• 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

UMGriz75 said:
Jerry Punch said:
And based on this movie I once saw, one of the lawyers "couldn't handle the truth." I am not certain which movie that was, but I think it helps explain the context of what is going on here in Missoula.
A Few Good Men.

The movie was loosely based upon the real-life trials of Navy JAG attorneys Don Marcari and former New Mexico United States Attorney David Inglesias.

The "Lawyer," by the way, won against the government lawyers (the State) in a prosecution of someone unjustly accused, based on his refusal to believe the testimony of a key witness.

Nice catch; the analogy is appropriate.

One damn good movie too. Cruise played a great role in it.
 
Special K said:
You people are hilarious, getting so involved in this 3-ringed circus. If this kid were not the star QB of the football team, this would have been thrown out of court and never gone to trial. I will bet anyone on here $1000 right now that JJ is acquitted. Any takers?

You are correct, it would never have been noticed at all. I bet, just bet there are cases of breaking the law all over this and any other college campus but only the athletes get the spotlight in the face.
We may never know the truth in this one, however I would be terrified to be a male athlete in any college institution where it seems only accusations pretty much F up your life.
 
I guess we will see but thus far it looks like there is no way that there is a basis for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is what most people thought before the trial. If there is a quick acquittal by the jury, which may be the case, I would think that the county attorney, VanValkenberg, would
have some serious explaining to do. He was the one that complained about the investigation by the US Department of Justice yet he apparently succumbed to the pressure by seeking prosecution of a case that never should have been brought, which has had significant and negative consequences affecting the accused, the football program, the entire University, and the town of Missoula if not the whole state.
 
mtgrizrule said:
uofmman1122 said:
Am I the only person that feels like this Green roommate is inconsistent as f***??

Just when I think he's helping the accuser's story, Paoli gets him to change his story...

Paoli is the man as a defense attorney. So far every person on that stand has been reduced to having nothing to help the prosecution. The DR even left the stand with people thinking "I don't know/neutral" result.

Seriously, how can a jury not have the same feeling of "I don't know" at this stage too? The accuser better hope the prosecution has all aces and wild cards up their sleeve. Right now, I am questioning how this case even came to trial? Which is too bad for the accuser, because of all she has to go through regarding the case. It looks like a waste of tax payer money as of now. Which for JJ, is great.

I had few people tell me if this goes to trial, you will wonder why it did? So far they are right. 1 of those people is a retired federal judge, the other a lawyer of 25 plus years. When it went to trial, I honestly thought there would be a much stronger case for the prosecution. For you legal minds, how much influence does the accusers desire to have this case go to trial impact the decision to go to trial?

I've been calling bullshit on the rape charge from right out of the gate. Then they fire Robbin and a buddy of mine who was a grad coach quits and goes back home to Washington. No Robbin, no Reno. I don't know Jim O'day, but I have a lot of friends that do. He got the shaft too. This whole case should never of gone to trial. As far as I can tell, the whole damn thing has done nothing more then wreck a lot of lives. Jane Doe included. Un frickin real people. Oh, and yep. I'm a die hard Cat. I'm just not a uncaring asshole.
WOW!
 
Ursa Major said:
There is more evidence and testimony yet to come that could sway the jury (e.g. the pictures of the marks on her body).

Well, maybe . . . When I was in college I had a friend who got in a fight and ended up in jail. In order to try to prove the other guy threw the first punch he hit himself in the face a few times and left some pretty impressive marks. Problem was the jailers were watching on a video feed. Most likely they crapped themselves from laughing so hard.

Point is, this girl didn't go get examined right away and that could be a serious problem for the prosecution if Paoli decides to press the issue.
 
