JJ Trial

[GrizMusician]

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.

Wow... after reading that... If I were a juror I would be thinking to myself, "Why the hell are we here?" :|

 

[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].

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.

As "favorite movies" go, this one isn't "Spartacus" or "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Netflix:

"Easy A"

"Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter is re-imagined as a contemporary high school comedy in this tale of a scheming student who plots to give her popularity a boost by painting herself the easiest lay in school. Like most high school kids, Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) just wants to be popular. So much so than when her best friend, Rhiannon (Aly Michalka), asks Olive how her weekend went, the bored teen decides to whip up a spicy white lie just to make things interesting. But that minor exaggeration begins to take on a life of its own when it reaches the ears of motor-mouth gossip Jesus freak Marianne (Amanda Bynes), and in no time the entire student body is abuzz over unassuming Olive's unrepentant weekend of debauchery. Of course not a word of it is true, but that doesn't stop everyone in school from talking, and an amused Olive from deciding to go with the flow. Playing the role of the hussy to the hilt, the girl who used to be invisible begins dressing provocatively and turning heads in the hallways."

Amazon: "In this charming, critically acclaimed tale of rumors and reputation, Olive (Emma Stone), an average high school student, sees her below-the-radar existence turn around overnight once she decides to use the school's gossip grapevine to advance her social standing. ... Things drastically change for Olive when she gains an infamous reputation as the school floozy, something she didn't start but certainly chose to perpetuate."

Well, let's see. Co-ed with infatuation with star football players. Has nightmare she was raped by one of them. That's normal, isn't it?

A month later, after said "nightmare," arrives at Forester's Ball alone, drunk, chases the star quarterback around the Forester's Ball. Asks him, in front of his date, to dance. Drags him over the Marriage Booth line. He leaves her standing there to go back with his date. She has him over the next evening to watch her "favorite" movie about a girl who tries to use "the school's gossip grapevine to advance her social standing" by engaging in "white lies" about their "relationship" involving ... sex, her public reputation, and her social standing in the school community.

Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[grizfromhel]

I thought Fred had a difficult case to begin with and this explains the 5 plus months it took him to initiate the prosecution, with the federal DOJ breathing down his neck and the hate-the-football-team faculty supporting the filing of charges. So he filed it, probably against his better judgment.

But as more of the testimony comes out, this isn't just a bad case for the prosecution, it's a terrible one. The woman's testimony is such that any sexual encounter could be turned into a rape prosecution depending on the "state of mind", retrospectively acquired, of the accused.

The only question in my mind is how long it's going to take the jury to bring back a "not guilty" verdict. It could set records for brevity.

And we haven't even heard from the accused yet, which I fully expect will happen. Of course Paoli, as a good defense attorney, will make his motion to dismiss at the end of the state's case, and will argue that the testimony and evidence, even if given total credence, do not constitute the commission of a criminal offense. It's a good argument actually, but in the "politically correct" atmosphere of Missoula justice, it will be summarily denied, and the defendant will be required to put on his defense. First witness: JJ.

 

[Jerry Punch]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

This is a real gas. We could go on for days about movies. Let's try that new Batman movie. The hero, known to the public as Batman but unknown to the public as Bruce Wayne, is charged with a crime. He is unable to continue his act as the "hero" of the city any longer, because for right or for wrong, people believe he committed this crime. However, the hero can't stay down much longer and wants to vindicate himself to the public, both as the hero and to himself as a person.

I'm trying to draw analogies, but it isn't working. Do you know why? Because movie life is not real life. Jordy Johnson is not Bruce Wayne, trying to prove himself as a man and as a quarterback. This is a real life situation. Batman is not. But if you think the alleged victim watched Easy A and attempted to recreate the movie in real life, then by all means, perhaps you should be qualified as an expert on par with Dr. Lisak.

 

[grizatwork]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

This is a real gas. We could go on for days about movies. Let's try that new Batman movie. The hero, known to the public as Batman but unknown to the public as Bruce Wayne, is charged with a crime. He is unable to continue his act as the "hero" of the city any longer, because for right or for wrong, people believe he committed this crime. However, the hero can't stay down much longer and wants to vindicate himself to the public, both as the hero and to himself as a person.

I'm trying to draw analogies, but it isn't working. Do you know why? Because movie life is not real life. Jordy Johnson is not Bruce Wayne, trying to prove himself as a man and as a quarterback. This is a real life situation. Batman is not. But if you think the alleged victim watched Easy A and attempted to recreate the movie in real life, then by all means, perhaps you should be qualified as an expert on par with Dr. Lisak.

I agree with you 100%. Movies are not real life to most people. I would assume would attempt to use the movie to assist in painting the accuser as a less than stable person who does not differentiate between fact and fiction very well. Besides, if you are going to have a favorite movie, I recommend anything Hughes did in the 80's.

