JJ Trial

[BDizzle]

Ashley Nerbovig
@Nerb11
Women says that when Johnson flipped her he grabbed her hips. Paoli asks if it was hard. She says no. #JohnsonTrial

Pretty sure by "was it hard?" he's asking if he grabbed her hard, not if his dick was hard.

Could be wrong, though.

This is what I was thinking as well. He flipped her over but she didn't fight it. She actually helped flip over. I don't think it had anything to do with his "member".

 

[grzz]

I read it as he didn't flip her over hard, and she assisted in sex because she gave up. I didn't interpret it as she assisted getting him hard. I wasn't there, but that isn't how I read those tweets.

 

[argh!]

And this in the dark, on the bed, door shut, amid her many pillows as the Kiamin emphasized, grinding and gyrating...after french kissing. It all adds up to reasonable doubt as to consent so far, IMO.

so you are saying that jj is deaf?

 

[grizchamp]

I read it as he didn't flip her over hard, and she assisted in sex because she gave up. I didn't interpret it as she assisted getting him hard. I wasn't there, but that isn't how I read those tweets.

That's how I read it at first as well, but I could see how one could take it another way as well. In court it was probably clear what was being said. On twitter, not so much maybe.

 

[billings_poke]

Trial by twitter. good god..total fail

 

[wbtfg]

Hard is a turrble word choice. Was the context of the word meant to be erect? forceful? difficult? Something else?

Its hard/difficult to know the context based on that tweet.

 

[Jaredkuehn]

And this in the dark, on the bed, door shut, amid her many pillows as the Kiamin emphasized, grinding and gyrating...after french kissing. It all adds up to reasonable doubt as to consent so far, IMO.

Despite all of this, if at the very next moment she says stop and he doesn't stop, its rape. I personally think the prosecution made a pretty good case today. I don't think this is nearly as locked up for the defense as some others on here believe. We've barely scratched the surface in this trial. It will be interesting to watch this unfold via twitter.

 

[PhxGriz]

Ashley Nerbovig
@Nerb11
Women says that when Johnson flipped her he grabbed her hips. Paoli asks if it was hard. She says no. #JohnsonTrial

Pretty sure by "was it hard?" he's asking if he grabbed her hard, not if his dick was hard.

Could be wrong, though.

Then what was the "volitional act"?

That it was of her own volition (choice), that she helped JJ in flipping over and assisting in the sex. She said at that point she just shut down, so why bother fighting.

At least that is how I read it.

 

[Grizzoola]

The question was whether it was hard for JJ to roll her over or if she assisted him in rolling her over. She said she assisted.

This is what I understood, too. It puts into question the amount of resistance she put up to JJ.

 

[tnt]

The question was whether it was hard for JJ to roll her over or if she assisted him in rolling her over. She said she assisted.

This is what I understood, too. It puts into question the amount of resistance she put up to JJ.

It was pointed out during jury selection that resistance is not necessary.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Ashley Nerbovig
@Nerb11
Women says that when Johnson flipped her he grabbed her hips. Paoli asks if it was hard. She says no. #JohnsonTrial

Pretty sure by "was it hard?" he's asking if he grabbed her hard, not if his dick was hard.

Could be wrong, though.

Then what was the "volitional act"?

That it was of her own volition (choice), that she helped JJ in flipping over and assisting in the sex. She said at that point she just shut down, so why bother fighting.

At least that is how I read it.

A volitional act, whatever it was, seems to be the opposite of shutting down. Perhaps that was the point.

 

[-TheJoker-]

The question was whether it was hard for JJ to roll her over or if she assisted him in rolling her over. She said she assisted.

This is what I understood, too. It puts into question the amount of resistance she put up to JJ.

It was pointed out during jury selection that resistance is not necessary.

Resistance is not necessary. Assistance, on the other hand, just might make a reasonable person believe that there was consent.

 

[PlayerRep]

Here's my take. I was there today and talked to others who were there.

It's impossible to see or figure out what the jury is thinking. They will decide the case, obviously. One young women. A guy or two with pony tails. Mostly older people. One observer thought some of the jurors were looking skeptical at accuser's morning testimony on direct (i.e. questions from the prosecutor). My reaction was that the accuser's testimony, including some of her apparent reactions and communications after the incident, made her case look better and bigger than I had thought. She looks nice and is fairly articulate. Comes across fine or even good. Don't know why she was dressed with so much skin showing up high; no cleavage, though.

