JJ Trial

[Grizbacker1]

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.

unlike you who would gladly put a dick in your mouth

 

[jcu27]

So when a guy puts it in her without her doing it.for him its rape? Some people are retarded.. obv dont have much experience with women either. That woman did not get raped. end of story. If what JJ did was rape id go ahead.n assume 99% of the country has raped someone.

 

[Jerry Punch]

2 days down. 9 to go. Why do any more if the veracity of the claim rests solely on the testimony of the accuser?

1) JJ will tell his side of the story. An important perspective, no doubt.
2) The alleged victim's testimony will be put into context. Important for some, but I'll leave that to Egrizzers to pick and choose the context they wish to use. They'll use their own sexual experiences (or lackthereof) as context of their own.
3) Character witnesses who will testify about JJ and the alleged victim.

All could be game changers, especially number 1. I hope JJ's counsel is not yet expecting an acquittal as much as the fans are.

 

[sudavis]

Skimmed through the twitter posts yesterday. I seem to remember at some point the accuser indicated other women had been treated badly by JJ.

 

[Jerry Punch]

So when a guy puts it in her without her doing it.for him its rape? Some people are retarded.. obv dont have much experience with women either. That woman did not get raped. end of story. If what JJ did was rape id go ahead.n assume 99% of the country has raped someone.

You obv don't have much experience with the law. The law says that a women can revoke consent at any time. I agree it's a sliding scale and a moving target, which makes it just damn near impossible for a football player on any team in the entire world to get away with having random, casual sex. But these are the days of the ever changing standard. Either you can challenge it and attempt to do as you wish with women, or, recognize that there are those crazy women out there if you don't know well enough, just may be crazy enough to charge you with a crime.

As I said earlier, let it play out. We may have the crazy woman or the revoked consent or a simple "no" from the alleged victim. I'm not ready to land on either side yet. The show will go on.

And BTW, Happy Valentine's Day, Everett! Sending you some love from Great Falls, bro. I hope you and your partner have a lovely evening.

 

[mlbowl]

Skimmed through the twitter posts yesterday. I seem to remember at some point the accuser indicated other women had been treated badly by JJ.

Well, I would hope the defense would object to the witness testifying to what other people said...admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I would think that would qualify as "hearsay".

 

[GoosetownGriz]

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.

Does everything on this board need to turn into a cat fight? PR gave a good account of what he perceived, if you don't like him that is fine, but his post was at least constructive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grizatwork]

So when a guy puts it in her without her doing it.for him its rape? Some people are retarded.. obv dont have much experience with women either. That woman did not get raped. end of story. If what JJ did was rape id go ahead.n assume 99% of the country has raped someone.

You obv don't have much experience with the law. The law says that a women can revoke consent at any time. I agree it's a sliding scale and a moving target, which makes it just damn near impossible for a football player on any team in the entire world to get away with having random, casual sex. But these are the days of the ever changing standard. Either you can challenge it and attempt to do as you wish with women, or, recognize that there are those crazy women out there if you don't know well enough, just may be crazy enough to charge you with a crime.

As I said earlier, let it play out. We may have the crazy woman or the revoked consent or a simple "no" from the alleged victim. I'm not ready to land on either side yet. The show will go on.

And BTW, Happy Valentine's Day, Everett! Sending you some love from Great Falls, bro. I hope you and your partner have a lovely evening.

A woman should be able to stop it at any time. The case here is whether she did or didn't say that. It will come down to believability by the jury in a classic he said/she said case. That being said, I am discussing this case with my Fiance every evening. She does not do twitter and is probably the most neutral party I know. We both have teenage daughters. One 16 and one 17. We both came to the conclusion that if the events that both parties have agreed have happened, we would be having a come to Jesus conversation with our daughters. We would be furious that they put themselves in this postion. My fiance made the point that it appears that he was drunk and she was sober. If she was drunk and he was sober, we would already have him locked up. But he was drunk and she was sober and he still gets the blame. At some point, we have to make everyone accountable for their actions. I am paraphrasing this from my fiance's point of view. She is big on personal accountability. She states she would have sat her daughter down and made her pick apart the situation and where she went wrong in this process that would have led to this unfortunate outcome. As a dad of a teenage daughter, I go back and forth. I would hope my daughter would never get in that position, but I would want to protect her at all costs after the situation.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I am paraphrasing this from my fiance's point of view. She is big on personal accountability. She states she would have sat her daughter down and made her pick apart the situation and where she went wrong in this process that would have led to this unfortunate outcome. As a dad of a teenage daughter, I go back and forth. I would hope my daughter would never get in that position, but I would want to protect her at all costs after the situation.