 

[NorthEndZoneDan]

a lot of people were buzzing when Kirsten Pabst joined the defense team, after reading and watching the coverage I have to wonder what role is she playing. or is there Pabst on tap? (pun intended )

 

[grizatwork]

a lot of people were buzzing when Kirsten Pabst joined the defense team, after reading and watching the coverage I have to wonder what role is she playing. or is there Pabst on tap? (pun intended )

Make no mistake. She has been instumental in preparing the defense for this trial. She may not be the mouthpiece, but she has knowledge of the inner workings from a prosecuters point of view. I am sure she has been invaluable to the defense.

 

[RobGriz]

Reading this doctors testimony every sexual encounter EVER could've been construed as rape depending on how the "victim" felt about it after.

 

[Jerry Punch]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

This is a real gas. We could go on for days about movies. Let's try that new Batman movie. The hero, known to the public as Batman but unknown to the public as Bruce Wayne, is charged with a crime. He is unable to continue his act as the "hero" of the city any longer, because for right or for wrong, people believe he committed this crime. However, the hero can't stay down much longer and wants to vindicate himself to the public, both as the hero and to himself as a person.

I'm trying to draw analogies, but it isn't working. Do you know why? Because movie life is not real life. Jordy Johnson is not Bruce Wayne, trying to prove himself as a man and as a quarterback. This is a real life situation. Batman is not. But if you think the alleged victim watched Easy A and attempted to recreate the movie in real life, then by all means, perhaps you should be qualified as an expert on par with Dr. Lisak.

I agree with you 100%. Movies are not real life to most people. I would assume would attempt to use the movie to assist in painting the accuser as a less than stable person who does not differentiate between fact and fiction very well. Besides, if you are going to have a favorite movie, I recommend anything Hughes did in the 80's.

Breakfast Club was a more accurate portrayal of growing up in the 1980s than any other movie known to man. Yet still, I would not say that I am Emilio Estevez or Judd Nelson.

 

[UMGriz75]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

Of course, the alleged victim wasn't watching a movie about clinical psychologists.

The prosecution used the word "odd" during their opening statement in reference to the alleged victim and some of her behaviors.

That's not my choice of words.

Is it revealing and contextual that her favorite movie was about a girl who wanted to be popular, sex offered a way to become popular, and in particular lied about sex to be popular in a social context at her school?

And she is having rape dreams about football players, chases one down at the Forester's Ball, gets publicly humiliated by him, and admits under oath to being angry after having finally had sex with the star quarterback that all he said was "thanks."

Is there a context?

Perhaps it is all just "odd."

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

...

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

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].

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.

As "favorite movies" go, this one isn't "Spartacus" or "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Netflix:

"Easy A"

"Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter is re-imagined as a contemporary high school comedy in this tale of a scheming student who plots to give her popularity a boost by painting herself the easiest lay in school. Like most high school kids, Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) just wants to be popular. So much so than when her best friend, Rhiannon (Aly Michalka), asks Olive how her weekend went, the bored teen decides to whip up a spicy white lie just to make things interesting. But that minor exaggeration begins to take on a life of its own when it reaches the ears of motor-mouth gossip Jesus freak Marianne (Amanda Bynes), and in no time the entire student body is abuzz over unassuming Olive's unrepentant weekend of debauchery. Of course not a word of it is true, but that doesn't stop everyone in school from talking, and an amused Olive from deciding to go with the flow. Playing the role of the hussy to the hilt, the girl who used to be invisible begins dressing provocatively and turning heads in the hallways."

Amazon: "In this charming, critically acclaimed tale of rumors and reputation, Olive (Emma Stone), an average high school student, sees her below-the-radar existence turn around overnight once she decides to use the school's gossip grapevine to advance her social standing. ... Things drastically change for Olive when she gains an infamous reputation as the school floozy, something she didn't start but certainly chose to perpetuate."

Well, let's see. Co-ed with infatuation with star football players. Has nightmare she was raped by one of them. That's normal, isn't it?

A month later, after said "nightmare," arrives at Forester's Ball alone, drunk, chases the star quarterback around the Forester's Ball. Asks him, in front of his date, to dance. Drags him over the Marriage Booth line. He leaves her standing there to go back with his date. She has him over the next evening to watch her "favorite" movie about a girl who tries to use "the school's gossip grapevine to advance her social standing" by engaging in "white lies" about their "relationship" involving ... sex, her public reputation, and her social standing in the school community.

Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I was at the trial Wed morning when the accuser testified that she asked the defendant in her bedroom, "Which movie...'No Strings Attached' or 'Easy A'?" The defendant said he "didn't care". She obviously did, she rented them, so she put in Easy A. She testified that it then took 2-5 minutes for them to start foreplay.

