JJ Trial

[NorthwestFresh]

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.

Thank you for your thoughts. Inaccurate, as she did not "assist" in the actual act. According to her, she turned over. Nowhere did I read that she actually inserted his penis into her vagina.

Trial by Twitter. Fun stuff. Everybody who reads it is an expert.

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

Yes, you're probably right.

Both situations are terrible, but JJ and the Accuser are seemingly rather likable, while you... well, are not.

 

[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.

Yes, you're probably right.

Both situations are terrible, but JJ and the Accuser are seemingly rather likable, while you... well, are not.

Aww, poor guy.

Shouldn't you be pooping in the Kittie Litter, like you used to do so well? :clap:

 

[mtgrizrule]

PR, thanks for the report in your perspective, very interesting and well done.

 

[MTGrizzFan]

Nice write up PR.....thanks

 

[griz4life]

Thanks, PR. Nice to get a description of the jury, finally. I agree odd to think of someone being assaulted on all fours. A couple women in my family found that nearly impossible.

 

[GrizLA]

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.

Yes, you're probably right.

Both situations are terrible, but JJ and the Accuser are seemingly rather likable, while you... well, are not.

oh, c.mon! geezus, so much anger here...y'all don't seem very likable, either...Why come across that way? This is serious business..

 

[GrizPony]

Thanks, PR. Nice to get a description of the jury, finally. I agree odd to think of someone being assaulted on all fours. A couple women in my family found that nearly impossible.

But you still kept trying? Oh, you mean they said it sounded nearly impossible. :lol:

 

[stubbins]

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.

Which should tell you how big of douche you have to be to actually be in contention vs the case...

 

[Ursus1]

Thanks PR....please do another tomorrow if you go. I like the recap instead of twitter bits

 

[Ashley B. Schaeffer]

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.

Thank you for your thoughts. Inaccurate, as she did not "assist" in the actual act. According to her, she turned over. Nowhere did I read that she actually inserted his penis into her vagina.

Trial by Twitter. Fun stuff. Everybody who reads it is an expert.

Fair point, but there might be a middle ground, pard. Hell, I know that my wife, Donna, is the John Stockton of assistin' in the act, but she's not even come close to givin' me anything approximatin' an ol' fashioned since '84. And, back in those days, it was just called a "fashioned."

 

[PTGrizzly]

Anybody catch this:

eilaSzpaller ‏@KeilaSzpaller
Judge instructs Paoli to hold off on one piece of evidence until they talk after testimony today. #johnsontrial

What's that all about?

Idk but its BS IMO...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

"I don't know what it's about, but I know that it's BS."

Posts like this are why it's smart to wait until all the information is out there before you say something. Otherwise, you just look like an ignoramus.

 

[Cats2506]

Thanks, PR. Nice to get a description of the jury, finally. I agree odd to think of someone being assaulted on all fours. A couple women in my family found that nearly impossible.

so the doggy position in itself shows consent, good to know :thumb:

 

[Sportin' Life]

Thanks, PR. Nice to get a description of the jury, finally. I agree odd to think of someone being assaulted on all fours. A couple women in my family found that nearly impossible.

The stupid in this place sometimes makes my head hurt. I know you want to believe what you want to believe, but if the best reason you can think of is that rape can't occur when a woman is on all fours, well that is a very thin straw to grasp at. :roll:

 

[TxGriz]

So a girl can perform oral on a guy (not saying she did, just an example to "illustrate" my point) and then turn over and that fits the technical definition of rape if it proceeds to the male aggressively pursuing intercourse.

I would hope that a juror would at some point would entertain a "reasonable doubt" that this scenario is what lawmakers were after when they defined rape as a criminal act. Sex "without consent" was meant for much more clear cut situations where the notion of "no consent" is much more clearly defined.

It troubles me somewhat that the legal community is going along with the definition of what I would call "technical rape", that being two naked people in bed and a girl saying "no" at any point prior to intercourse and that conforming to the definition of rape.

I've had dates that didn't go anywhere and I've had dates that went somewhere. The one thing I recall where it didn't go to the desired happy ending the girl was much more up front about it early on in the evening, clearly letting me know that "you're not getting anything tonight". It seems that human nature has to prevail at some point - there is a law of nature involved here between man and woman and when a woman doesn't want sex, she makes it known in much stronger and more unequivocal terms, and that is just how a girl handles it. Any girl that doesn't clearly establish her boundaries early on, knows that she can expect trouble with an aroused male. If I were Johnson's attorney I would ask the girl why, instead of getting into bed with a man and then merely "turning over" to signal she didn't want sex, a more forceful response wasn't done, such as getting out of bed and asking him to leave.

Lord help the legal system if we start entertaining rape cases on such thin technical grounds. I'm not sitting there in the jury box, but if I were I would be saying advantage defendant at this point.

 

[argh!]

all the wishful thinking in this thread is pathetic.

dizzle that.

 

[Cats2506]

So a girl can perform oral on a guy (not saying she did, just an example to "illustrate" my point) and then turn over and that fits the technical definition of rape if it proceeds to the male aggressively pursuing intercourse.

I would hope that a juror would at some point would entertain a "reasonable doubt" that this scenario is what lawmakers were after when they defined rape as a criminal act. Sex "without consent" was meant for much more clear cut situations where the notion of "no consent" is much more clearly defined.

It troubles me somewhat that the legal community is going along with the definition of what I would call "technical rape", that being two naked people in bed and a girl saying "no" at any point prior to intercourse and that conforming to the definition of rape.

I've had dates that didn't go anywhere and I've had dates that went somewhere. The one thing I recall where it didn't go to the desired happy ending the girl was much more up front about it early on in the evening, clearly letting me know that "you're not getting anything tonight". It seems that human nature has to prevail at some point - there is a law of nature involved here between man and woman and when a woman doesn't want sex, she makes it known in much stronger and more unequivocal terms, and that is just how a girl handles it. Any girl that doesn't clearly establish her boundaries early on, knows that she can expect trouble with an aroused male.

Lord help the legal system if we start entertaining rape cases on such thin technical grounds.

Pretty much, she can blow him and participate in the act including penetration, if at any point she decides that she doesn't want it any more and says stop then it is rape if he continues, I agree that it doesn't always fit biology very well but that is my understanding of how the law is.

 

[TxGriz]

If I were on the jury I would vote in favor of acquittal because the alleged victim gave confused signals and did not take a forceful enough action to stop it at the point she let it progress to. When Johnson was attempting to force he over on her back, she should have got out of bed and said "leave". She didn't. Not guilty.

 

[TxGriz]

all the wishful thinking in this thread is pathetic.

dizzle that.

All the new age pussy fart Alan Alda type thinking on this thread is what is pathetic.

 

[getgrizzy]

interesting day to say the least, but i doubt much of what happened yesterday will swing the verdict one way or the other. one thing i took away from it was that paoli was a slicker lawyer than the duerk(?) or whoever the prosecutor was.

another was that i was impressed by how the accuser was honest about how she liked and was attracted to j.j. and how she thought that she would have sex with him some day. i think being honest about that and other things (that she could've just as easily tried to hide or lie about) makes the meat of what she's saying more believeable to the jurors. she's a good witness as even p.r. said. she looked and spoke well. p.r. saying that is probably the biggest news of the day! :lol: