JJ Trial

[IntuitiveGriz]

I am almost positive that any second now one of you is going to convince the other about the truth and justice of your position. I think it will happen sometimes in the next 37 comments by 75 to the 10 replies by other posters.

What is wrong exactly with just letting 12 people decide again? Good heavens this is embarrassing.

And they will do just that.

What is always amazing is that people go to a discussion board on the internet and are just appalled that people are having a discussion. Indeed, they will voluntarily, knowingly, click on a thread entitled "JJ Trial," taking precious minutes out of their lives, and are just amazed to find on the thread entitled "JJ Trial" that people are actually discussing, on that thread, the "JJ Trial!"

:lol: :thumb:

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

I have been explaining this trial to my wife and she had an interesting comment. She believes that it was consensual sex but, upon reflection, it turned out "rougher" than Jane Doe expected from this "nice, shy" boy. That, coupled with the fact that JJ basically treated her like a one-night-stand, led to this mess.

The "rougher" part is interesting. She claims that she attempted to fend him off and he forced his way between her legs, but there was no bruising on her legs at all. She told the Nurse examiner that he had penetrated her with his "hand" -- some heard the word "fist" -- and the Nurse Examiner said, "yup," that's what it looked like, but then a year later at trial, Jane Does says he did not. So, the medical evidence says that prior to her visit to First Step she had been penetrated by a fist or hand, but Jane Doe now says it wasn't JJ.

Well, something is hugely inconsistent there; if it wasn't JJ, who was it?

She said he had grabbed her hips, but she specifically allowed that it wasn't "hard." And sure enough, no bruising at all on the hips. The only remaining evidence was the red marks on her chest -- she testified that he "was leaning on her with his arm," and "holding her down," but then she also testified that "no, she wasn't restrained," she could have gotten up, opened the door, and called to her roommate. She admitted that.

And she admitted that just previously, she was holding him down and punching him. That was when she began saying "no" in "babytalk," and the shirts voluntarily came off. She also testified that after that point she "assisted" and that she engaged at that point in "volitional acts" to enable sex to occur.

And to the Jury, that is going to be the key 20 minutes and everything else is just soap opera.

i have been explaining this case to a colleague, and he says that what happened was brutal rape. in other words, he has no clue what happened and is just making shit up based on selective tidbits and his own personal biases. ergo, what 7five is doing, etc etc. if people would quit trying to pass off conjecture as "fact", this thread would be splattered with a lot less mud.

Anyone would wrongfully conclude that was a brutal rape after hearing your explanation, arghmuncher!

 

[TxGriz]

I'm going to be politically incorrect and say that I can't reconcile the notion of the victim of a sexual assault's personal sense of violation and the attitude that their own anonymity must be protected at all costs.

If I were assaulted and I felt truly wronged and was entitled to justice, I wouldn't have a problem with going public with my accusation. The courts are for seeking redress for criminal wrongdoing against us, so what is so sacred about anonymity? It seems to me that if a victim makes an accusation but at the same time hides behind a veil of secrecy they may not feel entirely justified to their feelings they have been truly wronged. Seeing this victim as some kind of heroine for hiding behind a veil of secrecy is bullshit and I don't buy it. You are talking about a conviction that carries with it a lifetime brand as a sexual predator. I think the victim needs to make a stand for their charges of criminal assault.

 

[jcu27]

I hope to god thatz not the chick claiming rape... Who would tap that.. ewwwwwwwwss

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

I'll never claim to be a lawyer, or even know much about the law for that matter, but I do remember taking a law class in college at one point. One of the few things I remember from it, is that our teacher (a practicing lawyer), told us that trying to figure out how a jury will react by just reading the transcript is basically pointless. We're not seeing how the jury reacts to how the defendant/plaintiff is dressed, how the lawyers are acting, and other things like that. Those things do matter more than most think.

If one is at the trial they are seeing those things. Having been at the trial myself, my opinion is that at this point in the trial, I would vote not quilty. The trial continues...

