JJ Trial

[granitegriz]

If JP's boss at BK new what he was doing in the back room, he would be fired. :shock: Good morning JP, I will have a sausage/egg croissant and a large orange juice.

 

[Jerry Punch]

If JP's boss at BK new what he was doing in the back room, he would be fired. :shock: Good morning JP, I will have a sausage/egg croissant and a large orange juice.

I doubt you can afford what we have to offer here with your degree from UM's School of Dance.

 

[grizfnz]

She couldn't decide between yes or no and now wants the legal system to say no after the fact on her behalf. She feels righteously entitled to he victimhood only by virtue of a societal bias against the man.

She feels she can hide behind an imagined wrong for no other reason than being female in a land sympathetic to militant feminism.

LOL. Well said young man! Why is it that when one cuts through all of the politically correct B.S. that pervades our society these days, the simple truth is so obvious that it is actually humorous??? :lol:

If it is so obvious and humorous, I ask you again: Nut up or shut up. You talk a big game when it comes to revealing real-world names on a message board. This is Egriz. This isn't the real world. You believe this alleged victim deserves to be exposed, so do it or stop talking the big game.

Perhaps in some cryptic fashion, he already has.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[UMGriz75]

On and on and on.

I think everyone already gathered that you "have no idea."

The real mystery is why you feel a need to complain on an internet forum about people having opinions on internet forums, and why you are on this one, offering your opinion about it?

Speaking of opinions, your opinion, my opinion, Gwen's opinion and everyone else's opinion on this board and elsewhere mean absolutely nothing. The only opinions that matter are 12 individuals. I didnt really need to read 15 pages of the same opinion over and over and over. WE got it....we know your opinion.

Why are you continuing to read this thread? Give it a rest. Put it down. Spend some time with your family.

This, coming from the guy who has briefed the entire goings on of the Trial and submitted them to Egrizzers for their own consumption. Do not be fooled, ladies and gentlemen, by UMGriz's bloviating. It isn't the law. It isn't the standard. It is his own opinion. If you disagree, the results are staggaring and hilarious. You are an idiot, unable to read, unable to think, etc. Let it be, UMGriz. Your opinion is as worthwhile as mine or anyone else's when it comes to the outcome of this trial.

And I know you'll be the first "I told you so" at the end of the game. I'll give you a "congrats" in advance of your gloating and the end of a trial in which there will not be one winner, no matter the outcome.

Wow, just on and on and on. "Do not be fooled?" There's that "Hall Monitor" voice again; the self-indulgent protector of everyone Jerry apparently considers complete idiots without HIM to protect them. He gravitates to that community of common characteristic.

I think most folks here are intelligent enough and experienced enough to understand the difference between opinions, well-informed opinions, facts, and mindless blather, oh, and Nazi propaganda, just to underscore some of the inane baloney posted on this thread.

I give them that credit. Fort some reason, Jerry can't.

 

[BDizzle]

JP on board bright-n-early.

Good morning!

How old are you?

 

[UMGriz75]

I'll probabaly get slammed for this but I am beginning to wonder if Jane Doe is having troubles remembering who did what to her and when?

As I mentioned, Jurors aren't going to pay much attention to differences in small details; most of us can't remember where our keys were a year ago, let alone who said what, when, to who.

But, Jurors do take real notice when something completely bizarre pops out of an alleged victim's mouth (or a defendant's for that matter). And this qualifies, that Jane Doe told the Nurse Examiner she had been penetrated by a hand, that it was JJ, and the NE found evidence of that, but then Jane Doe testifies at trial that it wasn't JJ that did it. And those are facts presented at the trial. They represent nobody's opinion except the Nurse Examiner's.

Well, that's a higher order of credibility, although per se, it means nothing about guilt or innocence either way. But, it goes to witness credibility in the first place, and in the second place, raises significant questions that her "injuries" were, as she practically testified to, due to sex with someone else within the relevant time frame.

Jurors actually do take this stuff seriously, and for many of them, this is the first time in their lives that they get to "play detective," and that testimony was devastating to the State's case in certain ways. Jurors pay attention. They take notes. This jury is taking notes, and any observer can see them writing this stuff down in particular at the odd points of testimony in a trial which, so far, has had several such odd points.

The old adage, "its easy to tell the truth, it's much more difficult to tell a lie," comes into play here.

They will receive a Jury Instruction that they can't speculate about evidence, or lack of it, but this surely is a pothole on the path to any finding of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," because of the credibility of the accuser, and not just her credibility, but credibility on a key point of who actually had sex with her that caused injuries?

The key suspicion that the wildly divergent testimony brings up is, is Jane Doe capable of lying about sex with JJ, and is she capable of trying to set something up, and is this evidenced by her complete turnaround on key points of evidence because of conflict between what actually happened, and what she attempted to claim happened? As Jurors know -- it is their "common experience" underlying the jury system -- there is no such conflict when witnesses tell the truth.

Confusion abounds: some small marks on her chest were attributed to JJ, but key evidence of other injuries, noted, examined, and recorded, have been disconnected from JJ by the accuser herself.

The State is in charge of its case. It presented this odd and significant contradiction to the Jury -- these were both State's witnesses -- and did not repair the damage by any re-direct which tells me they were unprepared for the testimony, and got flummoxed by it.

 

[argh!]

speaking of old...

 

[Jerry Punch]

Confusion abounds: some small marks on her chest were attributed to JJ, but key evidence of other injuries, noted, examined, and recorded, have been disconnected from JJ by the accuser herself.

