-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
JJ Trial
- Thread starter bluemarlin2
- Start date
You don't think he was coached on what to say if they did bring it up?Fushiznitz said:
Paoli isn't that stupid.
Fushiznitz
Well-known member
uofmman1122 said:
Which is why if it is true she said it, it wasn't uttered in the courtroom.
Gametime, let's say for the sake of argument that we capitulate to JJ being an ass in this particular situation.
So, two questions for you:
1. Would you also agree that the Accuser is an ass? Because from the sounds of it, she certainly treats her ex-boyfriend like shit. Sounds as though she's using him, BAD.
2. When was the last time a college kid made a poor choice when it comes to sex? Hmmm, you may have to go deep into the archives to find another example of that.... :roll: Should we just write off every kid who makes a bad decision in college in order to get some? If so, colleges and universities are gonna be pretty empty places.
So, two questions for you:
1. Would you also agree that the Accuser is an ass? Because from the sounds of it, she certainly treats her ex-boyfriend like shit. Sounds as though she's using him, BAD.
2. When was the last time a college kid made a poor choice when it comes to sex? Hmmm, you may have to go deep into the archives to find another example of that.... :roll: Should we just write off every kid who makes a bad decision in college in order to get some? If so, colleges and universities are gonna be pretty empty places.
EverettGriz said:
1. I agree the accuser is a manipulative girl, seeking attention. She is seeking attention, not from the public however, but rather playing the victim card with friends and family as she was lost and lonely. She likely fabricated a story because she was hurt. That makes her an "ass" as you stated or whatever else you want to call her. I am not defending her reprehensible behavior in any way.
2. It probably happened last night, tonight and will happen tomorrow. No we shouldn't. But when you have arguably the highest profile student athlete at the University that has many potential "sharks" in the waters circling. He better be careful with his actions. I would hope that he would make better decisions, more mature decisions. Even in the athlete hierarchy, he is at the top. He is supposed to be a leader that makes the right decisions. I don't want the President of my company getting drunk and running around naked in the street, or having stupid meaningless sex at the drop of a hat. Character is what this is about. There are approximately 15,000 students at the UM, only 1 of them is the starting Quarterback of the highest profile sport on campus. He is expected, not only as a student, an athlete and a person to make better decisions than anyone else. Right or wrong he is a role model and a public representative of the University. He should have acted like it. I demand a lot of leaders, whether they are 19 or 59. He failed miserably. Harsh I know, but if he was acting this way, then why would the rest of the team or students feel they should act any differently. This notion that if everyone is doing it, then it is ok, is a dangerous concept. Lead by example, and others will follow. Lead by mistake and others will flounder.
stubbins
Well-known member
Gametime said:
If the president of your company is 19 or 20, you're going to be disappointed with your expectations. Especially the having stupid meaningless sex at the drop of a hat. Where in the name of all that is good in this world did you grow up? I'm in my mid 30's...if I wasn't married, I'd be trying to have stupid, meaningless sex as often as I could.
I demand a great deal from leaders too. And that's why some of the actions of UM athletes over the past 3 or 4 years have hurt me to core. But I think it's unfair to lump JJ into that group. In all likelyhood, he didn't commit a crime.
He had sex.
And I'll say it again: If we discount every college kid who has sex (or even irresponsible sex if you want to call it that), the unemployment lines will be filled with professors.
He had sex.
And I'll say it again: If we discount every college kid who has sex (or even irresponsible sex if you want to call it that), the unemployment lines will be filled with professors.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
The State likely made a motion in limine to prohibit testimony about "I'd do you any time." Under State v. Knowles (2010) and related cases, testimony regarding the behavior of persons other than the defendant regarding motive are generally inadmissible “except in limited circumstances where the defendant is attempting to inculpate another person for the crime.” The "prejudice" resulting from the introduction of such statements "outweighs" the probative value since there is no probative value that relates to whether or not the defendant committed the crime charged. It is a difficult rule for lawyers to fathom in some respects, but the nature of the testimony offered, which was surprisingly vague from all witnesses on this point, suggests that an order in limine was in effect.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
You'd think somebody would have checked the court file and posted it.UMGriz75 said:
"We are thrilled to announce that Gwen Florio, a veteran reporter with more than 30 years' experience in journalism, will be our featured speaker at this year's YWCA Missoula Annual Meeting."
I try to keep an open mind but this reporter is the most biased I have ever seen. Hidden agenda? Maybe I am just speculating but she sure seems to pick and choose which details she likes to add to her articles. "Empowering women" I don't have a problem with that but please do not belittle men that aren't deserving.
http://www.ywcaofmissoula.org/?q=node/582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I try to keep an open mind but this reporter is the most biased I have ever seen. Hidden agenda? Maybe I am just speculating but she sure seems to pick and choose which details she likes to add to her articles. "Empowering women" I don't have a problem with that but please do not belittle men that aren't deserving.
http://www.ywcaofmissoula.org/?q=node/582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Juries base their decision more on the preponderance of evidence rather than any single point. The Jane Doe statement wasn't consent, but it was an inducement and a factor that contributed to the case. Adding that statement to a lot of other statements carries weight pointing toward a decision on the case. The language about the case of State vs Knowles is a bunch of crap and seems to be based on a presumption of guilt on the part of the defendant. Including the statement mitigates the argument that point to his guilt.