Then she is a dying breed in this country. Hold on to her. :lol:

 

[Cats2506]

Skimmed through the twitter posts yesterday. I seem to remember at some point the accuser indicated other women had been treated badly by JJ.

Well, I would hope the defense would object to the witness testifying to what other people said...admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I would think that would qualify as "hearsay".

the defense brought it up is the way I read it, she just agreed

 

[GrizMusician]

So when a guy puts it in her without her doing it.for him its rape? Some people are retarded.. obv dont have much experience with women either. That woman did not get raped. end of story. If what JJ did was rape id go ahead.n assume 99% of the country has raped someone.

You obv don't have much experience with the law. The law says that a women can revoke consent at any time. I agree it's a sliding scale and a moving target, which makes it just damn near impossible for a football player on any team in the entire world to get away with having random, casual sex. But these are the days of the ever changing standard. Either you can challenge it and attempt to do as you wish with women, or, recognize that there are those crazy women out there if you don't know well enough, just may be crazy enough to charge you with a crime.

As I said earlier, let it play out. We may have the crazy woman or the revoked consent or a simple "no" from the alleged victim. I'm not ready to land on either side yet. The show will go on.

And BTW, Happy Valentine's Day, Everett! Sending you some love from Great Falls, bro. I hope you and your partner have a lovely evening.

A woman should be able to stop it at any time. The case here is whether she did or didn't say that. It will come down to believability by the jury in a classic he said/she said case. That being said, I am discussing this case with my Fiance every evening. She does not do twitter and is probably the most neutral party I know. We both have teenage daughters. One 16 and one 17. We both came to the conclusion that if the events that both parties have agreed have happened, we would be having a come to Jesus conversation with our daughters. We would be furious that they put themselves in this postion. My fiance made the point that it appears that he was drunk and she was sober. If she was drunk and he was sober, we would already have him locked up. But he was drunk and she was sober and he still gets the blame. At some point, we have to make everyone accountable for their actions. I am paraphrasing this from my fiance's point of view. She is big on personal accountability. She states she would have sat her daughter down and made her pick apart the situation and where she went wrong in this process that would have led to this unfortunate outcome. As a dad of a teenage daughter, I go back and forth. I would hope my daughter would never get in that position, but I would want to protect her at all costs after the situation.

Nice post Grizatwork. :clap:

 

[mlbowl]

Skimmed through the twitter posts yesterday. I seem to remember at some point the accuser indicated other women had been treated badly by JJ.

Well, I would hope the defense would object to the witness testifying to what other people said...admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I would think that would qualify as "hearsay".

the defense brought it up is the way I read it, she just agreed

That would explain no objection but it still sounds like hearsay.

 

[Cats2506]

Skimmed through the twitter posts yesterday. I seem to remember at some point the accuser indicated other women had been treated badly by JJ.

Well, I would hope the defense would object to the witness testifying to what other people said...admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I would think that would qualify as "hearsay".

the defense brought it up is the way I read it, she just agreed

That would explain no objection but it still sounds like hearsay.

agreed :shock:

 

[UMGriz75]

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.

Paoli asking woman to describe movie the two watched. Called 'Easy A'. [There will be more about this movie, it's a humdinger].

Doe willingly mounts Johnson, kissing him and nibbles on his ear. Both begin gyrating.

Paoli: Is this when the sexual gyrating begins? W: Yes. P: and you were enjoying it. W: Yes at that point.

Paoli: She kept saying no not tonight? W: Yes. P: She playfully punched him? W: Yes while she was on top of him.

Doe says both were enjoying it. Johnson attempts to take Doe's shirt off but she playfully says no.

Doe says she rubbed Johnson's groin area.

Paoli: How did you say no? Baby talk? W: Yes. Playful. P: You put your hand on his crotch, penis? W: Crotch area.

Doe now saying while on top of Johnson, she doesn't disengage.

A second attempt at taking her shirt off, Doe obliges.

Doe helped Johnson take his shirt off

Doe says she could have been more clear that night.

Woman agrees with Paoli, she may have lead Johnson to believe she would have sex with him in future.

P: You helped roll over. W: I shut down.

Paoli asking if woman discussed condom use with Johnson with UM Dean of Students. She said she did.

Women says that when Johnson flipped her he grabbed her hips. Paoli asks if it was hard. She says no. [Assuming in context this meant if he grabbed her "hard."]