 

[Special K]

The key thing which will lead to acquittal for JJ is the fact that two other individuals will testify that they heard this chick say to JJ that " I would do you any time". Tough to convince a jury that you were raped when you openly stated that to this kid in front of others, including another chick.

 

[Jerry Punch]

The key thing which will lead to acquittal for JJ is the fact that two other individuals will testify that they heard this chick say to JJ that " I would do you any time". Tough to convince a jury that you were raped when you openly stated that to this kid in front of others, including another chick.

Wrong. She may have wanted to do him anytime. But if she said no that time, that's all that matters.

 

[UMGriz75]

Reading this doctors testimony every sexual encounter EVER could've been construed as rape depending on how the "victim" felt about it after.

Jury surveys tend to show that juries will pay attention to economic experts showing dollar damages, but show much less deference to psychological experts, whom they generally don't like.

The Jury will conclude from the testimony offered that a "rape" can be considered to have occurred no matter what the alleged victim does or says, because he is not identifying anything useful; he is in essence saying that there is no real criteria to be found in the victim's behaviors that can assist in determining a true occurrence of "rape."

Juries generally don't like this kind of testimony because it dissolves, for them, into unfathomable depths of degrees of gray and contradiction.

Generally, after all the pontificating about "rape," expert psychological experts get punctured on cross-examination by the simple expedient, routine defense cross-examination, "Dr. you weren't there, were you? You don't actually know what happened, do you?"

And THAT is the perspective that Jurors carry to their deliberations.

 

[Grizlaw]

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

The definition of "hearsay" is "any out-of-court statement offered into evidence in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein."

It's impossible to know whether or not Doe's statement is hearsay without knowing how the question was phrased, and for what purpose it was asked. I can't tell either of those things from what has been written here, but for example -- it wouldn't be hearsay if the reason the statement was being offered was to establish what Jane Doe's understanding of his history was (because, in that instance, the statement isn't being offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted").

Does that make any sense?

 

[grizatwork]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

This is a real gas. We could go on for days about movies. Let's try that new Batman movie. The hero, known to the public as Batman but unknown to the public as Bruce Wayne, is charged with a crime. He is unable to continue his act as the "hero" of the city any longer, because for right or for wrong, people believe he committed this crime. However, the hero can't stay down much longer and wants to vindicate himself to the public, both as the hero and to himself as a person.

I'm trying to draw analogies, but it isn't working. Do you know why? Because movie life is not real life. Jordy Johnson is not Bruce Wayne, trying to prove himself as a man and as a quarterback. This is a real life situation. Batman is not. But if you think the alleged victim watched Easy A and attempted to recreate the movie in real life, then by all means, perhaps you should be qualified as an expert on par with Dr. Lisak.

I agree with you 100%. Movies are not real life to most people. I would assume would attempt to use the movie to assist in painting the accuser as a less than stable person who does not differentiate between fact and fiction very well. Besides, if you are going to have a favorite movie, I recommend anything Hughes did in the 80's.

Breakfast Club was a more accurate portrayal of growing up in the 1980s than any other movie known to man. Yet still, I would not say that I am Emilio Estevez or Judd Nelson.

Unfortunately I was more of an Anthony Michael Hall. My best years were the 80's. Sigh...

 

[AZGrizFan]

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying that a movie - a Hollywood movie - is more revealing and contextual than the testimony of an esteemed clinical psychologist?

This is a real gas. We could go on for days about movies. Let's try that new Batman movie. The hero, known to the public as Batman but unknown to the public as Bruce Wayne, is charged with a crime. He is unable to continue his act as the "hero" of the city any longer, because for right or for wrong, people believe he committed this crime. However, the hero can't stay down much longer and wants to vindicate himself to the public, both as the hero and to himself as a person.

I'm trying to draw analogies, but it isn't working. Do you know why? Because movie life is not real life. Jordy Johnson is not Bruce Wayne, trying to prove himself as a man and as a quarterback. This is a real life situation. Batman is not. But if you think the alleged victim watched Easy A and attempted to recreate the movie in real life, then by all means, perhaps you should be qualified as an expert on par with Dr. Lisak.

I agree with you 100%. Movies are not real life to most people. I would assume would attempt to use the movie to assist in painting the accuser as a less than stable person who does not differentiate between fact and fiction very well. Besides, if you are going to have a favorite movie, I recommend anything Hughes did in the 80's.

Breakfast Club was a more accurate portrayal of growing up in the 1980s than any other movie known to man. Yet still, I would not say that I am Emilio Estevez or Judd Nelson.

Unfortunately I was more of an Anthony Michael Hall. My best years were the 80's. Sigh...