On the matter of the trial. While I am not an attorney I grew up with a few and one thing I learned is that in a criminal case the prosecution almost invariably leads with its strongest witness and the defense almost invariably closes with its strongest witness. If that is the case here, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, the prosecution certainly appears to be in trouble. There is no doubt that there is still alot to come, but it sounds as if the rest of the prosecution's case is going to be more witnesses attempting to corroborate Ms. Doe's account of what happened. Given the testimony so far, it is going to be extremely difficult for any of the upcoming witnesses to do anything but reiterate what they were told by Ms. Doe. I am not so certain that even with a potential "smoking gun" witness who might testify that they were also assaulted by JJ would make much of a difference. I don't know whether there is a "smoking gun" witness or not. I really doubt that the picture evidence will prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone agrees that sexual congress took place.

It seems that the Defense case is being made as the Prosecution builds their case, and if the Prosecution simply has witnesses left that are going to confirm what the accuser has already stated this thing may be over by the end of next week.
 
tnt said:
I'm having trouble with a PI being at the house within a week of the incident. No restraining order no complaint filed no nothing.

The PI was hired to help gather evidence to defend in the university proceeding that the accuser had started. I think the roommate was wrong regarding the timing of the visit, but in any event it was after the university proceeding had begun.
 
...of the hottest/sweetest girlz at the u...
...were the biggest whack jobz..
...and if you didn't meet one...
...you didn't get out enough...

... 8-) ...
 
uofmman1122 said:
Am I the only person that feels like this Green roommate is inconsistent as f***??

Just when I think he's helping the accuser's story, Paoli gets him to change his story...

Paoli caught the roommate changing his testimony multiple times (from what he had said prior statements and interviews with Paoli). He was shading the truth, but my impression was that he was probably intentionally lying at times. He had met with the prosecutors/investigator many times (like 5 or more), and had gone through questions with them several weeks ago. He wouldn't admit to rehearsing, but that's what it was. Some of these were key points, i.e. whether the roommate had said he didn't go to the accuser's aid that night because he thought she was exaggerating. Paoli pointed out at least 3 prior times where he had said it was due to exaggeration, at least in part. The roommate also said he recollection of things was sort of a joint recollection with the accuser. Really, what good is a joint recollection? I don't know if the jury picked up on the fact that he appeared to be lying, as well as being evasive, at times. If the jury didn't get that, or the defense doesn't otherwise discredit him, some of his testimony will probably help the prosecution.

The defense is going to have to some testimony or explanation for why the accuser would do this, i.e. claim rape, and why she got so upset. Perhaps some explanation will come from Johnson. They were in the bedroom after sex for a long time, like maybe 15 minutes if I recall correctly, for nothing to have been said. She couldn't have just stared at him in silence for that long.

Why did she stay in the bedroom so long? Why did she stay in the bedroom after Johnson went to the bathroom? She had her phone, but only texted the roommate who was a few feet from her in the LR? If you've just gotten raped, wouldn't you leave the room if/when you could? Wouldn't you ask your roommate to come in? If you've seen something on twitter to supplement or correct me on this, please supplement or correct. Contrast this to the Donaldson women, who immediately ran out of the house, without her shoes, and called her mom.
 
Ursus1 said:
Roommate is either lying or a puss! Girl says she was just raped and you do nothing and let her leave with him???

If you got that text, wouldn't you at least knock on the door and ask if everything was okay? He really must not have believed her.
 
argh! said:
it sounds like a lot of you view this like a football game between the lawyers instead of what it is supposed to be. moreover, many of you seem to be 'cheering' against the girl.
By "supposed to be," you mean the part where the Defendant gets a defense until his money runs out and his family's home is mortgaged to the limit, or the part where the State gets unlimited resources of investigation, unlimited expert witness budgets, and attorneys assigned from county and state levels, and call on pro bono private lawyers, huge expensive office staffs, all appearing before a Judge whose entire career consisted of being a lead criminal prosecutor in the very office that is now appearing before her?

Is that what you mean when you refer to how "it is supposed to be?"
 
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
it sounds like a lot of you view this like a football game between the lawyers instead of what it is supposed to be. moreover, many of you seem to be 'cheering' against the girl.
By "supposed to be," you mean the part where the Defendant gets a defense until his money runs out and his family's home is mortgaged to the limit, or the part where the State gets unlimited resources of investigation, unlimited expert witness budgets, and attorneys assigned from county and state levels, and call on pro bono private lawyers, huge expensive office staffs, all appearing before a Judge whose entire career consisted of being a lead criminal prosecutor in the very office that is now appearing before her?