Paoli: Did you assist in any way? W: Yeah, but it was because I gave up.

Woman agree she did assist Johnson because she gave up. At that point she was not resisting.

Paoli: assisting him required a volitional act on your part? She said yes.

P: You're not restrained are you? You could have gotten off the bed, called for housemate? Woman: Yes.

Paoli: Did it upset you all he said was thanks? Woman: Yeah.

Doe then said, she told her friend that Johnson didn't think he, personally, did anything wrong

Paoli: She omitted a lot of intimate details when she talked to the nurse about how she was enjoying it.

Woman: She believes she mentioned ear nibbling but doesn't remember talking about sexual gyrations. She didn't mention it.

Paoli: Did she even mention the kissing? That she helped take off his shirt and coat

Woman: No she didn't mention all that.

Paoli: Said woman, counselor have different claims. Woman said counselor claims there were other victims. Counselor denies.

Woman's reflections about mixed signals she might have sent Johnson. Her own personal reflections read aloud in court.

Paoli: Didn't she give him mixed signals?

Woman: And actions.

Paoli: Didn't she give him mixed signals?

She rereads statement to self.

Paoli: What were the mixed signals in the written reflection?

She rereads statement to self.

Paoli: you thought this whole situation was your fault?

Woman: Clothes. Making out. Taking off shirt.
-----------------------------------------------
Comments:

Why would there be a discussion about use of condoms during a "rape?"

There will be a significant conversation in the Jury Room about the difference between "assisting during sex" and "giving up."

She's punching him, it's "playful." She says "no" in "baby talk" then assists in taking off both their tops.

After "gyrating," she rolls off the top of him, but is testifying that she "assisted" in the process. He grabs her hips, but she is saying he did not do so "hard" -- there was no force, she admits that at no time did she feel "restrained" -- and that she had "given up" but was also "assisting" OF "HER OWN VOLITION."

That will be the key; the focus: could JJ have possibly known, or understood, AT THAT POINT, that her voluntary assistance, as they moved from her straddling him, punching him, and "cooing" in a playful manner, to rolling over, to which she has testified she assisted, to her positive participation in the "act," actually meant that, internally, she had "given up"?

The "no, not tonight" appears to have come much earlier. It is true that "no means no," but this case isn't about that, at least from the testimony yesterday. It is about Doe "assisting" with having sex, being playful nearly throughout, and that her thoughts were internalized as "giving up," even though what JJ actually saw and heard was relatively aggressive behavior from her -- straddling, punching, gyrating, "cooing" her "no's" -- followed by her cooperation in "rolling off" of him and in "assisting" with having sex to which she has testified she volunteered.

She was angry afterwards because all he said was "thanks."

And this is HER version.

Today will be interesting.

 

[mlbowl]

Well, I would hope the defense would object to the witness testifying to what other people said...admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I would think that would qualify as "hearsay".

the defense brought it up is the way I read it, she just agreed

That would explain no objection but it still sounds like hearsay.

agreed :shock:

:lol:

 

[Copper Griz]

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.

Paoli asking woman to describe movie the two watched. Called 'Easy A'. [There will be more about this movie, it's a humdinger].

Doe willingly mounts Johnson, kissing him and nibbles on his ear. Both begin gyrating.

Paoli: Is this when the sexual gyrating begins? W: Yes. P: and you were enjoying it. W: Yes at that point.

Paoli: She kept saying no not tonight? W: Yes. P: She playfully punched him? W: Yes while she was on top of him.

Doe says both were enjoying it. Johnson attempts to take Doe's shirt off but she playfully says no.

Doe says she rubbed Johnson's groin area.

Paoli: How did you say no? Baby talk? W: Yes. Playful. P: You put your hand on his crotch, penis? W: Crotch area.

Doe now saying while on top of Johnson, she doesn't disengage.

A second attempt at taking her shirt off, Doe obliges.

Doe helped Johnson take his shirt off

Doe says she could have been more clear that night.

Woman agrees with Paoli, she may have lead Johnson to believe she would have sex with him in future.

P: You helped roll over. W: I shut down.

Paoli asking if woman discussed condom use with Johnson with UM Dean of Students. She said she did.

Women says that when Johnson flipped her he grabbed her hips. Paoli asks if it was hard. She says no. [Assuming in context this meant if he grabbed her "hard."]

Paoli: Did you assist in any way? W: Yeah, but it was because I gave up.

