• 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

funny water said:
jagur1 said:
Gentlemen at this pace wi'll never get 100 pages or 100,000 views.

there are still a handful of days of testimony with another weekend thrown in there and probably another Tuesday non courtroom day..... just give it time.... it will get there..... unless Titleist gets in lock mode in Vegas this weekend..... :shock: :shock:


I dont think I will let Titleless censor me or lock any of my comments this weekend...........and he he tries anything funny, I will not buy him another round of drinks, I will smash his face into a car windshield, and then take his mother out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.


:coffee:
 
ALPHAGRIZ1 said:
funny water said:
jagur1 said:
Gentlemen at this pace wi'll never get 100 pages or 100,000 views.

there are still a handful of days of testimony with another weekend thrown in there and probably another Tuesday non courtroom day..... just give it time.... it will get there..... unless Titleist gets in lock mode in Vegas this weekend..... :shock: :shock:


I dont think I will let Titleless censor me or lock any of my comments this weekend...........and he he tries anything funny, I will not buy him another round of drinks, I will smash his face into a car windshield, and then take his mother out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.


:coffee:

You go, Champ. :thumb: :thumb:
 
ALPHAGRIZ1 said:
funny water said:
jagur1 said:
Gentlemen at this pace wi'll never get 100 pages or 100,000 views.

there are still a handful of days of testimony with another weekend thrown in there and probably another Tuesday non courtroom day..... just give it time.... it will get there..... unless Titleist gets in lock mode in Vegas this weekend..... :shock: :shock:


I dont think I will let Titleless censor me or lock any of my comments this weekend...........and he he tries anything funny, I will not buy him another round of drinks, I will smash his face into a car windshield, and then take his mother out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.


:coffee:

You know you might want to call her back just one time just to see how she's feeling. I'd hate for her to tell a different version of the seafood dinner story than you do. Could you guys imagine what it would be like if something like that would happen.
 
PTGrizzly said:
IntuitiveGriz said:
spokaneman said:
IntuitiveGriz said:
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.

I stand with PTgrizzly on this. The talk of outing the accuser needs to stop and stop now.
 
The people suggesting the identity of the accuser, I guess are not parents to a daughter.

I was already pissed at all the information the public had access to when the case was made public.
You know damn well some insane GRIZ fan or fans would harass this girl endlessly in hopes of not losing JJ from the football team.

GRIZ fan or not, do you realize the threats any accuser could get from friends, family, and acquaintances of the accused? I do agree, It would be fairer to keep the accused identity private until after the trial too.
 
I've been reading about this trial for months before it started. This is the first I've commented on this topic. First let me say Argh is an idiot! This chick is sick in the head! She is scum! I'm a man who has said NO to many a woman only to wake with her going down on me. Then the woman saddles up, was I raped? No!!! Did I want sex? No!!! I've met dozens of pathetic Chics like the accuser and they are sluts and unpaid whores! One of these gals text me this weekend asking if I wanted to do her. I never replied back because after this case with JJ, I realize the shit that happened to him could have easily happened to me. I think back at all the gals I never returned their texts and phone calls and it makes me sick to think any of them disgusting women could have done to me what is happening to JJ. I had many choice words and threats by these women and much property damage but thank God no bogus rape charges. This whole thing is a horrible thing for all concerned the gal, JJ, the families, the community of Missoula the state of Montana and the University and the football team.
 
PTGrizzly said:
IntuitiveGriz said:
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
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.

Bink came off very poorly in the courtroom--the worst of any witness so far. I would guess that virtually everyone who saw him testify would say that. Bink came across pretty much how 75 portrayed it, including that he probably wishes he still had a romantic relationship with the accuser. It was pretty amusing to see him testify very clearly that the accuser had never lied to him, and then for it be pointed out to him that she had lied to him after having to study the night she was with Johnson.
 
Richard Cranium said:
I've been reading about this trial for months before it started. This is the first I've commented on this topic. First let me say Argh is an idiot! This chick is sick in the head! She is scum! I'm a man who has said NO to many a woman only to wake with her going down on me. Then the woman saddles up, was I raped? No!!! Did I want sex? No!!! I've met dozens of pathetic Chics like the accuser and they are sluts and unpaid whores! One of these gals text me this weekend asking if I wanted to do her. I never replied back because after this case with JJ, I realize the shit that happened to him could have easily happened to me. I think back at all the gals I never returned their texts and phone calls and it makes me sick to think any of them disgusting women could have done to me what is happening to JJ. I had many choice words and threats by these women and much property damage but thank God no bogus rape charges. This whole thing is a horrible thing for all concerned the gal, JJ, the families, the community of Missoula the state of Montana and the University and the football team.

Rich - you should have texted Gwen back this weekend. She is way lonely dude. Simply hurtful on your part. Just hurtful. Granola chicks need love also.
 
UMGriz75 said:
PTGrizzly said:
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.

My version of Bink is more closely related to the fact that I know him personally. Has nothing to do with my opinion of JJ (which I've never stated btw). Like I said, the things you were implying about Bink aren't true. That is all.

Oh and by the way, the phrasing you're looking for is "Bink couldn't have cared less about her." Which I never said by the way, I simply said that he wasn't still in love with her and that he doesn't want to be in a relationship with her. You are pretty good at twisting words though, I'll give you that.
 
br fan said:
Maxim said:
UMGriz75 said:
br fan said:
I think 75 has done a good job of piecing together an "alternative" version of events that has evidence to support it.
And, of course, that is what "reasonable doubt" is all about, and that is exactly what Paoli's closing statement will be about. That is, is it plausible?

So far, the State is having the problem with "plausibility," and that's unusual.