Lots of law students and local lawyers in the audience. Some lawyers totally unimpressed with the assistant attorney general who did the direct with the accuser.

In less than an hour before lunch, Paoli (and not Pabst) seemed to have already neutralized the testimony of the accuser. He was direct, organized and fast. Seemed very skilled at what he was doing.

After lunch, many good points made by Paoli, and many new facts (i.e. not already in the motion to dismiss). The asst ag prosecutor started making lots of objections, all related to how Paoli was using many texts/emails/facebook to ask questions of the accuser. Judge was not clear on how to respond, but almost always sided against Paoli. He just moved on.

She had admitted multiple times that she thought she'd have sex with Johnson at some point. She gave him a ride home after the Central Arkansas playoff game in early Dec. 2011, and was in his house.

Paoli did an excellent job of making more clear what happened in the bedroom. While it's sometimes hard to hear all testimony (in part due to construction outside, as well as softer voices), my impression was that after they got close to the actual sex, the accuser didn't object, didn't say anything, didn't fight anything, and either cooperated or sorta cooperated. She admitted that she then could have gotten up off the bed and walked away. She admitted that she could have called out to her male roommate, whom I think was 10 feet away. Her male roommate is one of her best friends, and they now live together at another location.

The sex was all from behind, and she was on her knees (and presumably hands or elbows). I don't understand how rape can occur this way. This takes cooperation, I would think. She said he pulled her onto him or to his groin.

Prior to this time, they had kissed and fondled and pelvic thrusted. I think she had taken her top off, or helped him to it. She had taken off his coat and shirt. She had crawled on top of him. She had fondled his genitals. She says he took off her leggings and panties.

I thought Paoli was shredding the accuser on many points. However, I don't have a clue as to what the jury thought.

Some interesting points. The accuser said on several occasions that it never occurred to her that she'd ever be raped. Then it came out that she had had a nightmare, on X-mas '11 I think, that Tru Johnson had raped her and done other things. Paoli then asks if/how she new Tru. She said he was roommates with her old boyfriend, Brandon Dotson. Paoli also questioned her about not wanting B-Dot to talk to him or his investigator.

Someone, I think either the nurse examiner or a counselor, referred her to the Atlanta law firm who brought a claim in a Carroll rape case. I haven't read all of the twitter feeds, so you probably know these facts better than I do. Paoli's question was whether she was looking for money.

Pabst said in the opening argument, that the nurse rape examiner had been incredibly unprofessional. The twitter may have clarified this, but I think the nurse continued to email the accuser after the exam, and perhaps made this referral. I assume the nurse examiner is going to get discredited.

By the end, the accuser was being defensive over various points being made by Paoli. The texts are coming back to haunt her.

Don't recall anything being said about her supposed statement at the ball, that she would do him anytime.

At least so far, it seems that the facts are essentially agreed upon by both parties, except for the sex part.

I assume Johnson will testify. At first, I thought this might be risky for him, due to tough questions, but now I'm thinking that he will likely do fine testifying.

For the morning session, there were probably 20 people standing. It thinned out during the day.

As the day went on, I started wondering if some of the multiple people supporting the accuser (First Step, university, counselors, etc.), and rape victims generally, ended up being enablers. Accuser doesn't want her family to attend trial and see her like this.

Accuser reads the comments to the Missoulian articles and KPAX, and egriz, she said. This came up several times. She had been advised not to do this. I feel sorry for her on multiple levels.

 

[wbtfg]

Solid post, PR. Good job

 

[NorthwestFresh]

Here's my take. I was there today and talked to others who were there.

It's impossible to see or figure out what the jury is thinking. They will decide the case, obviously. One young women. A guy or two with pony tails. Mostly older people. One observer thought some of the jurors were looking skeptical at accuser's morning testimony on direct (i.e. questions from the prosecutor). My reaction was that the accuser's testimony, including some of her apparent reactions and communications after the incident, made her case look better and bigger than I had thought. She looks nice and is fairly articulate. Comes across fine or even good. Don't know why she was dressed with so much skin showing up high; no cleavage, though.

Lots of law students and local lawyers in the audience. Some lawyers totally unimpressed with the assistant attorney general who did the direct with the accuser.

In less than an hour before lunch, Paoli (and not Pabst) seemed to have already neutralized the testimony of the accuser. He was direct, organized and fast. Seemed very skilled at what he was doing.

After lunch, many good points made by Paoli, and many new facts (i.e. not already in the motion to dismiss). The asst ag prosecutor started making lots of objections, all related to how Paoli was using many texts/emails/facebook to ask questions of the accuser. Judge was not clear on how to respond, but almost always sided against Paoli. He just moved on.

