JJ Trial

[Silvertip]

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...

In a court of law this thread derailment would warrant a stern "You're out of order!"

 

[BDizzle]

Defense is doing a great job at providing more doubt into this case, IMO. The expert witness knows nothing about this particular case and is just generalizing and stereotyping. So "most" victims and defendants usually act like this doesn't mean that Jane Doe and JJ acted like that.

 

[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.

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

Don't be naive. This is a "he-said/she-said" situation. No jury is going to send this kid to prison after hearing two witnesses testify that, a day before the supposed rape, she stated that she would do him, but not that time, huh? Right on. Let's throw the book at him! She has about as much credibility as Alpha lecturing to the NAACP about Black History. This case is over. He walks.

 

[Mavman]

I was just wondering why gwen quits tweeting when the defense is asking the questions??
Not trying to stir pot just think it looks bad when she only tweets one half of the story. If i am just missing it i apolagize to ms. florio.

 

[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.

Don't be naive. This is a "he-said/she-said" situation. No jury is going to send this kid to prison after hearing two witnesses testify that, a day before the supposed rape, she stated that she would do him, but not that time, huh? Right on. Let's throw the book at him! She has about as much credibility as Alpha lecturing to the NAACP about Black History. This case is over. He walks.

Yes, it has happened in the past and it can happen here. The law is what controls, not Special K on the law.

 

[grizatwork]

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.

So, would that make you Ally Sheedy the basketcase, Paul Gleason the overbearing principal, or John Kapelos as Carl the janitor who puts Judd Nelson in his place?

 

[Jerry Punch]

And I'd take Alpha lecturing on ANYTHING any day of the week. He's a class act and spot-on with almost all issues.

 

[grizatwork]

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...

In a court of law this thread derailment would warrant a stern "You're out of order!"

My apologies, but the details of this case and how it has played out in front of the whole country require an occasional derailment for sanity's sake.

 

[grizpack]

I was just wondering why gwen quits tweeting when the defense is asking the questions??
Not trying to stir pot just think it looks bad when she only tweets one half of the story. If i am just missing it i apolagize to ms. florio.

I read somewhere yesterday that Twitter has a 100 posts per hour limit. Don't know if that is true, but they thought she was put in "Twitter jail" because she exceeded that limit.

 

[BDizzle]

I haven't really seen Gwens account tweet much today, even when the prosecution was questioning. But the Missoulian has been doing a great job of tweeting equally.

 

[mlbowl]

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?

Can she testify as to what another person said?

 

[OptimusPrime]

I haven't really seen Gwens account tweet much today, even when the prosecution was questioning. But the Missoulian has been doing a great job of tweeting equally.

Maybe you're new around here, but I was under the impression that those two words were mutually exclusive...

 

[PlayerRep]

Some observations from today. I left during the expert's testimony.

The jury has 3 younger people (2 guys and 1 woman) under 40. The rest seem to be in their 40's and 50's, with several perhaps near or above 60.

Paoli did another good job in finishing up with the accuser. The prosecution will get re-direct with the accuser, after the expert is done (he has a plane back to Boston in the morning). The accuser continues to dress too much like a hottie, in my view. That might not be viewed well by some jurors.

Some key points, including some from what I've picked out after a quick look at part of the twitter feed.

Her family apparently questioned her closely about her actions, including whether she did enough to prevent what happened (or what she says happened). The accuser got irritated with them, and eventaully told them to get on board. Don't know what impact, if any, things like this will have on the jury.

There was a discussion about whether people thought she might be lying. This was very important in my view. "Sarah Gravlee‏@SarahABCFOXMT "It makes me think I lied." #JohnsonTrial. missoulian‏@missoulian P: The situation makes you feel like you lied, you say in message. W: Yes. #johnsontrial. Emily Adamson NBC MT‏@EmilyNBCMT Message says woman feared her friends would think she lied. 'What if it really is my fault.' #JohnsonTrial.

The accuser clearly wanted attention. She had multiple texts and communications to friends, asking them if they'd seen various publicity (like on the restraining order) and before she had told them she was involved. She was asking them to look at the publicity.

It seems that the accuser was out to get Johnson after the incident. While some of this would be understandable in a sexual assault situation, it almost seems like she took pleasure in doing things to get him and to get attention.