Usually, at this point in a trial it's "wow, how's this guy going to get out of this," and then the Defense, in its case in chief, will show how, assuming they can. It's rare to see questions about plausibility reasonably and legitimately raised about the State's case at this stage of the proceedings.

The problem for the State's case is that, given the fumbling contradictions that have so permeated the State's witness testimonies as they appear in the record so far, without the Defense version being presented yet, the alternative scenario can be plausibly presented based entirely on the State's own evidence. Dave Paoli could give a closing statement Wednesday that would offer classic reasonable doubt.

The State isn't done yet, but generally on the prosecution side, the strong witnesses go first.
Im going to disagree with you there. The prosecution wants to end the case with a strong witness. However i believe that they knew jane doe was not a strong witness so they had to get her testimony out first. Leaving a lasting impression on the jury is huge and if you have a great witness, you finish with them. A good lawyer will use their other witnesses to lead into that final testimony when possible.

Who does the prosecution have left to call? It was pretty easy to identify who they've called to date by the charging document. I'm assuming they still have an expert who will provide an opinion on post traumatic stress, but who else is on their witness list?

For one, the detective who investigated the case and who sits at the prosecution table, I assume.
 
PlayerRep said:
PTGrizzly said:
IntuitiveGriz said:
UMGriz75 said:
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.

Bink came off very poorly in the courtroom--the worst of any witness so far. I would guess that virtually everyone who saw him testify would say that. Bink came across pretty much how 75 portrayed it, including that he probably wishes he still had a romantic relationship with the accuser. It was pretty amusing to see him testify very clearly that the accuser had never lied to him, and then for it be pointed out to him that she had lied to him after having to study the night she was with Johnson.

Maybe he did come off poorly, I have no way of knowing, I wasn't there.

All I can say is that I know he doesn't want to be in a romantic relationship with her. That's all.
 
When the F is this trial supposed to conclude? This is getting brutal. Yes he did - no he didn't. Enough already. Speculate, speculate, speculate and not a one of you knows what will ultimately happen. If you want to post what goes on during the trial - have at it. You legal geniuses are driving everyone nuts trying to hypothesize who did what and what the jury is thinking. YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW - unless of course you are on the jury and are defying the judges instructions. In that case we are really screwed.
 
mtgrizrule said:
The people suggesting the identity of the accuser, I guess are not parents to a daughter.

I was already pissed at all the information the public had access to when the case was made public.
You know damn well some insane GRIZ fan or fans would harass this girl endlessly in hopes of not losing JJ from the football team.

GRIZ fan or not, do you realize the threats any accuser could get from friends, family, and acquaintances of the accused? I do agree, It would be fairer to keep the accused identity private until after the trial too.

+1000

Can't and won't tolerate it on here, either.
 
PTGrizzly said:
All I can say is that I know he doesn't want to be in a romantic relationship with her. That's all.
Well, he and JJ have something in common then.

But, is that the relevant observation you are steamily denouncing? Does that have something really to do with this trial? Does that explain the tears? I described the way he came across to the jury, trying to portray just how close they really were, and the cooking for him at the first station (no other girlfriend), etc.

A little common sense went a long in hearing "Bink" and what was going on. Maybe he was having a bad day, just emotional about all his relationships, etc. But that's how he came across. There was a lot of emotion about their "continuing connection" and it wasn't in the form of "yeah, she's my ex ...".

You don't agree, based on your knowledge of his inner feelings. Well, he was the one testifying, not you.
 
Copper Griz said:
When the F is this trial supposed to conclude? This is getting brutal. Yes he did - no he didn't. Enough already. Speculate, speculate, speculate and not a one of you knows what will ultimately happen. If you want to post what goes on during the trial - have at it. You legal geniuses are driving everyone nuts trying to hypothesize who did what and what the jury is thinking. YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW - unless of course you are on the jury and are defying the judges instructions. In that case we are really screwed.

gonna be FAR worse once a verdict is read my friend... :?
 
PTGrizzly said:
All I can say is that I know he doesn't want to be in a romantic relationship with her. That's all.



For a guy who doesn't seem to want to rekindle his relationship with his ex, Bink sure has a lot of pictures of him and her on his Facebook account?
 
argh! said:
IntuitiveGriz said:
argh! said:
UMGriz75 said:
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!

While this may be good advice, this is not the law. The law requires the accused to have known that the accuser didn't want to proceed. Actions of the accused can trump what was said, especially if the no was early in the process.

Linked below is an interesting article by a Yale law professor, entitled "Culture, Cognition and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in 'Acquaintance Rape" Cases". Check out the discussed Berkowitz case from the Penn Supreme Court.


http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dwhat%2520is%2520consent%2520sexual%2520assault%2520yale%2520law%2520school%2520article%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDIQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1094%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26ei%3DPFYkUZPJGMGjigLVyIHoCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEYKG6k0GmLRIBELbOJCnyd7q9vmw%26bvm%3Dbv.42661473%2Cd.cGE#search=%22what%20consent%20sexual%20assault%20yale%20law%20school%20article%22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
PlayerRep said:
PTGrizzly said:
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.

Bink came off very poorly in the courtroom--the worst of any witness so far. I would guess that virtually everyone who saw him testify would say that. Bink came across pretty much how 75 portrayed it, including that he probably wishes he still had a romantic relationship with the accuser. It was pretty amusing to see him testify very clearly that the accuser had never lied to him, and then for it be pointed out to him that she had lied to him after having to study the night she was with Johnson.
It is clear that PT Grizzly didn't hear the testimony, and, like many, wants to impose his version of what was said and how it appeared in court, in place of what was actually said and how it actually appeared.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top