 

[go4two]

I hope to god thatz not the chick claiming rape... Who would tap that.. ewwwwwwwwss

Be nice, douchebag! Let's see a picture of your ugly @ss!

 

[Ursa Major]

I'm going to be politically incorrect and say that I can't reconcile the notion of the victim of a sexual assault's personal sense of violation and the attitude that their own anonymity must be protected at all costs.

If I were assaulted and I felt truly wronged and was entitled to justice, I wouldn't have a problem with going public with my accusation. The courts are for seeking redress for criminal wrongdoing against us, so what is so sacred about anonymity? It seems to me that if a victim makes an accusation but at the same time hides behind a veil of secrecy they may not feel entirely justified to their feelings they have been truly wronged. Seeing this victim as some kind of heroine for hiding behind a veil of secrecy is bullshit and I don't buy it. You are talking about a conviction that carries with it a lifetime brand as a sexual predator. I think the victim needs to make a stand for their charges of criminal assault.

I disagree Tex, but you make some good points. Rape is still a highly unreported crime and putting a "victims" name out there only increases the chance that fewer will come forward. I like the suggestion someone had on here for anonymity to also be extended to the accused. Not sure how that would have worked out for this case when your starting QB suddenly takes a year off. We do live in the information age but it seems like double anonymity would be a step in the right direction.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I hope to god thatz not the chick claiming rape... Who would tap that.. ewwwwwwwwss

Yeah, they always seat the alleged victim between the alleged perpetrator and his attorney. Oh, wait, I'm stoned.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

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.

An opinion about how this trial is going is more valuable from someone that is at the trial than from someone that is not at the trial. They are more informed, and have a better feel. :twocents:

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

But what if he was watching Star Trek? Or Batman? Or Seven (Se7en)? What then? Was JJ acting like Captain Kirk? Or perhaps Bruce Wayne? Or maybe, at worst, like the criminal mastermind in Seven. Who knows? Or, as discussed earlier, maybe he was acting like Emilio Estevez from The Breakfast Club? The movie possibilities are endless.

Listen thick-headed, it's not JJ's state of mind that "No Strings Attached" or "Easy A" illustrate. He said he quote, "Didn't care" what movie the accuser (had rented herself) wanted to insert into the player. The movie choices depict the accusers state of mind.

I think the player did the inserting.

:thumb: Well played, BDizzle. Some small message board comic relief is needed after fourty some pages of tragedy.

 

[argh!]

I wanted family to remember me as that little girl with the curly brown hair.

I am sure "Argh" felt exactly the same way.

ok, now you are just being (d)um75. if this were a football game that would have been a turnover. surely someone with your powers of fictitious invention can do better than that!

Yeah, as if geeks like you know so much about football. GEEK

look disco boy, you don't know what happened in that bedroom, and neither do i. my guess is johnson won't be found guilty, and what happened will forever be a mystery. however, if the guy heard "no" in any way shape or form, even in a 'baby voice', then there are no excuses whatsoever for him not stopping the proceedings and verifying with the woman whether she really wanted to continue or not. that is called having some wherewithal, i.e. a brain. regardless of the amount of foreplay, there is absolutely nothing difficult about the verification process, and any time a person hears "no", he should take it seriously, not 'guess'. this is especially true with a first time partner who you think might not be all that stable. now, according to your hero (and mine, too) um75, who has deluded himself into thinking that he can "prove" johnson's innocence by what the woman has said so far, johnson heard "no". because the "no" wasn't given in the manner um75 deems fit doesn't mean squat. so please go after him! grrrrr, he's incriminating your boy!

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

Says the 2 goons hiding behind fake names and whose real identities remains a mystery all while slandering a "possible" rape victim.... good lord, if this situation were not so sad, you hypocrites would be funny!!

Where have I slandered the accuser? :shock: :roll:

All I said was it is MAJOR BULLSH!T that the accuser remains annonymous, all while the accused does not.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

I am sure "Argh" felt exactly the same way.

ok, now you are just being (d)um75. if this were a football game that would have been a turnover. surely someone with your powers of fictitious invention can do better than that!