Paoli continues to catch the accuser in various inconsistencies. I wonder if this will eventually lead jurors to question her honestly on other things.

The expert looks experienced and credible, but he has not looked at any of the facts of this situation and will only testify generally. This may help set the stage or dispel myths, but it will not be specific to this situation. I assume Pabst will get him to admit alot of things that will soften his testimony. She is presumably very knowledgeable with experts in this area.

The stage has been set for Johnson to further clarify what occurred, or didn't occur, in the bedroom. I think he'll have a good chance to do his side of the case alot of good, and I'm seeing less and less risks of having him testify.

I truly feel sorry for the accuser. My impression is that she must have issues, and she probably needs help. Or at least this seems to be what the testimony and defense is portraying. She's likeable. She's pretty. Again, I don't know what the jury is thinking or will think, but much of her story and many of her actions make no sense to me.

The twitter feed is truly amazing. Thanks to the people doing that. I wish the jury could see the twitter feed (which, of course, they can't and won't), but the feed brings considerable clarity to the situation. It sharpens what is being said in the courtroom, and adds considerably to understanding of exactly what is being said in the testimony. From then glancing through it, it seems that even when one tweet is slightly off, the others are usually correct.

 

[GrizPony]

I was just wondering why gwen quits tweeting when the defense is asking the questions??
Not trying to stir pot just think it looks bad when she only tweets one half of the story. If i am just missing it i apolagize to ms. florio.

You are absolutely correct. She minimizes or ignores testimony that hurts the alleged victim's case. Very biased.

 

[PlayerRep]

I was just wondering why gwen quits tweeting when the defense is asking the questions??
Not trying to stir pot just think it looks bad when she only tweets one half of the story. If i am just missing it i apolagize to ms. florio.

You are absolutely correct. She minimizes or ignores testimony that hurts the alleged victim's case. Very biased.

Her article in the paper today, was just terrible and very biased by what she included and didn't include. While she has written more harmful articles, this was one was really bad reporting. Pony's middle sentence above is what I think too.

 

[CatzWillRise]

Maybe she needs help because she was raped...

I'm sorry but the last person I would trust for an unbiased summarization of the proceedings at the trial is PR.

 

[tnt]

Defense is doing a great job at providing more doubt into this case, IMO. The expert witness knows nothing about this particular case and is just generalizing and stereotyping. So "most" victims and defendants usually act like this doesn't mean that Jane Doe and JJ acted like that.

There are more experts to come (at least 4 by my count) who will build on the "generalizing and stereotyping" with specific knowledge and months of observation. Whether it will work or not is up to the jury. It may be hard for eGriz to believe but the prosecution is laying a foundation as well.as I said before allowing this guy between the accusers cross and redirect was either a HUGE stroke of luck for the prosecution or a brilliantly conceived plan

 

[GrizPony]

Defense is doing a great job at providing more doubt into this case, IMO. The expert witness knows nothing about this particular case and is just generalizing and stereotyping. So "most" victims and defendants usually act like this doesn't mean that Jane Doe and JJ acted like that.

There are more experts to come (at least 4 by my count) who will build on the "generalizing and stereotyping" with specific knowledge and months of observation. Whether it will work or not is up to the jury. It may be hard for eGriz to believe but the prosecution is laying a foundation as well.as I said before allowing this guy between the accusers cross and redirect was either a HUGE stroke of luck for the prosecution or a brilliantly conceived plan

It isn't luck. If the prosecution wants something, they are getting it in this trial so far. Let's just say I have seen more reasoned rulings than those occurring during this trial.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I was completely objective going into this trial because I didn't know the facts. But at this point, the only question in my mind is whether there will be a mistrial or an acquittal.

 

[Cats2506]

I was completely objective going into this trial because I didn't know the facts. But at this point, the only question in my mind is whether there will be a mistrial or an acquittal.

I was pretty objective also, but based on what I have read at this point I have some doubt, but am still trying to determine if it sinks below or rises above the "reasonable" level or not. Still need to hear from JJ and some of the others involved in the immediate aftermath. An awful lot of what I am hearing from the defense is just noise that is intended to confuse the issue.

My biggest problem is that I can not get a read, through the twitter posts, on how believable the witness is