Were you able to view the pictures that were introduced during the closed session or hear the testimony provided to make this assertion?

 

[br fan]

I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it. But it's still just an opinion of what could have happened based on his interpretation of the evidence.

Attorneys can be guilty of trying to oversell their client's position, and I think that may be the problem some people have with 75's posts. Juries do weird things. If the jury feels its choices are to either accept the prosecution's version or the defense's version, with no middle ground, this case is a crap shoot. For example, the jury may reject 75's version of events for something as simple as they do not believe "she was a woman scorned" based on her demeanor during her testimony.

IMO it would be a mistake for the defense to push as hard for this "alternative" version as 75 has. The defense wants to raise reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, and they want to do so by providing the jury different avenues it may take to get there, but they can't leave the jury feeling it must accept the "alternative" version in order to find him not guilty.

 

[garizzalies]

75, your logic and reasoning makes sense on THIS SITE.
But do you realize we are dealing with 12 random people from MISSOULA?
Have you spent much time there? This case will not be decided upon factual analaysis.
JJ might have a better chance if his trial was held during an intermission at Lilith Fair.

 

[UMGriz75]

Confusion abounds: some small marks on her chest were attributed to JJ, but key evidence of other injuries, noted, examined, and recorded, have been disconnected from JJ by the accuser herself.

Were you able to view the pictures that were introduced during the closed session or hear the testimony provided to make this assertion?

The witness examination and cross-examination were both done in open court. The Nurse Examiner testified from her examination notes that Jane Doe told her that the JJ had used his hand; the NE remarked that she observed consistent injuries.

Jane Doe testified in open court that JJ had not used his hand.

I have no opinion either way. Those are the facts testified to under oath by both witnesses.

I do not make any assumption that Juries are brain dead and don't take note of significant discrepancies in the State's own case, with the State's own witnesses.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Confusion abounds: some small marks on her chest were attributed to JJ, but key evidence of other injuries, noted, examined, and recorded, have been disconnected from JJ by the accuser herself.

Were you able to view the pictures that were introduced during the closed session or hear the testimony provided to make this assertion?

The witness examination and cross-examination were both done in open court. The Nurse Examiner testified from her examination notes that Jane Doe told her that the JJ had used his hand; the NE remarked that she observed consistent injuries.

Jane Doe testified in open court that JJ had not used his hand.

I have no opinion either way. Those are the facts testified to under oath by both witnesses.

That doesn't answer the question. Did you see the pictures?

 

[UMGriz75]

Confusion abounds: some small marks on her chest were attributed to JJ, but key evidence of other injuries, noted, examined, and recorded, have been disconnected from JJ by the accuser herself.

Were you able to view the pictures that were introduced during the closed session or hear the testimony provided to make this assertion?

The witness examination and cross-examination were both done in open court. The Nurse Examiner testified from her examination notes that Jane Doe told her that the JJ had used his hand; the NE remarked that she observed consistent injuries.

Jane Doe testified in open court that JJ had not used his hand.

I have no opinion either way. Those are the facts testified to under oath by both witnesses.

That doesn't answer the question. Did you see the pictures?

No. What's your point, that a Jury would be swayed by photographs that they interpret differently than what the NE testified to in open court? Are you suggesting that the State's witness testified to something different than appears in the photographs? If so, is that based on your personal knowledge of the photographs, if not, what are you suggesting about the Nurse Examiner's testimony?

And please answer the question, are you suggesting something based on something you actually know?

 

[UMGriz75]

75, your logic and reasoning makes sense on THIS SITE.
But do you realize we are dealing with 12 random people from MISSOULA?
Have you spent much time there? This case will not be decided upon factual analaysis.
JJ might have a better chance if his trial was held during an intermission at Lilith Fair.

I understand what you are saying. I've been here well over 60 years.

It's an old adage as well that juries are far from "random." That 'these are the people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service and now your life is in their hands." I don't agree with it, but once in a while there is a jury verdict that brings that adage to mind ...

 

[go4two]

Question:

Given the verifiable facts of this case, and the history behind what has led to this “high profile” trial, do you think you could send this young man to prison? Also, take into account that you don’t know the accuser, or the defendant, and have to make decision on which story you believe; knowing that there is not any evidence that truly solidifies a rape occurred? If I were a juror, there would have to be substantial evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a rape occurred. An example of solid evidence would be torn clothing, screams heard by roommates, defense wounds on Jane Doe’s or JJ’s body,, history of abuse by JJ, etc.

I’m sorry, a guilty verdict can’t and won’t be made in this case. I don’t think there is a moral man, or woman in this city that could put JJ away based on who’s story they believe. Especially, when both parties are seem to have a solid moral history and are very believable. This should have never gone to trial. Could you sleep at night if you didn’t acquit?

 

[Jerry Punch]

I'm saying, and you are admitting, that things happened in Court that you don't know about. That is the end.

 

[EverettGriz]

That is the end

Oh God, if only....

 

[zengriz]

Could you sleep at night if you didn’t acquit?

...a hung jury at the very least...
...then put it in the handz of the judge...
...theze two kidz juzt need a good scolding...

... ...

 

[ilovethecats]

That is the end

Oh God, if only....

:lol: seriously...

when is the trial supposed to wrap up? not that that means anything. the only thing more entertaining than this thread is going to be the seven threads started when a verdict is announced.

 

[GrizPony]

I'm saying, and you are admitting, that things happened in Court that you don't know about. That is the end.

You are grasping at straws to try to keep your hope alive that the bullshit you have spewed since day one on this site has any basis in reality. Sir, you are losing your grip.