Yeah, as if geeks like you know so much about football. GEEK

look disco boy, you don't know what happened in that bedroom, and neither do i. my guess is johnson won't be found guilty, and what happened will forever be a mystery. however, if the guy heard "no" in any way shape or form, even in a 'baby voice', then there are no excuses whatsoever for him not stopping the proceedings and verifying with the woman whether she really wanted to continue or not. that is called having some wherewithal, i.e. a brain. regardless of the amount of foreplay, there is absolutely nothing difficult about the verification process, and any time a person hears "no", he should take it seriously, not 'guess'. this is especially true with a first time partner who you think might not be all that stable. now, according to your hero (and mine, too) um75, who has deluded himself into thinking that he can "prove" johnson's innocence by what the woman has said so far, johnson heard "no". because the "no" wasn't given in the manner um75 deems fit doesn't mean squat. so please go after him! grrrrr, he's incriminating your boy!

(look disco boy) :lol: :thumb:

 

[grizfnz]

What is the photo of Kristen Pabst for?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[PTGrizzly]

the whole 'scorned girlfriend' b.s. goes out the window with her immediate response to the event - saying she was raped. i imagine things would be a lot different if the person she told this to at the scene hadn't grown up in a jock-worshiping environment.

Well, being literally "left at the altar" and publicly humiliated the night before by the guy, bringing the guy home the next evening, having playful sex, then immediately claiming rape, a well-known campus drama queen with an infatuation for star athletes, pretending to be withdrawn and devastated, but texting everyone in sight with smiley faces "its all good!", and being so withdrawn and depressed that she's busy calling high priced law firms to see how she can set this up to get some money out of it, and launching her own independent investigation into JJ's sexual history, while sending out 27,000 text messages because "she didn't want anybody to know," certainly paints an interesting portrait, one that did not make it into the lexicon of the Expert Witness.

No, I doubt that "scorned girlfriend" is exactly the level of response that certainly describes one specific scenario of this case -- "scorned psychopath" is more accurate -- and one by the way that is far better supported so far by the evidence (and will be) than the "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" meme advocated without evidence by certain posters.

Yesterday's closing testimony was, once again, devastating for the Prosecution. I really don't know why they called Bink. If they were scrapping the bottom for character witnesses, that showed it.

Here's her high school sweethheart, nicest guy, obviously still pining for a relationship with her; but, she's gone off to college, and she's smitten with the athletes. He's been cast aside. But, she still uses him as her crutch. They're close and yet the jury, in their common experience, will see that its because he's still kind of hanging on. It was clear he's never gotten a new girlfriend. And it would have been sweet to hear how close they have remained, except for the part that, when she gets the chance to date the star quarterback, she drops him like a hot rock, at the last minute, lies about it to him ... and then carefully seeks him out afterward to make sure that he knows how she feels, to seek comfort, to seek refuge ... and to make sure he "see's how she is." He played his unknowing assigned role to the tee.

Here's what the jury didn't hear yesterday from this hapless young man: any expression from her, even an ounce of remorse, about lying to him, ditching him at the last minute, bouncing him out of her life at the slightest hint of a romantic encounter, in her bedroom, in her bed, with the star quarterback.

He "would trust her with his life." "She never lied to him." If I were him, I'd get a new ex-girlfriend. The sheer ruthless cynicism of how she treated, abused and manipulated that loyal relationship was on full display in the Courtroom.

No, instead of offering any remorse whatsoever, she sought him out afterward to perpetuate "the story" and to carry the burden of her life, apparently not caring she had just dumped him unceremoniously the night before.

With that particular person, there was not a single hint from the testimony that she offered a single hint that she felt badly about the way she treated him; that her behavior had been in any way, abusive and manipulative.

You could see it. He's still in love. He's literally the abused boyfriend, always willing to come back.

But he also distanced himself, in the words the Jury will now consider for four long days, odd words for him to use: "it's her show."

