Same here. A teachable moment is a trite and overused phrase but it sure fit the bill last night talking with my kids.RobGriz said:
-
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
- Thread starter bluemarlin2
- Start date
Mavman said:
Great Post!! I have boys, and we have had the same conversation in the past couple of days.
There aren't going to be any winners in this case (between the accuser and JJ). It is a sad situation, and both of their lives are forever changed.
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
I think that, if anything, her testimony is affirming the incompetence of UM leadership during this entire time.
Well I'm not so sure testimony has revealed anything that. I stated then (and now) that according to your "reporting of events" he was acting as an aclcohol fueled predator. Not much different than the general concensus here that "wouldn't have touched her with a ten foot pole" The only thing the trial will determine whether not his actions were criminal or just "a monumental jerk"
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
Good comeback.
Moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lisak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lisak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jerry Punch said:
I think you may be underestimating how critical the accuser's testimony is in this case. The prosecutor must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and the most difficult element in this case is proving Johnson's (not the victim's) mental state. The jury needs to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Johnson "knew" he was having sex with her without her consent. Evidence of what Johnson "knew" is going to come primarily from the accuser's testimony because Johnson may not testify, and there does not appear to be alot of circumstantial evidence on this point.
The jury does not need to find that somebody's lying in this case, and that's what makes trying a date/rape matter so difficult. The defense at this point can argue to the jury to believe everything the accuser told you, and the jury may find she truly believed then and now that she was raped. But that doesn't prove Johnson's mental state. She also testified "I could have been more clear," "I may have given him mixed signals" etc. The defense is going to argue to the jury "believe her," because that's reasonable doubt. The prosecution is in the unenviable position of arguing "don't believe her" as to this portion of her testimony (whether by showing rape victims often blame themselves or otherwise).
I would be very surprised if offered an opinion specific to this case however. He usually offers "educational material: ho victims and acused normally act etc. before during and after the incident.
For those of you following the "lawyering" this should be interesting. Its no accident "he a had a plane to catch" before redirect of the accuser.....
For those of you following the "lawyering" this should be interesting. Its no accident "he a had a plane to catch" before redirect of the accuser.....
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
Raider said:
Not really. You don't like TNT so you don't like this expert witness?
Back to the point - well qualified, will provide context to what happened that night. I don't think context will hurt or help anyone. All it does is aids the jury in understanding that an event like this can rarely be understood in a he said, she said context.
tnt said:
The problem I have is that if the guy is drunk, he is "an alcohol fueled predator." Where if the girl is drunk then "he took advantage of her." I agree with the guys above. If you have a teenage son or daughter, then use this opportunity to beat them over the head about making right decisions in every aspect of their lives.
Everyone talks about a girl being able to say no at anytime, but it's also entirely possible for a girl to change her mind the other way as well. She very well may have told JJ no at first and then through the "foreplay" and "heavy petting" or whatever you want to call it, became sexually aroused and consciously chose to become a willing participant. And that, in my opinion, is not rape, even if she did start out by telling him "not tonight". Not saying that's what happened here, merely throwing it out there.
grizatwork said:
I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Casual sex is a real slippery slope. The problem comes with (if 75 is correct) this guy knowing she was a few french fries short of a happy meal and going for the score anyway. That's the difference (in this case) between a predator and horny college guy. Whether it goes as far as rape is what the trial is about....
UMGriz75 said:
I'm curious about this movie...what's so wrong about it? It's no better or no worse than the majority of the movies that come out today. I've seen you argue that it's her "favorite" movie before. That's cool and all, I just don't see how it's relevant.
PTGrizzly said:
I agree that I don't really think its relevant to the fact that a rape may have occurred. But it may add doubt that she was a willing participant in the sex and gave JJ the idea that she wanted it. Its all about getting the jurors to question what happened.
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
This is what happens when "preponderance of the evidence" -- the preferred university criteria -- meets the real world, where "beyond a reasonable doubt" prevails. Even the American Association of University Professors, which tends to be pretty liberal on most issues, thinks the "preponderance of the evidence" approach is a bad idea: Check out this article http://www.cotwa.info/2013/02/american-association-of-university.html#morebr fan said:
FWIW, that web site IS following JJ's trial.
