded pride..." Klein, Donald C. (Ed.), The Humiliation Dynamic: Viewing the Task of Prevention From a New Perspective, Special Issue, Journal of Primary Prevention, Part I, 12, No. 2, 1991. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

"Wanna go to lunch?" does not likely support the first alternative reaction described by authorities on the matter.

Victims are not "embarrassed" by rape or "sensitive" about it, nor are they simply seeking an acknowledgment of "remorse." They might be devastated. They might enter a significant depression. They could be mad as hell. But they aren't chattering on and on about the fact that basically JJ "doesn't get it," which sounds a lot less like a violent rape occurred, and more like he left her in the Marriage Booth line at the Forester's Ball and that he doesn't think, under the circumstances, that he did anything wrong by that.

Now, if she was referring to a violent rape, would any of that text message make any sense whatsoever?

If she is referring to the Forester's Ball, does any of that text message make any sense whatsoever?

The Defense is pointing out that the text messages are not just exculpatory; they clearly explain one set of facts reasonably, and do not explain the alternative set of facts in any way that a reasonable person could accept as reasonable.

Are you sure you're not being slightly biased?

Love,
Joseph

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you sure you're not being slightly biased?

Love,
Joseph

I think anyone that goes through 15 or more pages of biased opinions, and the finally brightly thinks he just discovered one, all by himself, deserves some sort of award.

Tell me, do you attribute the ability to unearth things like this to years of education and hard work, or was it a blinding flash of genius?

 

[Ursa Major]

Well 75, I just thought the loudest and most biased son of a bitch on the entire thread deserved something special.

Why don't we just wait and how things turn out without running either of these two kids through the mud anymore?

 

[UMGriz75]

Well 75, I just thought the loudest and most biased son of a bitch on the entire thread deserved something special.

Don't underestimate yourself. Of course, I doubt that you could ...

 

[argh!]

Well 75, I just thought the loudest and most biased son of a bitch on the entire thread deserved something special.

Don't underestimate yourself. Of course, I doubt that you could ...

oooh! um75 the scintillating comeback machine! on the bright side, at least this the subject matter 'discussed' in this thread has finally gotten around to the subject you wish us to pay attention to... you.

ok, now search that magnificent brain of yours for a zinger with which to get me!

 

[UMGriz75]

Well 75, I just thought the loudest and most biased son of a bitch on the entire thread deserved something special.

Don't underestimate yourself. Of course, I doubt that you could ...

oooh! um75 the scintillating comeback machine! on the bright side, at least this the subject matter 'discussed' in this thread has finally gotten around to the subject you wish us to pay attention to... you.

ok, now search that magnificent brain of yours for a zinger with which to get me!

It is interesting how often a post reviewing affidavit statements is followed by one from you which manages, essentially, to say "oh yeah?" on a personal level, which is about as complicated as you have managed to get.

And you do generally focus on the poster rather than the topic. It is interesting how virtually all of your posts attempt to personalize the discussion. It's almost like you are a troll or something similar. I gathered that was the best you could do as it required less work than utilizing abstract thought to contrast and compare evidence and theory.

There. Now you have a post that managed what you wished; to drag the discussion away from an evidentiary comparison that you didn't like but couldn't swim with, and to make it all personal between posters. I guess it took an equally magnificent brain to derail a thread about evidence and a personal tragedy involving two young people caught in a very public and devastating situation and making it, instead, about "magnificent brains."

Congratulations.