Great post

Not particularly. This is why it's hard to take 75 seriously. He's clearly a very smart man (or woman), and they seem to know the law fairly well. However, he can't read people that well. He's insinuating things that aren't true. Now I'm not sure if 75 has been sitting in the courtroom for this, but it sure doesn't sound like he has been.

I don't know this girl, never met her in my life, don't know anything about her. However, I do know Bink. So when I see 75 say that he's "obviously pining for a relationship with her...", I can tell you that without a doubt, that is false, as is most of the other stuff that he posted about Bink. You can call this a great post, but I'm going to call it for what it is. It's a post full of insinuations about people that he's never met, and in at least this post, he's wrong with about 90% of what he's saying.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

Says the 2 goons hiding behind fake names and whose real identities remains a mystery all while slandering a "possible" rape victim.... good lord, if this situation were not so sad, you hypocrites would be funny!!

Where have I slandered the accuser? :shock: :roll:

All I said was it is MAJOR BULLSH!T that the accuser remains annonymous, all while the accused does not.

The reason the accuser remains anonymous is because claiming to be raped is a pretty serious deal. There's no doubt in my mind that if people knew her name, she would be harassed. Hell, I'm sure she has been harassed already. If there's a habit of that happening, no woman is going to want to report a man for raping her. Most rapes already go unreported, taking away their anonymity isn't going to help that.

With that said, if JJ does end up innocent, go ahead and release her name. It's just as wrong to falsely accuse somebody of rape too IMO.

 

[stubbins]

Her name should be posted. JJ's name certainly has been dragged through broken glass on a local, state, and national level, and yet this b*tch's name remains a mystery? Please, someone with balls post her name.

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

Says the 2 goons hiding behind fake names and whose real identities remains a mystery all while slandering a "possible" rape victim.... good lord, if this situation were not so sad, you hypocrites would be funny!!

These two are not trying to get someone thrown in jail for 20 years, you dumbass....

 

[stubbins]

The accused face (JJ) is all over tv news media, and newspapers... yet the one making the accusations remains out of the public eye. That is some MAJOR BULLSH!T. Kind of makes it pretty easy to accuse someone doesn't it?

Says the 2 goons hiding behind fake names and whose real identities remains a mystery all while slandering a "possible" rape victim.... good lord, if this situation were not so sad, you hypocrites would be funny!!

Where have I slandered the accuser? :shock: :roll:

All I said was it is MAJOR BULLSH!T that the accuser remains annonymous, all while the accused does not.

The reason the accuser remains anonymous is because claiming to be raped is a pretty serious deal. There's no doubt in my mind that if people knew her name, she would be harassed. Hell, I'm sure she has been harassed already. If there's a habit of that happening, no woman is going to want to report a man for raping her. Most rapes already go unreported, taking away their anonymity isn't going to help that.

With that said, if JJ does end up innocent, go ahead and release her name. It's just as wrong to falsely accuse somebody of rape too IMO.

fair enough, but then...should the accused have their name hidden until a verdict is reached as well?

 

[Tokyogriz]

What is the photo of Kristen Pabst for?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

My bad...

 

[UMGriz75]

I don't know this girl, never met her in my life, don't know anything about her. However, I do know Bink. So when I see 75 say that he's "obviously pining for a relationship with her...", I can tell you that without a doubt, that is false, as is most of the other stuff that he posted about Bink. You can call this a great post, but I'm going to call it for what it is. It's a post full of insinuations about people that he's never met, and in at least this post, he's wrong with about 90% of what he's saying.

Oh gosh, the Jury heard "I'd trust my life to her." "She's never lied to me."

She would come out to the fire station and cook supper for him. [obviously, no girlfriend involved].

He cried on the witness stand.

PT Grizzly's version: Bink could have cared less about her.

Your "version" of Bink, and Bink's version of "Bink," seem to be more closely related to your opinion of JJ, and that nothing anyone says about this trial in his favor can be tolerated, than it does any tangible connection to "the Bink" that testified before the Jury, obviously not having consulted you first about who he is.