Who are you kidding. You were Molly Ringwold.

 

[Raider]

you missed the point.

Bitch.

keep up, our mind your own business.

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.

Jes-s, when the fuck did I say anything about not “liking” the expert witness? That’s what you got out of my comment?? Yes, you are correct, I do not like the tnt. She is a chronic liar, with a vested interested/agenda in this case.

Give your little pot-stirring dickhead character a rest for a second and you may be able to read someone’s comments.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Here's my take. I was there today and talked to others who were there.

It's impossible to see or figure out what the jury is thinking. They will decide the case, obviously. One young women. A guy or two with pony tails. Mostly older people. One observer thought some of the jurors were looking skeptical at accuser's morning testimony on direct (i.e. questions from the prosecutor). My reaction was that the accuser's testimony, including some of her apparent reactions and communications after the incident, made her case look better and bigger than I had thought. She looks nice and is fairly articulate. Comes across fine or even good. Don't know why she was dressed with so much skin showing up high; no cleavage, though.

Lots of law students and local lawyers in the audience. Some lawyers totally unimpressed with the assistant attorney general who did the direct with the accuser.

In less than an hour before lunch, Paoli (and not Pabst) seemed to have already neutralized the testimony of the accuser. He was direct, organized and fast. Seemed very skilled at what he was doing.

After lunch, many good points made by Paoli, and many new facts (i.e. not already in the motion to dismiss). The asst ag prosecutor started making lots of objections, all related to how Paoli was using many texts/emails/facebook to ask questions of the accuser. Judge was not clear on how to respond, but almost always sided against Paoli. He just moved on.

She had admitted multiple times that she thought she'd have sex with Johnson at some point. She gave him a ride home after the Central Arkansas playoff game in early Dec. 2011, and was in his house.

Paoli did an excellent job of making more clear what happened in the bedroom. While it's sometimes hard to hear all testimony (in part due to construction outside, as well as softer voices), my impression was that after they got close to the actual sex, the accuser didn't object, didn't say anything, didn't fight anything, and either cooperated or sorta cooperated. She admitted that she then could have gotten up off the bed and walked away. She admitted that she could have called out to her male roommate, whom I think was 10 feet away. Her male roommate is one of her best friends, and they now live together at another location.

The sex was all from behind, and she was on her knees (and presumably hands or elbows). I don't understand how rape can occur this way. This takes cooperation, I would think. She said he pulled her onto him or to his groin.

Prior to this time, they had kissed and fondled and pelvic thrusted. I think she had taken her top off, or helped him to it. She had taken off his coat and shirt. She had crawled on top of him. She had fondled his genitals. She says he took off her leggings and panties.

I thought Paoli was shredding the accuser on many points. However, I don't have a clue as to what the jury thought.

Some interesting points. The accuser said on several occasions that it never occurred to her that she'd ever be raped. Then it came out that she had had a nightmare, on X-mas '11 I think, that Tru Johnson had raped her and done other things. Paoli then asks if/how she new Tru. She said he was roommates with her old boyfriend, Brandon Dotson. Paoli also questioned her about not wanting B-Dot to talk to him or his investigator.

Someone, I think either the nurse examiner or a counselor, referred her to the Atlanta law firm who brought a claim in a Carroll rape case. I haven't read all of the twitter feeds, so you probably know these facts better than I do. Paoli's question was whether she was looking for money.

Pabst said in the opening argument, that the nurse rape examiner had been incredibly unprofessional. The twitter may have clarified this, but I think the nurse continued to email the accuser after the exam, and perhaps made this referral. I assume the nurse examiner is going to get discredited.

By the end, the accuser was being defensive over various points being made by Paoli. The texts are coming back to haunt her.

Don't recall anything being said about her supposed statement at the ball, that she would do him anytime.

At least so far, it seems that the facts are essentially agreed upon by both parties, except for the sex part.

I assume Johnson will testify. At first, I thought this might be risky for him, due to tough questions, but now I'm thinking that he will likely do fine testifying.

For the morning session, there were probably 20 people standing. It thinned out during the day.

As the day went on, I started wondering if some of the multiple people supporting the accuser (First Step, university, counselors, etc.), and rape victims generally, ended up being enablers. Accuser doesn't want her family to attend trial and see her like this.

Accuser reads the comments to the Missoulian articles and KPAX, and egriz, she said. This came up several times. She had been advised not to do this. I feel sorry for her on multiple levels.

Great post PR :!: You gave a good insight to those that were not/are not present at the over-crowded trial.

The jury is made up of 7 women and 5 men. Alternates are seated up-front as well.

I too was very unimpressed with the Ass AG prosecutor. Pretty weak performance. Probably because it's a pretty weak case in my opinion.