Is that what you mean when you refer to how "it is supposed to be?"

yes, exactly! how did you guess?
 
Ursa Major said:
mtgrizrule said:
UMGriz75 said:
mtgrizrule said:
Paoli is the man as a defense attorney. So far every person on that stand has been reduced to having nothing to help the prosecution. The DR even left the stand with people thinking "I don't know/neutral" result.
The "feel" of this case has become almost surreal. The State has all these high-powered lawyers from the County, the State, and the private law firm seeking bad publicity by contributing pro bono
to help convict a star athlete charged with dubious charges, and THIS is what they have so far?

This case sure looks like it will help Paoli and Pabst professionally. They have done one hell of a job. I think the prosecution has done as good as the can with what they have to work with. Can some official later comment after the case is over, why this case went to trial? Providing it continues to go in the direction it has so far.

I have not seen one thing that makes me even think, JJ possibly did anything wrong by law. So far, the only thing wrong was a wrong decision by he and her.

There is more evidence and testimony yet to come that could sway the jury (e.g. the pictures of the marks on her body).

There weren't marks on her body. There was supposedly one red "mark" noted by the nurse, but according to motion to dismiss, it basically isn't visible in the photo--is my recollection.
 
PlayerRep said:
There weren't marks on her body. There was supposedly one red "mark", noted by the greenie, but according to motion to dismiss, it basically isn't visible in the photo--is my recollection. therefore no mark was there, despite the mark.

brilliant!
 
PlayerRep said:
uofmman1122 said:
Am I the only person that feels like this Green roommate is inconsistent as f***??

Just when I think he's helping the accuser's story, Paoli gets him to change his story...

Paoli caught the roommate changing his testimony multiple times (from what he had said prior statements and interviews with Paoli). He was shading the truth, but my impression was that he was probably intentionally lying at times. ... Really, what good is a joint recollection? I don't know if the jury picked up on the fact that he appeared to be lying, as well as being evasive, at times. If the jury didn't get that, or the defense doesn't otherwise discredit him, some of his testimony will probably help the prosecution.
Watching the jury, they are having distinct reactions: 1) they don't like the State AG, he is neither likeable nor impressing them (he is committing an ultimate sin, he is objecting so frequently as to be appearing to want to "keep the jury from knowing" which is what juries take away from endless technical objections, 2) they were skeptical of Jane Doe (not hostile, perhaps they were sympathetic, but unconvinced, it was going to take more), 3) they were unimpressed with the psychologist, and 4) they didn't like the roommate (he destroyed his own credibility).

The comment from one experienced trial lawyer: "the state's witnesses all look too obviously coached. The jury is seeing that. And they obviously had a bad coach."
 
argh! said:
UMGriz75 said:
argh! said:
it sounds like a lot of you view this like a football game between the lawyers instead of what it is supposed to be. moreover, many of you seem to be 'cheering' against the girl.
By "supposed to be," you mean the part where the Defendant gets a defense until his money runs out and his family's home is mortgaged to the limit, or the part where the State gets unlimited resources of investigation, unlimited expert witness budgets, and attorneys assigned from county and state levels, and call on pro bono private lawyers, huge expensive office staffs, all appearing before a Judge whose entire career consisted of being a lead criminal prosecutor in the very office that is now appearing before her?

Is that what you mean when you refer to how "it is supposed to be?"

yes, exactly! how did you guess?
By the amazing consistency of the fact that, despite the seriousness of the impact of this on two young lives, you don't take any of this seriously.
 
UMGriz75 said:
or the part where the State gets unlimited resources of investigation, unlimited expert witness budgets

Not unlimited expert witness budgets. Just $350/hour times ten, probably plus expenses. All for a Massachusetts gun for hire, who didn't know anything about the case, to spout things you could have read from one of his articles in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

F**k me, I want that job.
 
Back
Top