"I'd do you any time" may not be consent, but it sure as hell explains why he might want to date her, and this is a case about casual date rape, and the statement is suggestive of entrapment. I don't get it.
"I'd do you any time" may not be consent, but it sure as hell explains why he might want to date her, and this is a case about casual date rape, and the statement is suggestive of entrapment. I don't get it.
Washgrizfan1
Well-known member
Observations from some people, including lawyers, who have been in court.
Duerks was weak in his cross-examination of Johnson yesterday. Perhaps even terrible.
The defense lawyers are much better that the prosecution lawyers.
There is likely reversible error all over (if there has to be an appeal), due to the judge's rulings.
Duerks was weak in his cross-examination of Johnson yesterday. Perhaps even terrible.
The defense lawyers are much better that the prosecution lawyers.
There is likely reversible error all over (if there has to be an appeal), due to the judge's rulings.
I only got to read the twitter comments. Did they say why it was so bad?Washgrizfan1 said:
UMGriz75
Well-known member
If it seems like gibberish, it is. If an alleged victim, or other witness, says something that is "prejudicial" to the victim's own behavior, and interferes with the project of proving that the defendant committed the crime, then it can be ruled inadmissible and the parties prohibited from referring to it.RobGriz said:
"The prejudice outweighs the probative value."
The more blatant a statement, the more "prejudicial" it is and therefore it is less, rather than more, likely to be admissible, BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICE TO THE STATE'S CASE. The more likely it is to hurt the State's case, the more likely it is to be disallowed.
It one of the many bizarre elements of criminal law designed to obtain convictions.
Succinctly, if true, Judge Townsend ruled that the statement "I'd do you any time" was inadmissible because it would hurt the State's case, and that's what such an order boils down to.
And that is exactly the reasoning used for such rulings; it is designed to assist in prosecution and conviction. It is one of the many areas of criminal law where Judges are allowed to make a presumption that Juries are too d*** dumb to know the difference and therefore are entitled to order that the Jury not be made aware of all of the "facts" of a case. That the "facts" can be carefully constructed to favor the State by sanitizing the alleged victim; a process not afforded to a defendant.
The Order likely contained instructions directing counsel to advise all witnesses of the fact that they could not refer to the statement nor allude to it, and that a failure of a witness to abide by the order, or of an attorney to abide by the order, could result in a mistrial and/or sanctions against the attorney including the costs of trial by the State.
Washgrizfan1 said:
I've wondered about that point as I've read the posts about the judge's rulings. Seems to me like she's trying to send smoke signals to the jury. Under normal circumstances, at least from my observation as a lay person :roll: the judge tries to hit down the middle of the fairway with respect to each side.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
I've known Judge Townsend for a very long time; I consider her a good friend.TxGriz said:
But, the overall appearance to the Jury during this trial was 1) a very fast process to almost invariably sustain State objections, 2) a very fast process to almost invariably overrule Defense objections, 3) an odd and wholly gratuitous admonition to Defense about leading questions on direct without having had an objection from the State, -- a flaw that she did not seem to notice when the State did precisely the same thing, and 4) an almost unheard of refusal to allow the Defense to put its Motion for a Directed Verdict on the record, a denial which she did in the presence of the Jury and in such a fashion as to practically speaking be a comment to the Jury on her perception of the validity of the Defense's case before the Defense even had the opportunity to present it. That conversation should not have occurred in front of the Jury.
Taken together, the Jury was presented throughout this trial with an unmistakable perception of the Judge's position on this case.
UMGriz75
Well-known member
You may recall that when Florio became sensitive to criticisms over her coverage of the Football program and in the guise of a news story launched a personal attack on her critics at "egriz," she found in the Director of the YWCA the single mouthpiece she needed to quote for the "article," and the presentation in the article made it sound like the YWCA Director just woke up that morning and became indignant for some reason over football fan criticisms of reporter bias, and ran right down to the Missoulian to express that indignation with no evidence whatsoever that the Director of the YWCA had any credentials whatsoever in journalism or football or sports to be offering opinions on newspaper coverage and objections to it, and in particular, that the Director of the YWCA knew anyone involved except the reporter, had any role in anything involving the coverage, or in fact knew anything at all about the controversy.signedbewildered said:
Because the "news article" was itself entirely self-serving, the role of the YWCA Director in being willing, apparently entirely out of the blue, to be the specific mouthpiece for the offended reporter's personal feelings about critics, including a ham-handed attempt to publicly "out" and embarrass the owner of "egriz" and to try to embarrass the University at the same time, it represented one of the initial bizarre and truly odd coverages provided by the Missoulian in its "news" columns.
So, is it odd that the "news reporter" and the YWCA are now shown to have a much closer relationship than the purported one of merely "source" and "objective reporter?"
It is part of a disgraceful episode, ongoing, of the Missoulian's abandonment of its role as a "newspaper."