She had admitted multiple times that she thought she'd have sex with Johnson at some point. She gave him a ride home after the Central Arkansas playoff game in early Dec. 2011, and was in his house.

Paoli did an excellent job of making more clear what happened in the bedroom. While it's sometimes hard to hear all testimony (in part due to construction outside, as well as softer voices), my impression was that after they got close to the actual sex, the accuser didn't object, didn't say anything, didn't fight anything, and either cooperated or sorta cooperated. She admitted that she then could have gotten up off the bed and walked away. She admitted that she could have called out to her male roommate, whom I think was 10 feet away. Her male roommate is one of her best friends, and they now live together at another location.

The sex was all from behind, and she was on her knees (and presumably hands or elbows). I don't understand how rape can occur this way. This takes cooperation, I would think. She said he pulled her onto him or to his groin.

Prior to this time, they had kissed and fondled and pelvic thrusted. I think she had taken her top off, or helped him to it. She had taken off his coat and shirt. She had crawled on top of him. She had fondled his genitals. She says he took off her leggings and panties.

I thought Paoli was shredding the accuser on many points. However, I don't have a clue as to what the jury thought.

Some interesting points. The accuser said on several occasions that it never occurred to her that she'd ever be raped. Then it came out that she had had a nightmare, on X-mas '11 I think, that Tru Johnson had raped her and done other things. Paoli then asks if/how she new Tru. She said he was roommates with her old boyfriend, Brandon Dotson. Paoli also questioned her about not wanting B-Dot to talk to him or his investigator.

Someone, I think either the nurse examiner or a counselor, referred her to the Atlanta law firm who brought a claim in a Carroll rape case. I haven't read all of the twitter feeds, so you probably know these facts better than I do. Paoli's question was whether she was looking for money.

Pabst said in the opening argument, that the nurse rape examiner had been incredibly unprofessional. The twitter may have clarified this, but I think the nurse continued to email the accuser after the exam, and perhaps made this referral. I assume the nurse examiner is going to get discredited.

By the end, the accuser was being defensive over various points being made by Paoli. The texts are coming back to haunt her.

Don't recall anything being said about her supposed statement at the ball, that she would do him anytime.

At least so far, it seems that the facts are essentially agreed upon by both parties, except for the sex part.

I assume Johnson will testify. At first, I thought this might be risky for him, due to tough questions, but now I'm thinking that he will likely do fine testifying.

For the morning session, there were probably 20 people standing. It thinned out during the day.

As the day went on, I started wondering if some of the multiple people supporting the accuser (First Step, university, counselors, etc.), and rape victims generally, ended up being enablers. Accuser doesn't want her family to attend trial and see her like this.

Accuser reads the comments to the Missoulian articles and KPAX, and egriz, she said. This came up several times. She had been advised not to do this. I feel sorry for her on multiple levels.

You didn't even know the rules on bail for MPD, yet you're suddenly writing essays on a trial that obviously you know next to little about.

Are you still going to sue me? :roll:

 

[BDizzle]

You didn't even know the rules on bail for MPD, yet you're suddenly writing essays on a trial that obviously you know next to little about.

Are you still going to sue me? :roll:

Actually add something to the conversation or STFU.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

You didn't even know the rules on bail for MPD, yet you're suddenly writing essays on a trial that obviously you know next to little about.

Are you still going to sue me? :roll:

Actually add something to the conversation or STFU.

I already added "who needs a jury when we have Twitter"?

The best part of this thread is where it got sidetracked by some guy who couldn't figure out that "was it hard" didn't pertain to JJ's penis, and the discussion that followed that erroneous claim.

I'm guessing there are at least a few here who would believe a Griz player over their own daughter in a case such as this one. :shock:

Are you going to sue me too, "BDizzle". I already spent my retirement on PlayerRep's case against me.

 

[BDizzle]

The prosecution will face significant challenges on the issue of consent. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson "knowingly" had sexual intercourse "without consent."

This statement right here is why I think JJ will be acquitted. She may have said no at some point but at times it was playful, she initiated a lot of contact, and she "assisted" in the actual act of sex. He was a horny college boy. Didn't think he was actually "raping" her.

 

[EverettGriz]

I'm not sure which is more sad. This case, or nwf.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

I'm not sure which is more sad. This case, or nwf.

I'm pretty sure it would be the case, in which one guy's freedom is at stake.