Woman agree she did assist Johnson because she gave up. At that point she was not resisting.

Paoli: assisting him required a volitional act on your part? She said yes.

P: You're not restrained are you? You could have gotten off the bed, called for housemate? Woman: Yes.

Paoli: Did it upset you all he said was thanks? Woman: Yeah.

Doe then said, she told her friend that Johnson didn't think he, personally, did anything wrong

Paoli: She omitted a lot of intimate details when she talked to the nurse about how she was enjoying it.

Woman: She believes she mentioned ear nibbling but doesn't remember talking about sexual gyrations. She didn't mention it.

Paoli: Did she even mention the kissing? That she helped take off his shirt and coat

Woman: No she didn't mention all that.

Paoli: Said woman, counselor have different claims. Woman said counselor claims there were other victims. Counselor denies.

Woman's reflections about mixed signals she might have sent Johnson. Her own personal reflections read aloud in court.

Paoli: Didn't she give him mixed signals?

Woman: And actions.

Paoli: Didn't she give him mixed signals?

She rereads statement to self.

Paoli: What were the mixed signals in the written reflection?

She rereads statement to self.

Paoli: you thought this whole situation was your fault?

Woman: Clothes. Making out. Taking off shirt.
-----------------------------------------------
Comments:

Why would there be a discussion about use of condoms during a "rape?"

There will be a significant conversation in the Jury Room about the difference between "assisting during sex" and "giving up."

She's punching him, it's "playful." She says "no" in "baby talk" then assists in taking off both their tops.

After "gyrating," she rolls off the top of him, but is testifying that she "assisted" in the process. He grabs her hips, but she is saying he did not do so "hard" -- there was no force, she admits that at no time did she feel "restrained" -- and that she had "given up" but was also "assisting" OF "HER OWN VOLITION."

The "no, not tonight" appears to have come much earlier. It is true that "no means no," but this case isn't about that, at least from the testimony yesterday. It is about Doe "assisting" with having sex, being playful nearly throughout, and that her thoughts were internalized as "giving up," even though what JJ actually saw and heard was relatively aggressive behavior from her -- straddling, punching, gyrating, "cooing" her "no's" -- followed by her cooperation in "rolling off" of him and in "assisting" with having sex to which she has testified she volunteered.

She was angry afterwards because all he said was "thanks."

And this is HER version.

Today will be interesting.

I guess I am wondering why any prosecutor would try to bring this case to trial. Simply leaves me scratching my head and wondering whom or what was pressuring the MCA office. DOJ, mayor, PW? Just does not add up. Way to much information to taint the jury with and this is an uphill battle for he prosecution.

 

[tnt]

I think whats interesting is how each reporter sumarizes the question differently and some the geniuses here summarizes the summaries (Picked and chosen) and tries to pass it off as transcript.

BTW I was there he never penetrated her from behind - tried but shot his wad first (apparently)

 

[Mavman]

I just wanted to say that having a daughter in college this whole case scares the shit out of me.
My daughter followed on twitter and commented how scary the whole thing was to read. I will not try to make a guess on how the trial will end, as far as im concerened everyone has already lost. If anything i hope this case can be used as a cautionary tale for young adults. Young men and women need to becareful of the situations they put themselves in.

 

[RobGriz]

I just wanted to say that having a daughter in college this whole case scares the shit out of me.
My daughter followed on twitter and commented how scary the whole thing was to read. I will not try to make a guess on how the trial will end, as far as im concerened everyone has already lost. If anything i hope this case can be used as a cautionary tale for young adults. Young men and women need to becareful of the situations they put themselves in.

:thumb: My wife and I had the same conversation with our kids last night.

 

[UMGriz75]

I think whats interesting is how each reporter sumarizes the question differently and some the geniuses here summarizes the summaries (Picked and chosen) and tries to pass it off as transcript.

I think what is really interesting is what is missing from all of the testimony, that is, your frequently repeated claim last year that this was JJ's behavior as "an alcohol-fueled sexual predator."

This trial testimony exposes your libel as the complete lie, and the complete libel, that it was.

I would doubt that it was your "genius" quality that provoked you to aggressively spread a complete lie in the prospective jury pool, or it's just the way you are, but finally, the trial testimony has fully exposed you as spreading that egregiously false claim.

Interestingly, after having repeatedly lied, and promoted a false narrative, you have the nerve now to complain about a direct recitation of objective news reports?

Do you have any shame, or are you just Joe McCarthy's long lost retarded grand nephew?